Topic: Test Drive: 2012 Chevrolet Orlando 2LT

[DKaz]

 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...

Also, as you may be aware, the US gallon is smaller than the Imperial gallon, which is used in Canada. From what I have seen, manuals will often do better, despite the government numbers, than the automatics... especially in city driving. On the highway, due to the different ratios, the automatics sometimes do slightly better. I wish my Rondo had a 6 speed manual as the Euro versions do.

I find it VERY VERY odd that you can get a Optima, Sportage, and even Sorento with a 6 speed manual, but not a Rondo. I wanted a Rondo but the lack of manual = no sale. I got a Mazda 5 instead.

I did say 20 US MPG, or did you want me to say 25 Imp MPG? Ugh I hate MPG, 12 L/100km. Thank you, metric system.

Here's my Fuelly...

I share the driving impressions for Orlando. IMO it's not for someone who likes a responsive car (steering, engine, tranny, brakes) this is why I asked. I found it very comfortable, easy to drive, very quiet and well built. If you drive it like the vast majority of the buyers would, it's a nice car. It does what it supposed to do therefore I'd call it a success for Chevy.

I also found that two average adults can seat in the 3rd row for short trips. I was testing with a friend of mine (average adults) and we didn't rub sholders. The biggest negative from my perspective is the 2nd row bench does not slide. If it would, the access and comfort for the 3rd row would be much better.

I'm 6'-1" 200lb, I sat in the back of my Mazda 5 for an hour once next to my brother in law about the same size... yea. lol. My butt started getting numb by the end of the trip. They way you're seated back there in the 5 and Orlando, you're sitting on the base of your spine basically. That's why really the 5 and Orlando are not 6 and 7 seaters, they're 4+2 and 5+2 seaters. Agreed with the lack of slide though, but in my 5 no amount of slide would solve the fact that you're sitting on your spine, and sliding the seats too far forward and you're staving the second row passengers of legroom. With the Orlando, I found I had enough leg room with the default setting, and actually enjoyed more head room.

I drive like a grandma admittedly to save gas, upshift at 2,250 RPM, I think I off automatic drivers behind me going 0-60 in 8.1 days. BUT I do like to take curves a bit quicker than most... braking and accelerating for curves is a waste of gas lol. The Orlando has less body roll yes but I wouldn't be able to take curves quite as quickly. I'd probably have to take it out on a longer test drive to see for sure.

DKaz - what about a Caravan? With the savings on purchase price you'd easily pay for 10 years worth of fuel vs. an Orlando.

My neighbour just bought one of these - I'd rather a minivan! Its just plain ugly - and is it just me or is the second row foot space brutally small? If you need a people mover - buy a people mover take the small hit on fuel economy and be happy with your decision. This is the kind of vehicle that I get the feeling that you'll always have to justify to people - "well ya BUT it gets slightly better mileage than a van."

Actually my third option would be to get a new Mazda 3 Skyactiv and an older Toyota Sienna. The Mazda 5 is too big for us 80% of the time, the right size 10% of the time, and too small 10% of the time. The Mazda 3 could handle the 80%, the Sienna the 20%. Sure it'd mean owning two vehicles but...

[chrischasescars]

jyarkony is making me do his dirty work asked me to post this comparison of the Orlando's dimensions to a bunch of its competitors'.

[SaskSpecV]

Actually my third option would be to get a new Mazda 3 Skyactiv and an older Toyota Sienna. The Mazda 5 is too big for us 80% of the time, the right size 10% of the time, and too small 10% of the time. The Mazda 3 could handle the 80%, the Sienna the 20%. Sure it'd mean owning two vehicles but...

That's a very eloquent rationalization.  But do you think the Mazda3 could really handle the same "80%" as the Mazda5?  The cargo space is OK back there, but not great.  But maybe a Mazda CX-5 Skyactiv would be another choice?  It should have a lot more cargo room than the 3, probably similar to the 5 with the rear-most seats folded.  And definitely better fuel consumption than the 5.  Of course, in your case this scenario is predicated on CX-5 availability with a M/T...here's hoping.

[carcrazy]

@DKaz

RE: Fuel economy

You are obviously doing better than me. You get 9.7 L/100km with Mazda5 while I get 1-1.5L/100km more with my Mazda3 2.3L.
During my week-long test with Orlando I averaged 11.8L/100km therefore there is a good chance you'll get about the same fuel economy you get now with your Mazda5 (or maybe slightly better?).
Drive it like it's ment to be driven and I'm certain you'll do much better than me.

[dirtyjeffer]

holy crap...i didn't realize how big the Ronda was...if only it still didn't look like a 5 year old design, perhaps they would sell more...i think a redo is up next.

[DKaz]

That's a very eloquent rationalization.  But do you think the Mazda3 could really handle the same "80%" as the Mazda5?  The cargo space is OK back there, but not great.  But maybe a Mazda CX-5 Skyactiv would be another choice?  It should have a lot more cargo room than the 3, probably similar to the 5 with the rear-most seats folded.  And definitely better fuel consumption than the 5.  Of course, in your case this scenario is predicated on CX-5 availability with a M/T...here's hoping.

Oh the CX-5 will be pretty small in comparison. The 5 is huge with the 3rd row folded. 850L with 2nd and 3rd row down is a gross underestimate, I don't know why Mazda only calculates to the window line rather than to the roof, it puts themselves at a competitive disadvantage. The dimensions behind the 2nd row seats (3rd row folded) are roughly 35" deep (avg) x 40" wide x 33" wide = 46,200 cu. in. = 757 L, and about 1,500L with 2nd and 3rd row folded. That's amazing the Rondo has 33% more cargo volume, it looks like a smaller vehicle.

I'm in no rush yet. Maybe give myself a year to see what's out by then. My Mazda 5 has 155,000km right now, currently with a trade in value of $7,000 (appraised by two different dealers). Pretty good for a non Toyota with high kms if you ask me. I'm not too scared of the mileage yet, as it approaches 200,000km the serious car shopping will start. I used to drive 300,000km+ vehicles no problem, but with kids it's a different story, especially with upcoming Banff and California road trips.

[airbalancer]

holy crap...i didn't realize how big the Ronda was...if only it still didn't look like a 5 year old design, perhaps they would sell more...i think a redo is up next.

I thought it was a 20 year old design

[DKaz]

28 year old design.

[dirtyjeffer]

28 year old design.

hey, i remember the Eagle line of vehicles...that said, i wouldn't say the Rondo looks 20 or 28 years old, 5-6 tops...but hey, let's be honest here, this is what you really want:

http://ca.autoblog.com/2011/11/23/vw-goes-allroad-with-new-passat-alltrack/#continued

[conwelpic]

holy crap...i didn't realize how big the Ronda was...if only it still didn't look like a 5 year old design, perhaps they would sell more...i think a redo is up next.

the first generation Carens (Rondo) was released in 1999 it first came to North America as a 2007 model.  It is long overdue for a make over.  Here's a inside shot of my previous vehicle, a 2008 Rondo, it had a lot of room for the size of the vehicle and inspite of its old design and even though Mazda 5 upgraded there's for this model year, the Rondo sales are still ahead of them.  No problem carrying 8' boards.

[DKaz]

My wife and I have decided to seriously look at an Orlando after all... we're going to take one on a day long test drive to see if it works for us and if we like it, we're going to opt for a manual transmission 1LT with vehicle interface package. Hopefully the seats are ok for me. Thighs going numb will quickly kill the sale. We would need to order a manual, not a single dealer has a manual Orlando anything in stock.

Our 5 is getting up there at 155,000km and I feel we'll get the best trade in value at this point, and we don't want two cars.

You are obviously doing better than me. You get 9.7 L/100km with Mazda5 while I get 1-1.5L/100km more with my Mazda3 2.3L.
During my week-long test with Orlando I averaged 11.8L/100km therefore there is a good chance you'll get about the same fuel economy you get now with your Mazda5 (or maybe slightly better?).
Drive it like it's ment to be driven and I'm certain you'll do much better than me.

Thanks! I like to push it once in awhile but I haven't done it lately. I've been a very grandma like driver. I do get ~11L/100km tanks in the city usually though. I just did 6.7L/100km on a highway trip, my car's rated 8.1L/100km on the highway. I overfilled the tank a little not believing I used that little gas. lol.

[DKaz]

Hey guys... Chevy wants a deposit prior to me taking it out for an extended test drive? Is this common practice? I've never been asked to provide a deposit before.

[Juke1]

Not uncommon regardless of brand, tell them to pound salt.  Go to a small town dealership for better customer treatment.

[Mike]

Hey guys... Chevy wants a deposit prior to me taking it out for an extended test drive? Is this common practice? I've never been asked to provide a deposit before.

Depends where you are.  Being in the lower mainland I can see car theft is a real concern.  Same thing happens here; good luck getting an all day test drive from a GTA dealership you haven't already built up a relationship with without a deposit.

[walk1]

I believe this vehicle is made for Chevy by Daewoo, if past history is any indication eg Aveo, Epica I would be concerned about the long term quality. I don't see the value proposition either, close to $30k? In the GTA a Grand Caravan with Canada Value Package has been advertised as low as $16995. Pay a little more and you get a V6 Sienna with similar real world fuel economy.  In 2010 Mazda cleared out the 5s for $15999 (you had to add A/C) and in 2011 they were being cleared out at $16999.  Makes the 2012 seem a little pricey.  If they bring out a SkyActiv 5 there could be some pretty good clearout deals on the 2012s

[Danno001]

Seems to me the fuel economy is not where it should be with these new direct injected 4 cylinders. I would expect a 30%+ improvement in fuel used over my van. The past month my 2005 Uplander with 200,000 kms achieved 11.1 L per 100. 50/50 Mix of highway and city. Winter tires and temps as cold as -33. I am not light on the throttle pedal.