Author Topic: Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT  (Read 10330 times)

Offline Autos_Editor

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 6781
  • Carma: +81/-472
  • member
    • View Profile
Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT
« on: November 23, 2011, 03:05:48 am »


The new Orlando microvan provides compact-car fuel efficiency (and dynamics), small SUV utility, and minivan seating capacity.

Read More...

Offline 911Jeff

  • Noob
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Carma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2011, 06:28:45 am »
Not sure if it's just me, but is GM (Buick, Chevrolet...) using the same steering wheel design for every one of it's models? All the interior pics of the upcoming models i've seen, there's an identical look to all of them.

I noticed the upcoming Sonic uses it, the Orlando but also the $50,000++ ZL1 Camaro. It seems like a small thing, but if I were paying $50,000+ for a car, i would like it to be a little different from a bottom feeder. Cost cutting at it's finest?

Offline amplitech

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Carma: +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2007 Ford Focus Wagon, 2000 Olds Intrigue, 2013 Fusion Hybrid, 2002 Venture (all currently owned)
Re: Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2011, 07:03:08 am »
I am not sure where the "Compact car fuel efficiency" comes into play. The official fuel economy is no better than a 2011 Impala and the author's measured results are worse than my 2000 Intrigue. To be fare to the vehicle, he probably drives much more aggressively than I do. Still, I wonder why GM doesn't get it. We need cars with better fuel efficiency. This vehicle has one more gear and direct injection, but it doesn't beat the Mazda 5's fuel economy. It's just like the 1.8l Cruze getting worse fuel economy than a Corolla even though it has 2 more gears and direct injection.

Offline richink

  • Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 377
  • Carma: +0/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Prepare yourself... this is gonna hurt!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2011, 08:39:58 am »
I saw one of these at the Avis counter in Montreal last week and stopped to take a peek. With this article and my own observations I can firmly say that this is another example of GM showing up late to the party and still missing the boat. They had a brilliant chance to come to market with something trully different but this is a cheap looking, cheap feeling imitation of the competition. It's like when Chrysler came out with the PT Cruiser, and then GM shows up 6 years later with the HHR. Too little, too late.

This segment is and will continue to be dominated by the 5 and the Rondo.

GM absolutely cannot afford to keep producing vehicles like this if they hope to stay in the black. The Sonic, Cruze and Regal models are very promising changes for them, this is them sitting back on their heels and hoping that people will buy it because of a flashy ad campaign or a giveaway finance/money deal.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 10:32:09 am by richink »
Richard - that's my opinion and I stand by it.

Offline NoLongerCivic

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Carma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2011, 08:54:42 am »
I was interested in more commentary on the seating. Is the 2nd row spacing adequate? When we were looking for a new car recently we test drove the Mazda5. It drove nicely and the front seats were decent but the rear seating was all unacceptable. The 2nd row bucket seats felt small, cheap, and a bit uncomfortable. No child older than 12 should be asked to sit in the 3rd row.

We were buying used and I wasn't able to find a deal on a Rondo that I liked enough to test out.

Offline Mike

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
  • Carma: +152/-93
  • Gender: Male
  • Used to be here, still like to visit
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2005 Saab 9-2x Aero, 2008 Suzuki SX4 Sedan
Re: Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2011, 08:59:48 am »
I was interested in more commentary on the seating. Is the 2nd row spacing adequate? When we were looking for a new car recently we test drove the Mazda5. It drove nicely and the front seats were decent but the rear seating was all unacceptable. The 2nd row bucket seats felt small, cheap, and a bit uncomfortable. No child older than 12 should be asked to sit in the 3rd row.

We were buying used and I wasn't able to find a deal on a Rondo that I liked enough to test out.

The rear seat in the Orlando is the same as the Mazda5 and Journey...no one over 12 should be in there.  When Jonathan tested this vehicle out, we also had the Mazda5, Journey and Prius V on hand.  None of the 4 stood out as having more room or a better seat in the 2nd row.  The advantage the Orlando has over the Mazda5 is it has a bench instead of captains chairs so the smallness shouldn't be an issue.

Offline Mike

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
  • Carma: +152/-93
  • Gender: Male
  • Used to be here, still like to visit
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2005 Saab 9-2x Aero, 2008 Suzuki SX4 Sedan
Re: Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2011, 09:01:31 am »
I am not sure where the "Compact car fuel efficiency" comes into play. The official fuel economy is no better than a 2011 Impala and the author's measured results are worse than my 2000 Intrigue. To be fare to the vehicle, he probably drives much more aggressively than I do. Still, I wonder why GM doesn't get it. We need cars with better fuel efficiency. This vehicle has one more gear and direct injection, but it doesn't beat the Mazda 5's fuel economy. It's just like the 1.8l Cruze getting worse fuel economy than a Corolla even though it has 2 more gears and direct injection.

Yeah, we had the Mazda5 and Orlando out at the same time.  Mazda5 = 10.1 L/100 km while the Orlando got 10.6 L/100 km.  FWIW - the Orlando does have more power and felt faster in a straight line

Offline simonsez

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Carma: +4/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2011, 09:18:09 am »
This car has peaked my interest as a potential replacement for a family hauler as I like the idea of offering the 6 speed manual.  But Iím not sure that Iím loving the angles from all the pictures that Iíve seen.  I am also quickly reminded of my cousin who paid over 35k for a loaded ďWarner Brothers Edition (His wife thought it was so cute for the kids!)Ē  Chevy Venture a few years back and how it looked 3 years later when he traded it in for peanuts! The value wasnít even close to the outstanding loan he had on it.

Between this and the 5, I unfortunately donít see many reasons to opt for the Orlando.

As mentioned previously, the 5 offers better fuel economy (with their OLDER engine) and probably MUCH better driving dynamics, although you do lose 1 seat.

Iím not sure when Mazda plans on giving their 5 the SKY treatment but when it does happen, I donít think the Orlando will be able to compete.

Having said all that, I have yet to see one in the flesh therefore I will reserve final judgement until then.

Offline nlm

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
  • Carma: +54/-73
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2011, 09:28:20 am »
A plea to Auto Journalists:

When reviewing vehicles that can haul stuff such as this, whether a FamilyVan (eg. Sienna), SUV (eg. Grand Cherokee), CUV (eg. Tuscon), (mini?)MiniVan (eg. Orlando), can reviewers PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE include the cargo capacities behind each successive row of seats, and perferably in litres rather than cu.ft, or both if possible? This is often just as if not more important to the target markets than stating the power output of the engines, which you invariable always do.

Thank you.

Offline conwelpic

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1774
  • Carma: +42/-96
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2012 Kia Soul 4u auto, UVO
Re: Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2011, 10:59:42 am »
A plea to Auto Journalists:

When reviewing vehicles that can haul stuff such as this, whether a FamilyVan (eg. Sienna), SUV (eg. Grand Cherokee), CUV (eg. Tuscon), (mini?)MiniVan (eg. Orlando), can reviewers PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE include the cargo capacities behind each successive row of seats, and perferably in litres rather than cu.ft, or both if possible? This is often just as if not more important to the target markets than stating the power output of the engines, which you invariable always do.

Thank you.

this help:
passenger volume:
Rondo - 5-seater 107.8 (3052), 7-seater 155.8 (4413)
Mazda 5 - 97.8 (2768)
Orlando - 129.3 (3661)

cargo volume with 2nd and 3rd row folded:
Rondo - 73.6 (2083)
Mazda 5 - 30.3 (857) Note:  Mazda only measures to window level
Orlando - 56.3 (1594)

cargo volume with 3rd row folded:
Rondo - 31.7 (898)
Mazda 5 - 15.0 (426) to window level
Orlando - 26.1 (739)

cargo volume benind 3rd seat:
Rondo - 6.5 (185)
Mazda 5 - 4.0 (112) to window level
Orlando - 3.6 (101)

now I've just got a Soul I thought I'd throw these figures in too:
2nd row folded - 53.4 (1511); behind 2nd row - 19.3 (546); passenger volume - 102.3 (2897)
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 11:11:29 am by conwelpic »

Offline 5 Wheel Drive

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 2798
  • Carma: +75/-17
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: '97 Miata, '09 Subaru Forester Touring 5 speed, '13 Mazda 3 GX
Re: Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT
« Reply #10 on: November 23, 2011, 11:09:52 am »
I've started to see a few of them on the road around here.  It's not too bad looking.  It seems to be priced ok.  I hope Chevy does well with it.
"This is no Playstation, this.  There is no reset button if you get it wrong.  You just go through the pearly gates...on fire!"   -Jeremy Clarkson

Offline libraman

  • Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 304
  • Carma: +1/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2011, 11:31:18 am »
Interesting that this car is built in Korea.  Reminds me alot of my Rondo, especially the seating. Nice to see that they kept the manual option. Are they sharing design/technology?

I wonder why GM did not bring over the, arguably, better looking Opel Zafira. http://www.opelzafira.co.za/content_data/LAAM/ZA/en/GBPZA/019/opelzafira/viewer.html

I drove a 7 seater diesel Zafira in Spain and quite liked it.

Offline canuckystan

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Carma: +5/-58
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT
« Reply #12 on: November 23, 2011, 11:47:23 am »
Ok, nice vehicle for sure.  But $30k (roughly) with the nice options?  In BC here, tack on another 12% for tax and you're up around $33k!  For a Chevy.

In 5 years you'll be lucky if it's worth $10k.

The economics don't make sense to me unless you have boatloads of cash to throw around.  I make good money and I still stick to used cars, I can't bring myself to flush cash...guess I'm weird.

Offline SaskSpecV

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1585
  • Carma: +66/-134
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT
« Reply #13 on: November 23, 2011, 12:01:40 pm »
The economics don't make sense to me unless you have boatloads of cash to throw around.  I make good money and I still stick to used cars, I can't bring myself to flush cash...guess I'm weird.


You are not weird, sir, you are frugal!  Stand proud, and let the haters call you "cheap"!  And you are not alone.  Though I admit, many of the excellent cars on sale today do make me want to buy a new vehicle - until I realize I don't actually need a new vehicle, and I think of how much money I'd be flushing away.  I love cars, but not that much.

Offline whaddaiknow

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1754
  • Carma: +98/-277
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT
« Reply #14 on: November 23, 2011, 12:02:29 pm »
Ok, nice vehicle for sure.  But $30k (roughly) with the nice options?  In BC here, tack on another 12% for tax and you're up around $33k!  For a Chevy.

In 5 years you'll be lucky if it's worth $10k.

The economics don't make sense to me unless you have boatloads of cash to throw around.  I make good money and I still stick to used cars, I can't bring myself to flush cash...guess I'm weird.


Maybe that's exactly why you make good money? Because you're good with it?

If I were a car enthusiast loaded with cash, or a car journalist, then sure I would be focused on the top 10% of the car's perfomance and rank my vehicles accordingly.

But for the majority of us, the economics play a very important, if not dominant, role in choosing our ride. Most domestics are still disposable items (to me) so there is a limit to the loss I am prepaired to sustain. A compact van pushing $30k that will be worth nothing in 5 years - no thanks.
A $25k Focus worth $10K in 5 years is good value, $35K Focus worth $11k in 5 years is dumb. Same with this car.

I may be in the minority here but I like Orlando's looks in the photos, and hope it fares well but I don't see a value in this car opted past the $25k mark.

Offline DKaz

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 4891
  • Carma: +168/-213
  • Gender: Male
  • Flip flop
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2012 Mazda 3 GS-Sky 6MT, 2000 Honda Odyssey EX, 2004 Yamaha BWS50
Re: Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT
« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2011, 12:11:34 pm »
I was interested in more commentary on the seating. Is the 2nd row spacing adequate? When we were looking for a new car recently we test drove the Mazda5. It drove nicely and the front seats were decent but the rear seating was all unacceptable. The 2nd row bucket seats felt small, cheap, and a bit uncomfortable. No child older than 12 should be asked to sit in the 3rd row.

We were buying used and I wasn't able to find a deal on a Rondo that I liked enough to test out.

The rear seat in the Orlando is the same as the Mazda5 and Journey...no one over 12 should be in there.  When Jonathan tested this vehicle out, we also had the Mazda5, Journey and Prius V on hand.  None of the 4 stood out as having more room or a better seat in the 2nd row.  The advantage the Orlando has over the Mazda5 is it has a bench instead of captains chairs so the smallness shouldn't be an issue.

I think he was referring to the 2nd row. I'm 6'-1" and 200 lb and I like sitting in the 2nd row. 3rd row is really for short trips only (under an hour).

I like the Orlando overall, I love the 2nd row three passenger bench seat over my Mazda's 5 two passenger captain seats configuration, but cargo space behind the 3rd row is non-existant (I can fit a Joovy Caboose double stroller behind the 3rd row of my Mazda 5), although at least in the Orlando I could carry 5 passengers and till have very good cargo space compared to my 5.

The 10.6L/100km figure in the city is bested by one larger and much more comfortable vehicle, the 4 cylinder Toyota Sienna LE which gets 10.4L/100km. When I test drove the Orlando in heavy traffic, observed fuel economy was 11.5L/100km. I was not a fan of the automatic transmission, it was hunting gears somewhere between light throttle and heavy throttle. Of course I would opt for the six speed manual with 10.1L/100km in the city, but the Mazda 5 still gets better city mileage with an older non-DI 2.3/2.5.

If Mazda manages to get a seven seater Mazda 5 out with Skyactiv engine, things can look bleak for Orlando and Rondo. For now, Orlando has good traits if its weaknesses are no worry to you.

Offline Sir Osis of Liver

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 14855
  • Carma: +431/-479
  • Gender: Male
  • You call this an angry mob?
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2013 Subaru CrossTrek Touring
Re: Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT
« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2011, 12:14:42 pm »
So far it's selling pretty well (for its class). Nice to see a manual offered.

Cars depreciate. It's a fact of life. Some are better than others. Quite often the comparisons are based on purchasing at MSRP, not actual purchase price, so they end up skewed. If a car has a list price of $27k and you bought it for $21k, then sold it a few years later for $11k, you didn't actually lose $16k to depreciation. Most studies miss that point.

A list of the cars suffering the worst depreciation was making the rounds a few years ago. It was dominated by high end European cars. The worst was the Audi A8 IIRC, but the S-class and 7 series weren't far behind.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 12:17:15 pm by Sir Osis of Liver »
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Ė
Carl Sagan

The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but there it is. -Winston Churchill

Offline DCypher

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Carma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT
« Reply #17 on: November 23, 2011, 12:29:20 pm »
FWIW the numbers and information presented here really don't work for me. I have a 2010 Flex SEL AWD (I know, not the same segment, but bear with me) that can seat 6 of me (5'11" 215) comfortably for long trips without issue. And I still have room for 5-6 overnight bags behind the 3rd row. Works great for my wife and the family. Some people consider it big but, being angular, it looks much larger that it actually feels when driving. I would think that going down in size from the Flex to an Orlando would at least provide two benefits
1. Reduced price (not really, I paid $31k for the Flex, just under $29k for a similarly equipped Orlando)
2. Increase fuel economy (again, not really. In a 75/25 mix of city/highway driving I have averaged 10.8l/100km over 34 000k). That's actual usage, not based on the on-board computer and AWD to boot.

All this plus I can still tow 4200lbs when I need to. The Orlando (and the Mazda5, Rondo, and other compact 6-7 seaters) need to provide a much more significant price or fuel economy advantage to make up for the size and power shortcomings, since the quality and fun-to-drive factors aren't enough on their own. For most of these a small diesel would do that - but then would the purchase price be worth it?

Just my two cents.

Offline libraman

  • Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 304
  • Carma: +1/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT
« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2011, 12:31:56 pm »
I was interested in more commentary on the seating. Is the 2nd row spacing adequate? When we were looking for a new car recently we test drove the Mazda5. It drove nicely and the front seats were decent but the rear seating was all unacceptable. The 2nd row bucket seats felt small, cheap, and a bit uncomfortable. No child older than 12 should be asked to sit in the 3rd row.

We were buying used and I wasn't able to find a deal on a Rondo that I liked enough to test out.

The rear seat in the Orlando is the same as the Mazda5 and Journey...no one over 12 should be in there.  When Jonathan tested this vehicle out, we also had the Mazda5, Journey and Prius V on hand.  None of the 4 stood out as having more room or a better seat in the 2nd row.  The advantage the Orlando has over the Mazda5 is it has a bench instead of captains chairs so the smallness shouldn't be an issue.

I think he was referring to the 2nd row. I'm 6'-1" and 200 lb and I like sitting in the 2nd row. 3rd row is really for short trips only (under an hour).

I like the Orlando overall, I love the 2nd row three passenger bench seat over my Mazda's 5 two passenger captain seats configuration, but cargo space behind the 3rd row is non-existant (I can fit a Joovy Caboose double stroller behind the 3rd row of my Mazda 5), although at least in the Orlando I could carry 5 passengers and till have very good cargo space compared to my 5.

The 10.6L/100km figure in the city is bested by one larger and much more comfortable vehicle, the 4 cylinder Toyota Sienna LE which gets 10.4L/100km. When I test drove the Orlando in heavy traffic, observed fuel economy was 11.5L/100km. I was not a fan of the automatic transmission, it was hunting gears somewhere between light throttle and heavy throttle. Of course I would opt for the six speed manual with 10.1L/100km in the city, but the Mazda 5 still gets better city mileage with an older non-DI 2.3/2.5.

If Mazda manages to get a seven seater Mazda 5 out with Skyactiv engine, things can look bleak for Orlando and Rondo. For now, Orlando has good traits if its weaknesses are no worry to you.
 I doubt the Sienna would beat the Orlando in real world city driving. In CR real world tests the Sienna got 14/27 miles per US gallon while the Mazda 5 got 15/34.  I doubt that they will test the Orlando since it is not available in the US.

Offline DKaz

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 4891
  • Carma: +168/-213
  • Gender: Male
  • Flip flop
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2012 Mazda 3 GS-Sky 6MT, 2000 Honda Odyssey EX, 2004 Yamaha BWS50
Re: Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2011, 12:43:36 pm »
 I doubt the Sienna would beat the Orlando in real world city driving. In CR real world tests the Sienna got 14/27 miles per US gallon while the Mazda 5 got 15/34.  I doubt that they will test the Orlando since it is not available in the US.

Wow they have lead feet. My worst ever in my Mazda 5 is 20 US MPG, that's pure city driving, A/C on full blast all the time...