Is the 2.4 worth the extra money?
03-04-2010, 04:54 PM
#21
New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 02-23-2010
Location: MN
Posts: 18
Perhaps because the HHR weighs quite a bit more than the G6?
My HHR has the 2.4, and my wife has the same year pontiac G6 with the 2.4, and Ive noticed that her 2.4 seems to be a lil bit peppier than the one in my HHR. I am not sure if it is just because of the way her car is geared different than mine or if the G6 has better air flow because of a different set up on the air filter and intake set up?? I run 89 octane in mine most of the time, and the same with the wifes G6.
03-04-2010, 07:22 PM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-11-2007
Location: Palm Bay, Florida
Posts: 1,379
I've been running 87 octane in my 2.4 auto for four years and still average 30+ mpg. I did a test run of 93 octane for 2000+ miles and saw no mpg improvements. so why spend the extra 20-24 cents per gallon for some preceived performance gains?
03-05-2010, 09:38 AM
#23
New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 02-23-2010
Location: MN
Posts: 18
03-05-2010, 12:58 PM
#24
Platinum Member
Join Date: 01-09-2007
Location: SE USA
Posts: 15,968
Option: FX2
Maybe it's a Panel thing ? Anyway, very pleased with my 2LT..
03-05-2010, 01:25 PM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: 04-11-2008
Location: Eastpointe,MI.
Posts: 663
Old Lar-surprising that you average over 30 m.p.g. from your 2.4 and that premium doesn't change that.I'll average 27-28 m.p.g in warm weather and it drops to about 25 m.p.g. in cold weather(this is with 93 rated premium).I didn't notice much,if any, performance change when using 89 rated gas but I did have a decrease in fuel mileage of about 1-1.5 m.p.g. The climate difference between Florida and Michigan has to play a role in your excellent mileage and I'm sure driving habits factor in too.I'm a bit of a leadfoot and I like rowing my 5 speed(kinda helps my fantasy that I'm really Ronnie Sox).
03-05-2010, 06:24 PM
#28
New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 02-23-2010
Location: MN
Posts: 18
Well, I test drove a 2LT today. Between the extra power and better suspension, I was sold instantly. The 1LT I drove seemed so sluggish and wobbly. And since they mislabeled the price on carsoup, I got it for less than some of the 1LTs I was looking at with more mileage! This one only had 19,000 miles and I got it for under $12,000.
03-05-2010, 06:33 PM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-17-2006
Location: Dallas, GA
Posts: 6,052
THe 2.2/2.4 arguement will never end. I didn't buy this for performance. FWD and performance don't mix with me personally. I tried it once, no where near as fun as a RWD. For the .02 seconds I loose in the 1/4, I can live with it...
03-05-2010, 11:24 PM
#30
Platinum Member
Join Date: 01-09-2007
Location: SE USA
Posts: 15,968
Maybe, it would make sense since it is designed for more cargo handling. Maybe ? I'm not complaining tho.. Maybe ChevyMgr could enlighten us.
THe 2.2/2.4 arguement will never end. No arguing here.. Just throwing in my .02.. But agree there will always be differences of opinions..Both Great motors..
I didn't buy this for performance. FWD and performance don't mix with me personally. I tried it once, no where near as fun as a RWD. For the .02 seconds I loose in the 1/4, I can live with it... I'm not racing either.. This is my econo-cruiser.
THe 2.2/2.4 arguement will never end. No arguing here.. Just throwing in my .02.. But agree there will always be differences of opinions..Both Great motors..
I didn't buy this for performance. FWD and performance don't mix with me personally. I tried it once, no where near as fun as a RWD. For the .02 seconds I loose in the 1/4, I can live with it...
I'm not racing either.. This is my econo-cruiser. Last edited by sleeper; 03-06-2010 at 12:48 AM.