I purchased the above car in September of '24. Fuel economy started out OK - not great. According to the computer in the car I averaged 30mpg for the first couple of months. Since then the mpg has ticked down by .1mpg every couple of days. I'm now sitting at 27.9mpg. I have the 1.5L Turbo DOHC 4-CYL. Anyone else have this same engine? How is your fuel economy? Thanks! (Stated fuel economy on the sticker is 31mpg (28 city, 36 highway -- almost 100% of my driving is highway) This is the worst fuel economy I've ever had from a 4 cylinder engine. )
beggenbe
- Status
Speed and temp are the explanation here. 85 on a 70/75 mph freeway isn't comparable to an EPA highway rating. The 1.5 and most any engine will have diminished fuel economy at higher speeds. I never owned the CVT Malibu but my 2016 1.5 would get about 38 cruising 75 on the freeway. Little higher in the summer, little lower in winter. My lifetime average was about 32 in warm summer/cold winter Michigan.
Re: the @PoManMali questions, GM stayed with the 1.5 LFV in the Malibu all the way from 2016-2025. In 2023 they added the e-assist braking system and got rid of the mechanical vacuum pump.
I have no idea why GM decided to keep the LFV in place and not switch over to the LYX in 2018 when they put it in the Nox and Terrain. Would it have been so bad to give an extra few horsepower to the Malibu and streamline production? Especially in 2023 when they plugged the exhaust camshaft to remove the pump... at that point why not use the LSD in all the 1.5 equipped vehicles? I guess it's lower weight so the LFV is enough but come on. I went back to double check as sometimes all this starts to get muddy in my old brain.
Attachments
I don't have a 2023-2025 Malibu but a few here do. Perhaps they can give better pictures. From awful youtube videos it looks to me like they plugged it with something on the 1.5 LFV. Need a good side look from a friendly owner who might share. 
In this one you see the general area around 1:15
In this one you get another look and the eboost module back there around the 14:00 mark:
Here is the 1.5 LSD look:
![Image]()
In this one you see the general area around 1:15
In this one you get another look and the eboost module back there around the 14:00 mark:
Here is the 1.5 LSD look:
@smoothdeuces
Thank you for sharing; helpful numbers right in line with the rated averages.
Anyone want to post DIC pictures of their "best" 450 or whatever the longest reading is? I'm curious what the 1.5/CVTs can muster over 450 miles. I know the normal DIC max is 450 on the eco average, not sure what the uplevel max is or if it even has that capability.
Thank you for sharing; helpful numbers right in line with the rated averages.
Anyone want to post DIC pictures of their "best" 450 or whatever the longest reading is? I'm curious what the 1.5/CVTs can muster over 450 miles. I know the normal DIC max is 450 on the eco average, not sure what the uplevel max is or if it even has that capability.
I was looking for the average last and best 450; maybe your DIC doesn't have that capability like the other clusters. Boy those uplevel digital screens scratch up quick! Or are those cracks?
That one is complicated. The tanks are all the same size from 2016-2025. In 2016-2017 engineers buffooned a valve that opens and closes and limited the 1.5 to 13 gallon usable capability. You had to replace the fuel pump with the other to enable the full tank capacity.
And there it is. Totally meaningless data. That is why we never saw a picture of the average from the DIC. There wasn't even miles driven/gallons pumped math involved with the claim. Now escalating the fake 34.3 figure with "I am guessing I am in the 35-36 mpg range with recent fill ups" just to troll the OP? To worry them or make them feel like they have a problem or got a bad engine? What a waste of time.
Since the OP's concern was addressed and all seems normal, thread closed.
- Status
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
