I was on MPG facts researching cars and I noticed that in 96 and 97, the 5 speed cavalier was reported to get 34 MPG. in 98 an after, it falls to 31

Is there a reason for this, or is just something GM adjusted with their numbers? For what it's worth I actually did get 33 to 34 highway MPG in my 93 cavailer (5 speed)

Is this a change in paper, or is there actually a difference between a 97 and 98 that would effect MPG?

might have been i typo... or you could be looking at the wrong engine specs.. *different engines perform differently* IE 2.2L and 2.4L are different spec wise.. also the quad 4 is also different from the 2.2l and 2.4l...

No, I'm sure of what I'm looking at. 95-97 are listed as one MPG for the 2.2 with a 5 speed, and then 98-2003 are listed considerably lower, and then in 2004 it jumps back up again

http://mpgfacts.com/?r=g&make=Chevrolet

Like he said, different engines perform differently.





i find it amusing that SHOoff has nothing better to do but follow me around & be an unhelpful dick in even cross-forum. - Jon Mick

I've always found this website to have the most accurate gas mileage/fuel economy ratings :
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1998_Chevrolet_Cavalier.shtml
However, it says that the 99 cavalier 2.4 auto gets 19 city and I've been doing a lot of city driving lately and seem to be getting close to 24 mpg. On a 60/40 highway/City, I average 26mpg.

even on that site, the mpg drop by 2 for the same engine in the years going from 97 to 98.

I know they changed a couple things with the engine but that seems like a large drop for just using a reverse flow radiator and a couple other small things.

The 2.2 and the 2200 are different engines. Different engines have different characteristics. End of story.






i find it amusing that SHOoff has nothing better to do but follow me around & be an unhelpful dick in even cross-forum. - Jon Mick

SHOoff wrote:The 2.2 and the 2200 are different engines. Different engines have different characteristics. End of story.

\

exactly... and since its a 97 to 98.. they are 2 different engines.... 97 is the 2.2L and the 98 is 2200... and in 03-04 the specs increased back up because of ECOtech..

as said above.. different engines perform differently.. my 2.2L ohv LN2 is 30/40 on c/h.....

Here's some information from wiki about the ld9 2.4 that may explain why the mpg drop by 1 mpg city and 2mpg highway in 99.
"Bore was decreased from 92 mm (3.6 in) to 90 mm (3.5 in) and stroke increased from 85 mm (3.3 in) to 94 mm (3.7 in) for better torque. Power came in at 150 bhp (110 kW).[4] This engine received a minor update halfway through the 1999 model year that eliminated the EGR, increased the compression ratio from 9.5:1 to 9.7:1, and switched from low impedance fuel injectors to high impedance. For increased reliability, this engine also saw other minor updates in the 2000s, towards the end of its use in General Motors vehicles, such as a smaller knock sensor, flat-top pistons instead of dished, new oiling passages, newer stronger timing chain, a newer-designed water pump, a redesigned starter motor and higher capacity catalytic converter in 2001, and an improved belt tensioner in 2002."

That's interesting, but I was talking the 2.2. Is there a list of what they changed between 97 and 98 on it? I'm talking about the one gm called the 122 motor

mark Finley wrote:That's interesting, but I was talking the 2.2. Is there a list of what they changed between 97 and 98 on it? I'm talking about the one gm called the 122 motor

"What they changed" is pretty much the whole engine. If you need specifics, check out http://www.enginebuildermag.com/Article/2437/rebuilding_the_chevy_22l_engine.aspx




"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about
the former." - Albert Einstein

From wikipedia :
"2.2L/2200 OHV

For the 1990 model year GM replaced the 2.0 L engine with a bored and stroked version displacing 2.2 L. Known as the 2.2 from 1990 to 1997 and the 2200 from 1998 on, it used throttle body fuel injection and produced 95 horsepower (71 kW) and 120 lb·ft (163 N·m) of torque. For 1992 multi-port fuel injection replaced the old throttle body injected version in the J-body cars increasing power to 110 horsepower (82 kW) and torque to 130 lb·ft (176 N·m). In the L-body cars it was converted straight to Sequential Fuel injection. In 1994 all 2.2L engines were updated to Sequential MPFI and power increased to 120 horsepower (89 kW) with torque increasing to 140 lb·ft (190 N·m). The MPFI and SFI versions produced enough power to allow the 2200 to replace the old Pontiac Iron Duke engine as the 4-cylinder offering in the S/T platform trucks and A-body cars. A final revision to the 2200 occurred when emissions updates were done in 1998 lowering power and torque to 115 horsepower (86 kW) and 135 lb·ft (183 N·m) respectively. The 2200 was discontinued in 2003, replaced by the 2.2L DOHC Ecotec engine. Although it displaces 134 cu. in, the 2.2L OHV is still commonly referred to as the GM 122 today, and has been reputed for its simplicity, reliability and ease of maintenance in the J and L-body cars and S-Series Trucks.

Uses:
1990–2002 Chevrolet Cavalier
1990–1996 Chevrolet Corsica and Beretta
1990–1991 Pontiac Tempest
1993–1996 Buick Century
1993-1996 Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera
1993-1994 Chevrolet Lumina
1995–2002 Pontiac Sunfire
1994-1995 Chevrolet S-10, Isuzu Hombre and GMC Sonoma, (In 1996 it became the Vortec 2200)"

Yeah, i had seen that
.. "emmisions updates" costing us mpg and power. Thanks a lot....

Though it hardly sounds like a completly different engine, as some on this thread have suggested