Real fuel consumption and economy logo

Chevrolet Aveo 2003 fuel consumption

Chevrolet Aveo from 2003 to 2008 real fuel consumption according to user reports is approximately 27% higher compared to advertised fuel consumption. For petrol engines real consumption is in average 21% higher, but for diesel engines is approximately 32% higher. Since 2003 the Chevrolet Aveo average difference between owner-reported real-world fuel consumption and declared fuel economy has been significantly higher than average.

Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values

YearGasoline cars
All carmakersChevrolet Aveo
2003+6%+23%
Show all years
2004+7%+23%
2005+8%+23%
2006+9%+23%
2007+11%+23%
2008+12%+23%

See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Chevrolet Aveo.

2003 - 2008

Chevrolet Aveo 2003 hatchback fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines30.1 MPG
7.8 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines29.2 MPG
8.1 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+12%

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Chevrolet Aveo 2003 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.6 liters per 100 km or 8% less fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Chevrolet Aveo with automatic transmission consumes around 3.3 litres per 100 km or 45% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

The best real fuel economy in its class according to user reviews of all the modifications has modification with 1.4 petrol engine and manual transmission (Chevrolet Aveo 2003 1.4i 16V 94 HP). However, of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Chevrolet Aveo with 1.4 petrol engine and automatic transmission (Chevrolet Aveo 2003 1.4i 16V 94 HP), but despite this 60% of other similar cars have better fuel economy figures.

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.1 liter petrol engine
Chevrolet Aveo 2003 1.1 1.2 72 HP manual 35.6 MPG
6.6 l/100km
34.1 MPG
6.9 l/100km+5%
1.4 liter petrol engine
Chevrolet Aveo 2003 1.4 83 HP manual 30.9 MPG
7.6 l/100km
29.8 MPG
7.9 l/100km+4%
Chevrolet Aveo 2003 1.4i 16V 94 HP manual 30.9 MPG
7.6 l/100km
29.0 MPG
8.1 l/100km+7%
Chevrolet Aveo 2003 1.4i 16V 94 HP automatic 33.6 MPG
7.0 l/100km
22.0 MPG
10.7 l/100km+53%
1.6 liter petrol engine
Chevrolet Aveo 2003 1.6 106 HP automatic 22.8 MPG
10.3 l/100km
2003 - 2008

Chevrolet Aveo 2003 hatchback fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines39.6 MPG
5.9 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines31.6 MPG
7.5 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+31%

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Chevrolet Aveo 2003 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.5 liters per 100 km or 8% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars of other manufacturers, the Chevrolet Aveo advertised fuel economy is among the best, beating more than 80% of other cars, but according to available user reports on actual consumption, real fuel economy is among the 20% worst in its class.
Of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Chevrolet Aveo with 1.4 petrol engine and manual transmission (Chevrolet Aveo 2003 1.4 MT 101 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.2 liter petrol engine
Chevrolet Aveo 2003 1.2 MT 84 HP manual 42.8 MPG
5.5 l/100km
32.7 MPG
7.2 l/100km+31%
1.4 liter petrol engine
Chevrolet Aveo 2003 1.4 AT 101 HP automatic 36.8 MPG
6.4 l/100km
Chevrolet Aveo 2003 1.4 MT 101 HP manual 39.9 MPG
5.9 l/100km
30.5 MPG
7.7 l/100km+31%

* - Difference between advertised and user reported fuel economy has been calculated taking into account only those car versions for which information is available both on the fuel consumption specified by the manufacturer and reported by users.

User-reported fuel consumption may not accurately represent all users' experiences due to variables such as driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances. Thus, it should not be relied upon as a representative indicator.