Need advice on 2009 purchase.

[gwm]

I currently own a 2003 Vibe & with all the deals going around, I am thinking of getting a "new" 2009. My current Vibe is 1.8L/Auto. I'd appreciate anyone's opinion on the 2.4L engine. I would appreciate a little more power, but I also would like to keep as much MPG as possible. Any opinions?

[star_deceiver]

If you're going for the 2.4 be prepared to shell out some big $$$, as that vehicle will be loaded to the nuts. When I was shopping for my '09, I looked at the 2.4's. They were all overoptioned and all had the up level slushbox. There was onl 1 (one) base '09 model 2.4 IN CANADA without all the extra crap. After taxes it would have cost me $19K but I lost that bidding war. So I took the base 1.8 5 speed(no options!). The 1.8L gets about 15-20% better mileage then the 2.4L (if you drive it nicely).If you want more power and a cheaper price then take a G5/Cobalt (base 5speed) for a rip.... gas mileage is even better then the base Vibe (only with the stick though). Besides a few minor changes it's still the same drivetrain that came with my '05 Sunfire, and 0-60 in 7.2 is nothing to slouch at in a $15k, 3000lb car.

[jake75]

In my shopping for an '09 (in Ohio) I saw a lot of 2.4's that were only about $750 more. In fact, some dealers had very few 1.8's compared to the 2.4's.You can't have it both ways - the 2.4L power and the 1.8L gas mileage. When shopping for the'09 replacement for my '03 the 2.4L Vibe was not a consideration. If I were to be satisfied with that kind of mpg I would have opted for something larger like a Honda CRV. See the recent thread "New '09 Vibe - Spectacular Price". I got an email from someone who drove to Chesrown today and bought one of those bargain priced new Vibes - made possible I think by some behind the scenes GM to dealer incentive money.I sold my very clean '03 with 33,000 miles privately for $9,500. I didn't even ask the dealer what they would give me in trade - I suspect it would have been no more than $7,000 though they retail them for far more.

[jake75]

I checked the Chesrown site - they have a carbon metallic gray 2.4L 5 speed with A/C , MSRP $17,780 for $15,673. [no power pkg] Minus the $2,000 GM Loyalty that is $13,673. Hard to beat that price.

[Houston]

I have a 2003 1.8L Vibe with automatic transmission and a 2009 2.4L automatic. Having driven the new one only about a hundred miles, I can't comment on mileage. What I can say is the 2.4L is much quicker and quieter than the 1.8L. You'll be happy with either one.

[Vibe2009]

I have the 2.4L and I love it... super smooth and good power... If gas mileage is your thing, than you better get the 1.8L... my last two tanks was 9.7L/100kms and that's using premium gas! I am from Canada, so in winter, we naturally uses more gas, so dont be shock...5/30/2009107.934.004$36.696,668SuperstoreY9.7[Edit] [ Delete]5/17/200998.943.005$42.536,316SuperstoreY9.7[Edit] [ Delete]5/2/200984.938.008$32.275,887SuperstoreY10[Edit] [ Delete]4/18/200988.939.004$34.675,527SuperstoreY10.6[Edit] [ Delete]4/13/200989.922.013$19.795,042ShellY8[Edit] [ Delete]4/13/200983.427.005$22.524,754EssoY7.6[Edit] [ Delete]4/10/200991.924.409$22.434,469EssoY9.5[Edit] [ Delete]4/10/200996.937.224$36.074,226EssoY10[Edit] [ Delete]4/9/200988.911.027$9.803,852SuperstoreY10[Edit] [ Delete]4/6/200988.939.004$34.673,755SuperstoreY11.4[Edit] [ Delete]3/21/200984.939.000$33.113,397SuperstoreY10.9[Edit] [ Delete]3/4/200987.934.012$29.903,093SuperstoreY12.8[Edit] [ Delete]2/22/200984.941.014$34.822,827SuperstoreY12.8[Edit] [ Delete]2/7/200982.938.050$31.542,492SuperstoreY12.2

[j42.snyder]

Wow Vibe 2009 - you must have a heavy foot, or get stuck in a lot of city traffic around Regina. I've always managed fantastic mileage when out in your area.The WORST average I've managed on a tank so far (2.4 Auto) was 8.2L/100km. My last tank, using regular Shell 87, with a mix of city/hwy/rural and some A/C use, I averaged 6.8L/100km. I even had a little "fun" experimenting with the "manual" S-mode. It seems that power starts to come in nicely around 4400RPM.I drove a 2005 Auto 1.8 the other day, and it certainly felt less responsive - although better than a 2009 1.8 I test drove. To me, with the extra weight of the 2009's, the 2.4 is a better match. Sometimes you feel the idle of the 2.4 a bit - but underway it's super-smooth for a 4 cylinder.Clearly driving style will have a great impact on the overall mileage. I found it interesting that Consumer Reports actually managed better fuel economy with the 2.4 than the older 1.8 in their testing. Regardless, with the mileage I'm managing now (typically 6,8 to 7.2), and the responsiveness of the 2.4, I'm quite happy with my decision.John

[Eloi]

Quote, originally posted by star_deceiver »If you're going for the 2.4 be prepared to shell out some big $$$, as that vehicle will be loaded to the nuts. When I was shopping for my '09, I looked at the 2.4's. They were all overoptioned and all had the up level slushbox. That was not true when I bought mine. It cost only $750 to get the 2.4L instead of the 1.8L. I added A/C and stuff, but it was my choice.My average milage since I got it is 8.9L/100 km or 26.50 MPG. And that included tanks while I was hauling my tent-trailer with 4 people in the car, as well as tanks in the winter at -30°C. My best milage on highway was 6.9 L/100km (33.67 MPG). My usual mileage (70% highway/30% city) is around 8.0-8.5 L/100 km (27.6-29.4 MPG).I'm very satisfied with the 2.4 L engine so far. Nice power and good mileage.

[Eloi]

Quote, originally posted by j42.snyder »Wow Vibe 2009 - you must have a heavy foot, or get stuck in a lot of city traffic around Regina. I've always managed fantastic mileage when out in your area.The WORST average I've managed on a tank so far (2.4 Auto) was 8.2L/100km. My last tank, using regular Shell 87, with a mix of city/hwy/rural and some A/C use, I averaged 6.8L/100km. I even had a little "fun" experimenting with the "manual" S-mode. It seems that power starts to come in nicely around 4400RPM.I drove a 2005 Auto 1.8 the other day, and it certainly felt less responsive - although better than a 2009 1.8 I test drove. To me, with the extra weight of the 2009's, the 2.4 is a better match. Sometimes you feel the idle of the 2.4 a bit - but underway it's super-smooth for a 4 cylinder.Clearly driving style will have a great impact on the overall mileage. I found it interesting that Consumer Reports actually managed better fuel economy with the 2.4 than the older 1.8 in their testing. Regardless, with the mileage I'm managing now (typically 6,8 to 7.2), and the responsiveness of the 2.4, I'm quite happy with my decision.JohnYou must be really a "light" driver getting these numbers with the 2.4L. I consider myself a very quiet driver and only managed to get your numbers when driving 100% highway. Good for you. Still, I'm quite happy with the mileage I get. I'd be in heaven with yours...

[Kincaid]

I test drove the 1.8L and the 2.4L (both manual transmission) and then bought the 2.4L but really only because I wanted the sunroof and stereo upgrades.I probably would have been very satisfied with the 1.8L as I found it quick around town. I didn't notice a difference in the noise level but I suppose that would have been a disappointment if I realized the 1.8L was noticeably louder.I'm making a bit of an assumption but I think the torque of the 2.4L is important. I've noticed the gearing seems quite short - in fact I am driving in 5th gear at 40 mph on level ground in order to keep the RPMs down around 2k for mpg reasons. Because the gearing is so short, I've found I can shift sometimes from 1st to 3rd or even start out in 2nd gear if I'm stopped on a downhill slope. The extra torque can handle it and I'm not sure a 1.8L can.Anyway, I'm sure I could happily have lived with a 1.8L if the dealers had the options on a manual transmission that I wanted.

[ned23]

Quote, originally posted by gwm »I currently own a 2003 Vibe & with all the deals going around, I am thinking of getting a "new" 2009. My current Vibe is 1.8L/Auto. I'd appreciate anyone's opinion on the 2.4L engine. I would appreciate a little more power, but I also would like to keep as much MPG as possible. Any opinions?The 2009 2.4L will cost you about 2-3 mpg compared to your 2003 1.8 but you will get a LOT more power and it's quieter and more comfortable. The 2009 1.8L will actuallyu give you a mileage improvement over your 2003 1.8L but you may have difficulty ordering higher level trim options on it. In heavy city/winter driving you may initially get as low as 21 mpg with the 2.4L before it breaks in, which may cause some mileage enthusiasts heartburn and stress.

[j42.snyder]

Just a quick note about the 2.4 transmissions. I'm not quite sure why the gearing is so different - but as the manual transmission is geared quite low, the automatic is rather steep for top gear - which is probably why it can pull off better fuel economy. I've calculated out that even 4th in the auto is slightly steeper than 5th with the manual! Mine is doing about 2,000RPM at 100km/h, where my brother's manual is doing closer to 3.000.I find that even in town, when I can cruise at 60km/h or more, I can get it to shift into 5th and lock the torque converter - so I'm only running at around 1,300RPM. I just wish it wasn't so willing to downshift on a whim. With the torque the 2.4 has in that small a car, it could easily lug much more than it does for even better economy. It seems to be mainly programmed for performance and smoothness.About the only things I'm not quite running entirely to "factory spec" is the tire pressure (about 35 all around), and I just switched over to a so-called "100% synthetic" 5W20 oil as of last Friday.I miss the vacuum gage I had in my previous Sunfire - that was a great tool for economy. My overall average with that car was 7.4L/100km - over 243,000km - and I even towed with it for about 6,000km of that. My range was from 5.9L/100 mostly highway in the summer, to 10.2 towing my boat into a strong headwind. I'm looking forward to towing with the Vibe - it should be much better suited to the task. If I could just find a good location to install a gage that didn't look silly, I'd probably put one in. I had mine on the A-pillar in the Sunfire, but with the curtain airbags it's not possible in the Vibe. I'm pretty used to driving without it now though - 3 months tomorrow, and just hit 10,000km on the Vibe today! Maybe almost broken in now...JohnP.S. ned23 - you're right about the stress about the mileage! I wasn't happy until I finally broke the 7.0L/100km barrier! (that's 33.6MPG U.S.)

[Eloi]

Quote, originally posted by j42.snyder »Just a quick note about the 2.4 transmissions. I'm not quite sure why the gearing is so different - but as the manual transmission is geared quite low, the automatic is rather steep for top gear - which is probably why it can pull off better fuel economy. I've calculated out that even 4th in the auto is slightly steeper than 5th with the manual! Mine is doing about 2,000RPM at 100km/h, where my brother's manual is doing closer to 3.000.I find that even in town, when I can cruise at 60km/h or more, I can get it to shift into 5th and lock the torque converter - so I'm only running at around 1,300RPM. I just wish it wasn't so willing to downshift on a whim. With the torque the 2.4 has in that small a car, it could easily lug much more than it does for even better economy. It seems to be mainly programmed for performance and smoothness.About the only things I'm not quite running entirely to "factory spec" is the tire pressure (about 35 all around), and I just switched over to a so-called "100% synthetic" 5W20 oil as of last Friday.I miss the vacuum gage I had in my previous Sunfire - that was a great tool for economy. My overall average with that car was 7.4L/100km - over 243,000km - and I even towed with it for about 6,000km of that. My range was from 5.9L/100 mostly highway in the summer, to 10.2 towing my boat into a strong headwind. I'm looking forward to towing with the Vibe - it should be much better suited to the task. If I could just find a good location to install a gage that didn't look silly, I'd probably put one in. I had mine on the A-pillar in the Sunfire, but with the curtain airbags it's not possible in the Vibe. I'm pretty used to driving without it now though - 3 months tomorrow, and just hit 10,000km on the Vibe today! Maybe almost broken in now...JohnP.S. ned23 - you're right about the stress about the mileage! I wasn't happy until I finally broke the 7.0L/100km barrier! (that's 33.6MPG U.S.)We have a similar profile as it seems. My previous car was also a Sunfire (1996), that kept me happy for 353,000 km and gave me a better mileage that the Vibe. I also towed with it, a tent-trailer. The 2009 Vibe is much better suited for towing, more stable on the road, and the extra power of the 2.4L is welcome.I'm still puzzled at the mileage you can get. My 2009 Vibe is now 32,000 km and as I wrote above, the only way I can get under 7L / 100 km is on a 100% highway trip. What's your secret?

[j42.snyder]

Eloi-My transmission comment probably helps explain the difference in mileage between mine and yours. I see you have the manual - which is actually rated to use over 7.0L/100km hwy. I believe mine's rated at 6.9.When I bought it, I figured that it should at least equal the Sunfire, as it's rated to be more efficient. So far not the case - but at least it's getting closer. My Sunfire was a manual though - so it was much easier for me to keep the revs where I wanted them.The hardest part about trying to keep the mileage decent in the Vibe is the temptation to open it up a bit. It's just SO much more responsive than the 2.2 8 valve I had in the Sunfire! Gas prices are on the increase now though - so I've got to make sure I keep my foot light. I'd love to try to hit 6.5 now... but traffic hasn't exactly been co-operative this week.John

[Eloi]

Quote, originally posted by j42.snyder »Eloi-My transmission comment probably helps explain the difference in mileage between mine and yours. I see you have the manual - which is actually rated to use over 7.0L/100km hwy. I believe mine's rated at 6.9.When I bought it, I figured that it should at least equal the Sunfire, as it's rated to be more efficient. So far not the case - but at least it's getting closer. My Sunfire was a manual though - so it was much easier for me to keep the revs where I wanted them.The hardest part about trying to keep the mileage decent in the Vibe is the temptation to open it up a bit. It's just SO much more responsive than the 2.2 8 valve I had in the Sunfire! Gas prices are on the increase now though - so I've got to make sure I keep my foot light. I'd love to try to hit 6.5 now... but traffic hasn't exactly been co-operative this week.JohnThis is really weird that the automatic can get better mileage than the manual. I always thought it was the opposite. Is it just the Vibe that is different on that point?

[Kincaid]

Automatic technology has made great advances in recent years, so it is not unheard of for an automatic to get better gas mileage than a manual. I am not sure if it is the gearing, the fact that many autos now have five or more gear ratios or what.

[star_deceiver]

My point exactly, you got the power package & 2.4 package which ran you close to $4000 over the base 1.8.... I have no need for ac or power windows and such. The 2.4 I was bidding on was just that, bare bones base model with the 2.4 engine($750) package. I had the salesman search through the database of all Vibes for sale in canada and there was only 1. Getting a 2.4 1SB or 1SC or a GT is no problem, GM made tonnes of 'em. Having one custom ordered takes months and you pay full price, and I didn't have that kind of time. And if you're overly concerned about engine noise in an already quiet car, then GM has the model for you, the Buick Lucerne - Boat for 2009!

[jake75]

I am SHOCKED that they ever built one without a/c unless it was a special customer order.In the 70's my late father-in-law bought an otherwise well equipped Ford Granada that had no a/c. I think the dealer made a mistake when he ordered it. The salesman told me he thought they would never be able to sell that car.

[Houston]

Speaking of air conditioning... when I hired into Buick in 1963 and worked on the assembly line, my job was installing some of the a/c parts. Air conditioning was installed in, on average, every third car.But back then people my age were used to not having a/c, so it was no big deal to not have it. Fact is, I'd never been in a car with a/c until working at Buick. People today are spoiled.

[jake75]

Quote, originally posted by Houston »Speaking of air conditioning... when I hired into Buick in 1963 and worked on the assembly line, my job was installing some of the a/c parts. Air conditioning was installed in, on average, every third car.But back then people my age were used to not having a/c, so it was no big deal to not have it. Fact is, I'd never been in a car with a/c until working at Buick. People today are spoiled.Yep - we are spoiled. I bought a used low mileage 1957 Lincoln Premier 4 dr sedan in 1964 from a neighbor. This car was as big as a boat with huge tail fins. It was in a fender bender and I paid $375 for the car and another $375 to have that fixed. It had a button that you pushed every 1,000 miles to "lubricate" the car, power seats and windows, but no a/c. A couple years later I sold that and bought a 1964 Caddy Convertible - that had a/c. Today I would not buy a car that didn't have remote keyless entry and cruise control. Yep - I am really spoiled.

[star_deceiver]

Everyone's spoiled! but hey, if you've got the cash... And most base models from most manufacturers are availible without A/C... and since most people claim that the can't live without power everything and A/C, that's a lot of money car makers suck out of people.But... if you got the money...

[jake75]

Quote, originally posted by star_deceiver »Everyone's spoiled! but hey, if you've got the cash... And most base models from most manufacturers are availible without A/C... and since most people claim that the can't live without power everything and A/C, that's a lot of money car makers suck out of people.But... if you got the money...When I can get all that for $11,900 plus tax and title - yeh, then I got the money!

[j42.snyder]

When I was looking, there were several 1SA base models out there (no A/C, PW, cruise, etc) with a 1.8 and auto - but I didn't search for 2.4/manuals. I actually saw a 1.8 auto 1SA in Steel Blue in March of 2008 at the local dealer - as a stock item. It was sold within 2 weeks.I thought that's what I was going to buy - but I began thinking more about the fact that my family enjoys taking long road trips occasionally (the last one was over 7,000km) - and after a number of hours on the road, if it's hot, it is nice to be able to close the windows for a while. I've found that my kids are fussier than myself when it comes to A/C use. My Sunfire I had for 7 years did not have A/C - so they couldn't do much about it (except complain continually). At least I modified the back doors so that the windows opened fully - originally they were only 1/2 way (on the Sunfire that is).I wasn't too pleased about the complete "package" we're stuck buying. I can appreciate the power locks, occasional use of cruise (although I didn't have either of those before either) - but I DESPISE the power windows. The only time I don't entirely hate them is when I want to open the passenger side one a bit - and I don't have to lean way over to do it any more. Other than that, if I could build my IDEAL Vibe, it would be exactly the same but with roll-up windows. Oh, and obviously less expensive - since I was stuck paying for features I didn't want anyway...My other car is a 1965 Valiant 200 sedan - with NO power options of any kind - except automatic (but that's not exactly a "power" option). I love the simplicity of that car - and the ventilation is fantastic as long as you're moving. It's got vent doors (yes, with latches!) under the dash that I can open - and at highway speeds they're incredibly effective. The only time the lack of A/C becomes really obvious is when you're stuck in traffic, or in town. But then the manual windows always open reliably...

[star_deceiver]

$11'900, eh.... Hell, if I could get 40% off before taxes, I'd buy too!!!And I loved the vents under the dash of old cars! But I really miss the butterfly window my dad's old '77 F100 had, even at city speeds those things moved air well!And that's another bonus when you don't have all those power options, less problems down the line.