GTOMIKE

That`s the truth my 2.2 stick is quick and good on gas drove both for me the extra cost to go up to a 2.4 was too much.

BJ D

thank you.

BJ D

sounds like the 2.2L reliably gets better mileage. there's an '07 LT w/ 2.2 for $10,000 with 36k and an '08 2LT w/ 2.4 for $12,000 with 25k. hard to weigh it all out! (i still have to get sold on the styling! haha)

masterchief1112

i like my 2.2. i personally like it because of no vvt. makes it easier in my opinion for performance mods

twistrman

i test drove them all when i was looking around. Loved the SS, but didn't need it and couldn't really afford it. I went with the 2.4.

When i drove the 2.2 (auto) it just seemed sluggish. I did some normal driving and took it on the expressway and floored it. Then i went back, took a 2.4 and did the exact same route. To me, the 2.4 had a lot more power and I got on the expressway much easier. We already have a super sluggish car, my wife's Aveo, so we didn't need another.

It also helped that I wanted a lot of the options that came on the 2.4. Chrome package, upgraded stereo (a must), running boards, etc. So the 2.4 was part of it.

Now if you want to talk about mileage, yes it does matter how you drive, and what engine you have. But I dare anyone to come to where I live and try to get the same milage they get everywhere else here. My town kills milage. Eats it for breakfast. If i have my 2.4 on the highway I can get 27-31 on average, i also speed, and go 80... But drive it around town and i am floating around 20 for the winter and around 22-24 in the summer. I can drive it other places and get better. It is all stop and go, hills, and short distances here. I used to get 20-22 in my Jimmy where I used to live and i went to 11-12 when i moved here...

hhrcrafty

Drive 'em both. I think my 2.4 is faster than a 2.2, and I've driven both. You don't feel it so much when you're putting around town, but the car seems to have longer legs on the highway at higher RPM.

You still have a little warranty left on the 2LT and it's definitely better equipped, so if you're looking long term the '08 is the better buy.

scubaguy10

Based upon the EPA ratings, every engine/transmission combination gets about the same mileage. If you went with a 2.2, I would recommend a 5 speed, because a 2.2 auto will be the slowest combo by some margin.

hyperv6

The 2.2 is sluggish with a auto at lower RPM but at higher RPM it will show some power.

I am beating around in a 2.2 Cobalt auto and driving it hard gives a solid 25 MPG.

My normal drive is a HHR SS and I get 23-24 MPG on the same drive but I do not have to push it hard at all unless I want to. Just more power and torque with the 2.0 turbo.

wxman

Don't forget the 2.4 only comes with the 2LT package. You'll get some extra chrome (possibly fog lights and sunroof, and upgraded stereo) and power seats and cargo net. The engine is probably a wash unless you've got a lead foot.

That 2LT for $12000 looks like way better deal to me.

HillsdaleHHR

Nope, the 2.4 can also be had on a 1LT