![\"General Motors has some new small cars in the product pipeline, but until they arrive, the Aveo and Aveo5 give Chevrolet dealers a model to sell to people who need a low price and high mileage more than they need style and performance. Aveo sales were up nearly 15 percent in July over July 2007, so there must be plenty of those people out there.\" (Text and pic courtesy orlandosentinal.com)](https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/aveo.jpg "\\"General Motors has some new small cars in the product pipeline, but until they arrive, the Aveo and Aveo5 give Chevrolet dealers a model to sell to people who need a low price and high mileage more than they need style and performance. Aveo sales were up nearly 15 percent in July over July 2007, so there must be plenty of those people out there.\\" (Text and pic courtesy orlandosentinal.com)")
Steven Cole Smith is The Orlando Sentinel's automotive editor. You may remember Smith as Car and Driver's executive editor and/or as a syndicated New York Times car columnist. Or perhaps you've seen his byline at Edmunds or AutoWeek. Now I'm not going to say Smith pulls his punches to please his paper's patrons, be they carmakers or car dealers. But I will say the Aveo is one of the nastiest cars I've ever driven, and I'm pretending this is 1977. Smith disagrees. "The 1.6-liter, four-cylinder engine is surprisingly smooth and quiet, and while gas mileage isn't great for a car this small, it's pretty darn good: an EPA-rated 25 mpg in the city, 34 mpg on the highway in our test car." And "Headroom in the Aveo5 is generous, and rear-seat room isn't that bad, unless you have some long-legged people in the front seat. That room comes at the expense of luggage space in the back, but the rear seat folds down." And then he gets NASTY, in a loving kind of way. "Inside, for the most part, the Aveo looked and felt surprisingly upscale, but there were a few tipoffs to the fact that this is an inexpensive car: While the flip-down sun visors had vanity mirrors, the mirrors were uncovered, meaning that when the visors were down, they reflected you and everything behind the car. It was annoying enough that I'd have to use a strip of duct tape to cover them if I owned the car." Wait. Smith would actually consider owning one of these shit-boxes? Not bloody likely.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
The Aveo is not only an abomination to the current standard of automobiles (hint: its really a DAEWOO), its another one of GM’s dumbest moves.
My friend was in the market for a GM compact car and she was split between a Cobalt and an Aveo (don’t ask). The dealer that she went to had both cars available on the showroom floor. As she compared the two she couldn’t find the much difference in the legroom/headroom/trunk space dimensions. There wasn’t much difference in the pricing either, as both cars could equipped for her needs in the same $14,000 range. Yet the Cobalt had a more powerful engine than the Aveo.
This led me to wonder, what’s the point? Why slap a Chevy bow-tie on a Daewoo when they could have offered a detuned eco-tec on a (possibly shortened) Cobalt? It would compare with the same crowd as the Aveo and would probably be a more effective competitor to the Toyota Yaris.
Over the years I’ve read lots of these “reviews” in various newspapers across the country (I travel a lot). It’s pretty clear that most of these writers are not journalists at all, but shills for the auto industry or the local dealer association.
There seems to be a shared formula consisting of three types:
1. The all-positive write-up.
2. The non-negative write-up (not the same thing as #1, but close).
3. A variation on #1, as in the example above. It always ends with something like “there could be an inch or two more rear leg room”. With this type of write-up, objectivity is maintained and we have no reason to believe that the writer is a total hack.
Number 3 seems to be the consistent choice in my local newspaper.
And that’s why I like TTAC.
An enthusiast who enjoys eight cylinders and abhors ‘wrong-wheel drive’ should hate the Aveo. Everyone else looking for cheap new wheels should give it a look, with appropriate expectations in tow.
I’d be more offended if the columnist were outright lying. I have no proof that he is, as this is a opinionated review and not a definitive report.
I believe “shit-box” should be hyphenated.
@digitalsoul: It’s not about lying, its about producing filler, deliberately wasting our time with a non-review. If only it were opinionated.
It’s ironic, but with car advertising revenue plummeting for news organizations it is possible to draw a line between the sycophancy of the press and the decline of the Detroit three. Feedback, calling a shit-box a shit-box might have put executive feet to the fire when they were healthy enough to address the problems methodically. Probably not though.
whatsanobeen wrote:
My friend was in the market for a GM compact car and she was split between a Cobalt and an Aveo (don’t ask). […] As she compared the two she couldn’t find the much difference in the legroom/headroom/trunk space dimensions.
You mean she didn’t notice Aveo was a wagon, and Cobalt was a sedan? And if you think that doesn’t make a difference in loadability, then we not only live on a different planet, but probably in a different dimension.
Sell Cobalt as a wagon, and Aveo will disappear.
eh_political:
I believe “shit-box” should be hyphenated.
And so it is. Now.
Just like the dumb I mean, smart for 2, the question is why? Just like the dummy who coulda had a v8. Smart- premium fuel, good but not great mileage, no room for anything. OK, maybe the neighbors will think youre the cats meow for maybe a week. Aveo- piece of rental car crap, worse mileage than corolla, civic. less refined engine, lower resale value by a subsantial margin. Oh, almost forgot,which car in the compact class will most likely break before 60,000 miles?
While on the subject of a co opted media, it does produce an immune response, whether it be TTAC, or the Daily Show: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/arts/television/17kaku.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all
To the positive, perhaps the evaporation of ad revenues/Detroit three will permit Top Gear USA to approach the merit of the original. (Now that’s the audacity of hope).
EPA of 34 on the highway…whew…my daughter has a 2005 Honda Accord, automatic, with air with 124,000 miles on it and it gets 32-34. And think, this is called progress-go AVEO
I’m OK with the review. It mentions good and bad parts of the car.
RF- Why so many pieces regarding how other writers review cars?
I like the Aveo, I don’t see why other people can’t like it.
whatsanobeen- The Aveo actually has the oft mentioned “nicer interior materials” compared to the Cobalt. At least in my opinion.
The 2009 Aveo has an improved engine also. Mileage is up 2 MPG for an automatic 3 mpg for the manual.
My 1972 VW Beetle regularly got 31-32 MPG on the highway, and my 1991 Acura Integra also got 32-33 MPG.
In fact, my 2001 Acura 3.2 TL gets about 29 on the highway.
Fact is, the recent run-up in horsepower has been paid for with fuel economy, since nobody cared about it until March 2008.
My Integra, with 140 bhp from 1.8 liters, had decent preformance, back when Honda made rev-happy little motors. We’ve moved the performance bar so much in the past 10 years, so that a sedan with less than 250 bhp is considered underpowered. What do we expect?
That is craptastic MPG My brother’s Metro got 52-60 highway MPG. My son’s 86 528e,2.7L 3100 lbs with an automagic trans got 34.5 mpg hiway and 25 something city.
Really, I didn’t find the Aveo to be any worse than the Rio. But both of them are absolutely wretched vehicles when compared with the competition. I don’t believe there are any worse new vehicles out there than those two. In fact, a mid-90’s Civic is more than likely a better vehicle.
I fail to understand how Daewoo gets 30% worse gas mileage from 1.5 liters than Yaris or Fit.
It simply astounds me.
I’m all for basic transportation, but I agree about the MPG. My 2005 Civic LX gets 29-32 combined, more on the highway, and it’s a compact instead of a subcompact, not to mention just a nicer car in general. I’m not sure how the Aveo, Versa, and their ilk think 34 highway is something to crow about. If I were to consider going smaller than a Civic (which I’m not), I’d better get some fuel economy in return, say, upper 30s/lower 40s like the Yaris is supposed to get.
The bottom line here is that the Aveo and Cobalt are disposable cars along with Bic lighters. The prices keep climbing, but the life-expectancy of the car keeps getting shorter. GM keeps adding unecessary junk to their new cars until they’re too expensive to build, then cease production. Replaced with cars like the Aveo and Cobalt. Who would want a car that the name begins with COB?
in response to hwyhobo:
“You mean she didn’t notice Aveo was a wagon, and Cobalt was a sedan?”
The Aveo model on the showroom was a sedan. They are available in both sedan and hatchback body styles (sadly).
whatsanobeen wrote:
The Aveo model on the showroom was a sedan. They are available in both sedan and hatchback body styles (sadly).
Ah. Now it makes sense. I have seen a number of Aveos, but I have *never* seen a sedan. I had no idea they even sold one.
Sell Cobalt as a wagon, and Aveo will disappear
They do, it’s called the HHR.
That said, the Aveo isn’t really a bad car.
No, really, especially when you think about, say, the Ford Festiva or previous-generation Kia Rio or even the Chevy Cavalier. The interior materials are about as good as the Cobalt’s, the mileage is okay and the effective interior space better, if the result of some dorky styling.
The problem is that the car isn’t as good as the Yaris in terms of fuel economy, the Versa in refinement or the Fit in dynamics (and economy). It’s about as good as the Rio or Accent, but that’s not exactly a great standard, and certainly not one that allows you much of a margin.
If you got a great deal on it, that’s fine. If you paid full MSRP and/or bought it out of some misguided sense of patriotism (well, American patriotism; if you’re Korean it’s okay) it’s probably not the wisest choice.
I was going to put money down on a two-cycle 1975 Trabant 601 until I read this review. Why buy a communist era piece of crap when I can buy a American made piece of crap from Korea.
I’m actually a Chevrolet fan (not necessarily a GM fan) that likes basic transportation, and I can say with complete confidence that the Daewoo Aveo is the worst car I’ve ever driven.
About the Aveo’s 25/35mpg rating:
About a year back, I rented a 4cyl Chevy Malibu for a 400 mile round trip to and from the Smoky Mountains. Around town, it did a respectable 23-24mpg and got 35mpg on the open highway.
Now I’m thinking that with the Aveo’s piss-poor mileage numbers, you’d be better off buying a Cobalt, or a Malibu even, with nearly the same fuel economy while gaining a bigger interior and more amenities.
Which might be the whole point GM’s conveying all along.
I can’t think of a single point in time where GM gave the public an honest, reliable compact car that didn’t leave buyers longing for a better (bigger) car or in most cases after the 70s, another (foreign) manufacturer altogether. GM’s method of punishing customers who choose their smallest offerings has only resulted in those customers becoming customers…..of Toyota and Honda. The Big 2.8 have constantly whined about the thin profit margins on compacts and subcompacts while the Japanese use those same cars to cultivate lifelong customers and brand recognition. It’s a mental block that’ll remain in place until the people behind it are long gone — sadly, that’ll take a couple of Chapter 7s and an extreme marginalization of American automobiles as the technically foreign competition expand and entrench farther into the marketplace, very much like what’s happened to the British auto industry.
What I don’t understand is why GM doesn’t have a version of the Vibe with a bow-tie on it. It is probably the best small car GM sells. Isn’t Chevy supposed to be value and Pontaic supposed to be performance? How does a Pontiac Vibe make any sense at all? Give the Chevy dealers what they really need, a Toyota to sell.
Same car and same price and 45 mpg and we’ll talk…
I’ll take one as a wagon, thanks…
MPG are a real turn off – poor return on filling your tank spells poor sales
When they first came out with these shit-boxes (thanks eh_political!) you could get them with a GM discount for $8k. At that price point, they almost makes sense as a disposable daily driver.
Until you sit inside the thing. I’ve never driven one, I couldn’t pretend hard enough to care.
GM has held for the longest time that small cars don’t make money – the way they make small cars. Like Henry Ford said: “If you believe you can or cannot do something, you are right.”
The crap mileage for this craptastic crapmobile is astounding.
Even at 8k, you’d be better off with a second-hand Civic. I know I am.
Even at 8k, you’d be better off with a second-hand Civic. I know I am
The last time I bought a car, I was considering a used Civic or Corolla until I saw the prices. To get at 10K or under, you had to look at cars with 100K on them and 4-6 years old.
So, I bought an Aveo for $8400 and held my breath. It still runs at 134K miles, but really is a crap-box with a “zero-enjoyment” quotient. It is roomy inside and finished well if you can tolerate the so-so gas mileage, costly repairs, wonky electronics and the horrific handling dynamics.
The car squeaks, creaks, and rattles over tiny ripples in the road; sways and rolls like a drunken sailor in 10 mph breezes and is unmanageable in 35-50 mph winds. Anything above that — leave it home.
Would I buy another — NO!!!
Bought a 2002 Daewoo Nubira (until 2008, the later version of which was sold as the Suzuki Forenza sedan) in 2003, for 1/2 of MSRP, with 25 miles on it “used” (from a non-Daewoo dealership which managed to pick up hundreds of these for a song when Daewoo USA went tits-up). Thanks, GM, your decision to buy Daewoo then yank the rug from under Daewoo USA and not sell them any cars, bankrupting them, made it possible for us to give our 1999 Neon to our college age son, and buy a car for 1/2 price. At least something came out good from it for someone, eh?
The 2002 Daewoo was definitely a gamble, we knew it. But we didn’t want some used POS (having just had a new Neon POS, prior to that having had a new Cavlier POS).
Ironically, the Nubira was one of the better new cars we’d ever bought, despite it’s extreme cheapness (in construction/details). Flat black instrument panel of “industrial grade” plastic and blue cloth upholstery mis-matched with blue plastic interior trim, etc. Rear crank windows (front power). But overall, it only went to the nearest dealer for one recall and two repairs under warrantee (power window regulator in driver’s door and a suspension bushing).
Of course, as other Daewoo (now badged Chevrolet) 4 cylinder cars, the MPG was nothing special. In fact, my 2002 Sonata V6 got about the same MPG, or maybe 1 mpg less than the 2-litre four cylinder Nubira which was clearly one full size smaller than the Sonata.
My youngest son is still driving the Daewoo and it is proving to be as reliable and trouble free, amazingly enough. It’s got about 70,000 miles on it by now.
But what is it about Daewoos not getting good MPG? The 2 litre engine is actually even a GM Holden (Australia) designed and manufactured engine, even when Daewoo was independent, they were buying these.
“eggsalad :
I fail to understand how Daewoo gets 30% worse gas mileage from 1.5 liters than Yaris or Fit.
It simply astounds me.”
The current numbers fall somewhat short of astounding.
Per epa.gov:
2009 Aveo5: 25/34/28
2008 Fit: 27/34/30
2008 Yaris: 29/35/31
All are with automatic (2009 figures are not yet available for Fit or Yaris).
That puts Yaris 16% ahead on city mileage; 11% combined. EPA estimates an average saving of $202 at current fuel prices.
To answer your next question, the results are much the same with manual transmissions:
Aveo5: 27/34/30
Fit: 28/34/31
Yaris: 29/36/32
With a self shifter, the Yaris saves all of $119/year compared to the Aveo.
What’s astounding isn’t the difference between an Aveo and a Yaris, it’s the difference between an Aveo and a real car, say a Malibu:
2009 Malibu (auto): 22/33/26
Aveo5: 24/34/28
EPA calculates that fueling the Malibu will cost $166 a year more than an Aveo. Camry/Yaris and Accord/Fit will yield more or less comparable numbers.
Notwithstanding the current mpg at all costs craze, even at $4/gallon, sending yourself to the penalty box for the next several years yields little financial reward.