GenVibe - Community for Pontiac Vibe Enthusiasts

I don't have a Vibe, but I might get one down the road. I've got a couple of questions.1. Mileage. There is quite a dramatic difference in the numbers quoted by the manufacturer between the GT and the base model. Since these cars weigh almost the same, and have the same displacement, it would seem that if they were driven at the same speeds over the same course , they should get very similar mileage. What has been the real world experience of owners?2. Gearing. This observation is probably also the answer to the first point, but here it is anyway: The gearing on the GT is pretty short. Even with that 6 speed, it would seem that the engine is going to be spinning pretty fast at speed. Now, there is no doubt that the GT is going to go as fast as I'd ever want to go, but what is the noise/comfort level in there when you're cruising at 75 or 90 mph? (I just got back from Montana. It's a real concern.)Thanks for the great sight. Knowing that this is out here is a real plus to the idea of getting one of these little cars.

I have a base 03 Vibe with the 5-speed. I never have averaged less than 30 mpg over a full tank of fuel. If I do most of the tank on highways, doing 70 mpg average, I've seen 35 mpg on a tank. Note also that the GT requires premium fuel, so even if all else were equal, you would be paying more per mile in fuel costs with a GT.As for speed, if memory serves, my base spins at about 2800 RPM when the cruise is locked on to 70 mph.HTH

The GT's 2zz-ge is a naturally high-revving engine, and does require 91+ octane fuel. Cabin noise across the power band will be louder than the base's 1zz-fe engine. Remember, these are two vastly different engines, so you can't conclude that equal/similar displacement should mean equal/similar gas mileage. out of the box...1) the GT is louder2) the GT gets worse gas mileage / requires higher octain fuel3) the GT is faster 4) the GT is more fun Welcome to genvibe! EDIT: It requires 91+ b/c of the higher compression and preventing detonation

Quote, originally posted by Psychobroker »The GT's 2zz-ge is a naturally high-revving engine, and does require 91+ octane fuel. Cabin noise across the power band will be louder than the base's 1zz-fe engine. Remember, these are two vastly different engines, so you can't conclude that equal/similar displacement should mean equal/similar gas mileage. out of the box...1) the GT is louder2) the GT gets worse gas mileage / requires higher octain fuel3) the GT is faster 4) the GT is more fun Welcome to genvibe! what he said. and emphasis on #4, the GT IS more fun!!!

I sit somewhere between 3k and 4k between 65-75 MPH on the highway. It's not too loud, but then that's for me, and I have a stereo to compensate.VERY City driving (like, short 1-2 mile hops every day) yields about 20 MPG, highway will instantly shoot up to 29/30. (Drove up I-95 from Atlanta to NY, that's what I got)And yes, the GT is DEFINITELY fun.

The GT really IS tons of fun. I've been enjoying mine for almost 2 full years now. Fuel economy is the best I've ever had so far from any car that I've owned. For mostly city/suburban driving, I usually get about 26 MPG, on a long, flat highway cruise all day, I've seen over 35 MPG. That was loaded full of stuff, with the A/C cranking the whole time, and traveling in 6th gear at 100+ MPH for about 2 1/2 hours.As for the extra expense of premium fuel, I have seen the cost difference expressed here on the site, but I can't remember exactly what it was. I thought that it only added up to be about $200 more for premium gas compared to regular over the couse of 100,000 miles. Not that big of a difference; I'd gladly pay it all up front for the added enjoyment of the extra power!And others here have done the numbers comparison on gearing between the 5-speed in the base and the 6-speed in the GT. What it boiled down to was that 1st gear in the GT was a little lower than the base (probably because the GT's engine makes less torque in the low RPM range so the lower gearing makes up for it), 2nd through 5th gears in the base 5-speed worked out so that the overall ratios were just about the same as the rest of the gears in the 6-speed. This is difficult to explain in words, but if you saw the chart comparing each gear ratio in the 2 transmissions, you'd see what I'm saying.I believe that the exhaust on the GT is different from the base, though they are routed identically. Only the AWD models have the exhaust routed differently (to get around the drive mechanisms to power the rear wheels). Though I've yet to ride in a base Vibe, I've had them drive by me while I was standing outside. It would definately seem that the GT's engine is louder. When it hits lift and makes the extra power up high in the RPM range, it really screams. Below the lift point, the GT engine has a bit of a growl to it in the 2,500 to almost 4,000, then I think it is kinda buzzy from that point until it hits lift at 6,250, then after that you're too busy having fun to notice the engine screaming. I've had people jump out of the street and onto the sidewalk because the sound of the engine in extended lift mode makes it sound like you're going a lot faster in 1st gear than you actually are. It often provokes people standing outside to yell "slow down" at me, but that's what I've got a middle finger for. Other drivers will be traveling faster than me, but since my car SOUNDS like it's travelling fast, I'm the one who gets yelled at. But noise at highway cruising speed has never been a problem or concern for me.And don't be fooled because the base and GT's engines have the same displacement. They are completely different engines. The block and the internals are totally different, they just happen to arrive at the same displacement figure.As you may have noticed, the people here are generally friendly, are very helpful, and often quick to respond. Welcome to the site and feel free to ask questions. That's the main reason why we're here!

Welcome to the Encyclopedia of Vibe!Counterpoint from someone who bought a Base Vibe instead of a GT:I bought a used '03 Vibe automatic in February of this year. It has Moon & Tunes, Power Package, and the 6-disc changer.Yes, the GT IS tons of fun. I ALMOST bought a used GT. In the end, it was more about that dealer (negative) than that GT (positive).I'd describe the Base Vibe automatic as 'subdued fun' compared with the GT. Not as fast, not as loud, but still a blast to own & drive, especially with Moon & Tunes.My wife doesn't like to drive a stick, and our soon-to-be-driving son doesn't need the distraction of a manual trans (and trying to hit 'lift') when he's just learning to drive anyway. (I still have a 5-speed 1984 Rabbit Convertible when the time comes that I want him to learn/he wants to learn.)Gas mileage and fuel cost wasn't a major concern. My old car was a V-6 and got about 15 (or less) in town and 25 on the highway. What IS the pricetag of fun, anyway? I do mostly city driving (lots of trips of 5 miles or less) and get about 26 mpg in town, and about 33 on rare occasions when I'm mostly on the highway. Highest MPG so far was 37.6 for 250 miles of all-interstate driving on vacation. I'd probably get even better city mileage if I'd keep my foot out of the throttle at stoplights!Insurance cost (at least with my carrier) was the same for the Base and the GT, but be sure to check, because your insurance carrier may have a totally different approach.Depreciation/Resale value: Considered 'domestic' models, both the Base and the GT seem to lose value quickly. (up to 30% in the first year) If future resale value is a MAJOR consideration, you might check the platform twin, Toyota Matrix. It could be higher.Is the car perfect? Of course not. But it met my wants and needs the best of anything in the US$13,000 (used car) price range.

I looked at a GT, but decided against it for a couple of reasons:1. No auto....this was going to be a car that my wife was going to drive as well as me. Plus, I wasn't impressed by the shift quality of the manual. The auto is also about the smoothest shifting auto i have experienced. 2. The GT has no low end torque. Not that the base is a torque monger, but the soon addition of the S/C will fix that. This will bring about the whole GT/SC debate, but the driving we do is more suited to a low-revving powerplant.3. Rice. I knew if I got a GT, all the teeny-boppers would constantly be revving up their souped up lawnmowers at me. Hasn't happened yet with the base. 4. Maintenance. I don't like buying 17" tires. (too expensive)5. Economy. I routinely get 29-31 MPG in mixed driving (one of the higher ones I believe) with the A/C on all the time. If I had a GT, I would get much less cause I would be tempted to rev its nuts off just cause I could. Highway driving I average 35MPG, which is great (70-75 works out to 2800-3000RPM and not a lot of noise). 6. When I did the test drives, I had just as much fun driving the base as I did the GT. I didn't detect much difference suspension-wise between the two, so that led me to think that they would handle pretty close.Anyhoo...that is what i think. There are some out there who think I am anti-Vibe, but I take it for what it is....a practical car that is fun to drive. Not fast (even in GT form), but fun nonetheless, and I wouldn't trade it for anything.

Quote, originally posted by futseal04 »3. Rice. I knew if I got a GT, all the teeny-boppers would constantly be revving up their souped up lawnmowers at me. Hasn't happened yet with the base. Curious...why do you think that would happen? Just b/c of the "GT" badge? Most ricers wouldn't rev on you unless they saw you modded and/or riced out (note on the and/OR b/c riced does not necessarily mean modded)Just wondering, b/c that didn't even dawn on me when I was shopping..

They did it to me in my Cobra, they do it to me now in my Grand Am and on my motorcycle.....I don't know why they do it....I just know they do.

I bought a vibe because of the EPA gas mileage estimate. For the 2003 model year, the Vibe got the best gas mileage of any car in the entire GM product line. (no particular GM loyalty, just that it was great mpgs for a domestically manufacturerd car). I bought a base 5 speed because it was rated at 36 highway, and after 56K miles, overall average is still 36.1 mpgs. We all like power and speed, but for me the mpgs were more important, so I ruled out the GT from the beginning. the gear ratios for 5th gear in a 5 speed and 6th gear in a 6 speed are the same, but the 5 speed final drive is 3.94 where the 6 speed final drive is 4.53. that means that for the same vehicle speed, the GT engine must turn 4.53/3.94 times faster than the base engine would, about 15%. Even if you put the same engine in both, the differences in the trannies would make the GT engine run 15% higher rpms for the same speed compared to the 5 speed.It really is a compromise that depends on your own personal priorities, Is the extra power worth the gas mileage hit. It is for very many people here, but wasn't for me. That's why they still offer both base and GT models. There's also the AWD model, which has lower performance and mpgs than the base, but for some people that extra traction is very much worth it.If you do decide to buy a GT, then assuming power is important to you, you may even consider buying a used one. The 2005 GT is advertised as 170 HP, the 2004 was 173 HP, and the 2003 was 180 HP.

well, after much thinking and prodding over if i had to do it all over again, would i and would it be the GT or the base 5 spd. i'd have to say... yes, i love my 03 gt. hands down. and even w/ the s/c for a hefty hefty price tag, i've added my cai and unichip to get a pretty impressive low end torque. not a sports car mind you, but sporty and fun none the less. i can take my dad's 02 impreza LS no prob. and larry, who has a s/c trix w/ a lot of extras raced an xrs w/ cai, exhaust, and tuned unichip and LOST. now, up against devlop's turbo'd base vibe, i'd lose, but then i'd have to worry about finding 94 octane and that doesn't exist here. in fact, i can't even get 91+ octane! best i can get is 90. and i have a heavy foot. i hit LIFT (6300 rpms) every morning on my way to work after my engine warms up, on my way home from work usually, and shift on average about 5000 rpms. i drive a lot of city miles and 13 mile one way commute to work. i get 26-28 mpg and i think that's awesome! so what if i spend a few cents more on gas, but i fill up only once per week and it still only costs me about $22/tank. coming from my 01 tundra, i filled up every 5 days at $36/tank regular fuel!

Thank you for the gear ratio clarification there, joat. If your numbers are correct (and I believe that they are), then I had misspoken in that regard. Now that I think about it, it's amazing to me that there would be that big of a difference in the final drive ratios. The GT isn't THAT torque handicapped so that such a difference would be required. I guess that it had to work out that way to make shifting and remaining near lift possible to improve performance.Quote, originally posted by joatmon »The 2005 GT is advertised as 170 HP, the 2004 was 173 HP, and the 2003 was 180 HP. Yeah, what the heck is up with this? I thought that with progress should come improvement! I know that pollution devices are involved with this issue, but come on! It's a little 1.8L four banger for God's sakes. I'm required to have annual emmissions inspection in my area and last year, my '03 GT was blowing zeros in some of the tests and darn near zeros in the rest. This car isn't causing major pollution, so what gives? Power output of the new GT's has dropped to an unacceptable level for me to even consider replacing my GT with a new one. Mine was already around the bottom of my acceptable range. Unless GM/Toyota find a way to increase the output for these cars, I'm going to have to look elsewhere when it comes time to replace it.

#5) GT equals higher insurance...My base is fine for my wife and I and if I need speed I get into my Turbo PT or better yet, my 6-speed Corvette...

The HP is due to EPA emissions garbage, or so they say.Also, #3, i've NEVER had someone rev up next to my GT. People think it's a station wagon. Of course, if they -do- take off, I jet past them.

Quote, originally posted by Jahntassa »The HP is due to EPA emissions garbage, or so they say.I know that that is the excuse, but I already went over that in my last post. That doesn't make much sense.Quote, originally posted by Jahntassa »Also, #3, i've NEVER had someone rev up next to my GT.I forgot about this part. I've never had that happen to me, either.

Quote, originally posted by Stang2Vibe »I forgot about this part. I've never had that happen to me, either.Only had it happen a few times but thats cause I live on a college campus with a bunch or dumb kids and some of the times I provoke the revving hehe. The rest of the times I revved or my friends and I had a race

Quote »#5) GT equals higher insurance...FYI, most carriers I had checked with don't charge any more for a GT vs. a base. They are both categorized as a 4-door wagon

Quote, originally posted by Psychobroker »FYI, most carriers I had checked with don't charge any more for a GT vs. a base. They are both categorized as a 4-door wagon yep. 4 drs and a 4 banger. same great rate.

Quote, originally posted by trdvibe »yep. 4 drs and a 4 banger. same great rate. Nope, not entirely the same rates call and compare, I did...

Better not be the same rate. In GA, they wanted $1,300 for six months for the GT.

Regarding milage comparisons between the base and the GT versions of the car. Many have noted that the two engines are very different and therefore concluded that the much higher fuel consumption ratings of the GT are thus justified.I beg to differ. Fuel consumption is directly related to two things. Energy required to move the car and efficiency of the power plant. The energy required to move a GT or a base model distance x in y time is practically identical. As for efficiency, these are both modern automobiles with modern, fuel injected, computer controlled engines. Both engines are 1.8 Litre four cylinders, and so both engines should have about the same amount of internal friction and fuel/air requirements to maintain combustion. Their efficiency should not be greatly different. If anything, the extra engineering in the GT's powerplant ought to make it the more efficient engine choice.There are only two variables left which could cause the GT to consume more fuel than the base (20% more according to GM Canada). The first is gearing. Here, the GT is a clear loser with shorter over all gearing necessitating a higher revving engine. More revolutions means more fuel consumption (even though a vehicle requires the same amount of energy to move at 60 mph whether it is in 6th or 4th gear, the one in 4th gear will use more fuel). This loss, however, seems inadequate to explain the difference in numbers on its own. The second relevant factor which greatly affects milage is how the car is driven. Clearly, if the full power potential of the GT is tapped, it will consume far more energy than the base. However, this is entirely up to the operator. One would hope that in deriving numbers for the two cars, they would be driven over the same course at the same speeds with the same levels of acceleration. No matter how I turn this over in my head, I just can't see any reason that the GT ought to consume 20% more fuel than the base (over the same route at the same speeds and accelerations). I think that either someone is padding the numbers for the base, or they are measuring the fuel consumption for the GT assuming a more aggressive driving pattern. So, can anybody affirm or deny this 20% difference? Anybody have an opportunity to drive both versions in similar situations?Mike

I can't confirm the 20% difference, only having the base 5-speed. People here get a wide range of numbers out of their cars, some who drive quite reasonably can still get rotten mileage, others who push it a lot can sometimes get good numbers.The US government has a site http://www.fueleconomy.gov which lists the EPA mileage ratings on cars, and they rated the base 5-speed at 36 mpg highway, the GT 6-speed at 32 mpg highway, about 12% more gas in a GT to go the same distance, and premium gas too. I consistently average 36.1, so I don't think the EPA base rating is padded. Probably only cost about $1000 more over 100K miles. That 32 mpg rating on the GT probably doesn't include any time spent with the engine in lift though. Pushing the RPMs up that high a lot to take advantage of the extra power (the reason for having a GT at all) will drop the mileage, making the GT more expensive to feed than an extra one penny/mile

Quote, originally posted by Hobbes »Both engines are 1.8 Litre four cylinders, and so both engines should have about the same amount of internal friction and fuel/air requirements to maintain combustion.In the case of the Vibe, this is not true. The GT's engine has more working internal parts (because of the extended lift capability). This will add to the drivetrain friction, but the amount that it adds should be pretty negligable for the purposes that your are examining it. Nonetheless, it is still there.Also, the 2ZZ and 1ZZ engine ARE totally different. I don't think that they share hardly, if any, internal parts at all. The valves are different sizes, the pistons, connecting rods, and cams are totally different also. The displacement figure is determined in an internal combustion engine by using the diameter of the bore and the length of the stroke in an equation to find cylindrical volume. You then add any additional volume that is the result of the additional space of the combustion chamber plus the head gasket thickness. Then multiply the volume you get from that calculation by the number of cylinders that the engine has and you have the engine's total displacemet. In the Vibe's case, about 1.8 liters (they're actually 1.7xx liters but it is common practice to round the figure up to the nearest tenth of a liter). Now to the meat of the matter. The 1ZZ engine has a narrow bore and longer stroke, while the 2ZZ is an "overbored" engine having a bore that is greater than the stroke. The pistons in the 1ZZ are travelling farther than those in the 2ZZ. This is done because an engine with a shorter stroke is easier to rev higher because of inertia. The less distance the piston travels, the less momentum it has to overcome when it reverses direction to complete the cycle and restart the compression stroke. Since the pistons in tradtional ICE's must reciprocate to complete each cycle, they are losing their momentum twice in each cycle, once at the end of the upstroke when the piston reaches the top of it's stroke and second when it reaches the bottom of the downstroke. A rotary engine is much more efficient because the "piston" never has to reverse direction and therefore, momentum is conserved. Where does this leave us with the Vibe dilemma? Well, if the pistons of the base Vibe's engine must travel farther than those of the GT's, then they would naturally incur more friction because of the greater distance traveled. But! The increased size of the bore in the GT's 2ZZ engine will also incur more friction than if the bore was narrower because there is more surface area that the piston rings are touching. Which one outweighs the other? I don't know and I'm not bored enough to try and calculate it. But I'd be betting that overall, the GT's engine has to overcome less forces because it doesn't lose as much momentum.And I would argue that in actuality, the 2ZZ engine IS more efficient because it is converting each gallon of gas that it consumes into more power than the 1ZZ engine is. So your perspective on efficiency is going to determine the outcome of which engine you see as more "efficient".Also, the fuel/air requirements are NOT the same. The valves in the 2ZZ are bigger, which means that more air is flowing through the engine. If more air is flowing through, then additional power will only be realized if you dump more fuel in, too. So there is a source of additional fuel consumption.

Excellent dissertation, Stang! One minor correction: Cylinder head and gasket volumes don't enter into the displacement calculation; they're needed for determing compression ratio.

I believe the the 2zz is still undersquare but only slightly (82X85). In city driving you'll find that the mileage between the 2 if close but once you hit a highway the Gt really looses out. It would be great if 2nd through 5th could be 5% lower and 6th 5% higher.