GM 4-cylinder Models Hit 40% of Retail Sales in June, Doubling 2007 Figures

[eaton53]

Originally Posted by PeterPuck

The Focus is just fine, people. The two-door Cobalt is a better-looking vehicle, for sure.

In fact, the two-door Cobalt is one of the best-looking small cars on the road.

But it's NOT a better vehicle than the Focus. Far from it. Also, keep in mind that the Cobalt routinely scores among the worst in owner-satisfaction surveys -- along with the Uplander et al. Owners tend to like their Focuses.

The Cobalt crushes the Focus.

It held (maybe still holds) the Sport Compact FWD slolom record and just won Road & Track's Fast and Frugal comparo. Car and Driver has the Cobalt as the fastest compact you can buy for under $20K.

The Focus? It's so uncompetitive that they don't even bother putting it in comparos.... an old, multiple times refreshed car that they cheapen more with each refresh and sell on price. They only ever made one good one, the SVT, which Ford discontinued when they foolishly got rid of SVT.

[igotzzoom]

Originally Posted by TruckMan

I've got a hypothetical question for everybody to educate myself a little on these engines... Does a 200hp 4-cyl with Turbo get that much better gas mileage over a 200hp V-6? And what is the retail price difference between the two engines? I'm just curious as to how much is actually being saved with these little engines.

My friend and I got into the same conversation the other night. I was commenting how my Protege5 only got about 23 combined, whereas the old 3800 V6s or even the LS2s would get about that or better.

Basically, it's a combination of factors. Vehicle weight, transmission, power output, power characteristics, and engine load. My experience with turbo fours is they get great mileage if you're just cruising and you drive them mellow, but if you're at full boost all the time, foot-to-the-floor, they're as bad if not worse gas hogs than big V8s. I remember when I was testing out a Mitsu Evo a few years ago, I averaged about 14 mpg! Granted, I was driving it the way I thought an Evo should be driven, but still, that's pretty bad mileage for a four-banger.

I think the theory behind a turbo four-banger is that it'll be a super-efficient fuel sipper when you're just cruising, but with the turbo, offer power comparable to a six when you want it. Kind of a "dual mode" engine, if you will.

[eaton53]

Originally Posted by igotzzoom

I remember when I was testing out a Mitsu Evo a few years ago, I averaged about 14 mpg! Granted, I was driving it the way I thought an Evo should be driven, but still, that's pretty bad mileage for a four-banger.

It wasn't just you... the Evo gets horrible mileage.
A Pontiac G8 GT gets better mileage even though it's much larger and more powerful.

[tripowergto]

Originally Posted by kodos78

The 2.0 DI Turbo in the Cobalt SS and HHR SS is a fine motor, and arguably class leading. 2.0L making 260hp and 260lb-ft torque?

Now if GM had a small RWD coupe like the 1 or 3 series using it.... oh baby!

They will. Pontiac will offer the 2.0 DI Turbo Solstice coupe early 2009

[FBODYRULES]

its good to hear the G6 is doing well, go pontiac!

[44 mpg by 2010]

Originally Posted by TruckMan

I've got a hypothetical question for everybody to educate myself a little on these engines... Does a 200hp 4-cyl with Turbo get that much better gas mileage over a 200hp V-6? And what is the retail price difference between the two engines? I'm just curious as to how much is actually being saved with these little engines.

Since we are talking about engines, fuel economy, and sales, what would be the impact of the "under 2 liter" Euro type turbo diesels (to provide the torque and lower fuel consumption) here in the US?

Say, like those in GM's Vauxhall/Opels? Or Ford's Duratorq TDCi?
http://www.autocar.co.uk/SpecsPrices...AndPrices.aspx
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/

[Ming]

Originally Posted by TruckMan

I've got a hypothetical question... I'm just curious as to how much is actually being saved with these little engines.

Sounds a bit more like a rhetorical question (from a Truck fan), but I'll bite. (I kid, I kid)

In fact, I'll take it a size down to make it even more relevant -- the upcoming GM 1.4L Turbocharged 4 vs. a 2.4L naturally aspirated 4-cyl.

If you manufacture a fat, bloated, heavily cladded and un-aerodynamic mini-SUV crossover thingy that weighs far more than it should, jacked up on stilts to look more like a truck to show off its faux-by-four capabilities....(when a sedan-based wagon would hold the same 5 people and the same cargo more efficiently)...then the answer to your question is "not much".

But seriously, TruckMan, I doubt GM has the luxury to jack around with theoretical gains right now. They have to think that this plan, this bet on a very small (for the U.S. market) turbocharged engine will work out for them -- their future survival depends on it.

As far as the 4-cylinder turbos vs. a standard V6? Well, I did notice that some of the Supercharged 4-cyl. were getting comparable fuel economy with naturally aspirated, cheaper Ecotecs, which surprised me.

Think of the boost as something that is a bonus, and if you cruise around normally you can get much better fuel economy. Trust me though, as a supercharged 3800 owner, having that power on tap can kill your fuel economy if you have a lead foot! I think a lot of it is about how you drive.

But back to the turbocharged 1.4L 4-cylinders.

50% of Japan's market is awash in turbocharged 3-cylinder 660cc engines -- about half of the displacement (and one cylinder short) of GM's new 4-cyl.

Surely GM can make it work if the Japanese can run half of their car market on an engine displacement half of GM's (and often not even turbocharged).

They just need to get the weight down wherever they can.

But your original question was more of an apples to apples horsepower comparison between 200hp V6 and 200hp turbo I4. In that case, again - how heavy is the car? If I'm driving a car the size of a Grand Prix, I'd probably want the V6 just for the low end power. If I was driving a Cobalt, a V6 would seem overkill, and wasteful, especially when idling around town.

[44 mpg by 2010]

Originally Posted by Ming

But your original question was more of an apples to apples horsepower comparison between 200hp V6 and 200hp turbo I4. In that case, again - how heavy is the car? If I'm driving a car the size of a Grand Prix, I'd probably want the V6 just for the low end power. If I was driving a Cobalt, a V6 would seem overkill, and wasteful, especially when idling around town.

What would happen if they were the small Euro type turbo diesels like the Ford Duratorqs or those used in GM's Vauxhall/Opels?

These engines are delivering significant torque along with low fuel consumption. Ford and GM/Opel/Vauxhall currently have over 70 machines in Europe rated between 42/51 and 58/69.6 mpg(US/Imperial) combined cycle by VCA.
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/sea...lConSearch.asp
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/
http://www.autocar.co.uk/SpecsPrices...AndPrices.aspx

[RSW]

Originally Posted by nsap

Engine wise? I would say the 2.2L VVT ECOTEC is probably one of the best on the market now. 150 HP and fuel economy numbers that match or better the best-in-class numbers in all configurations is pretty good.

I must be missing something. I just compared the Cobalt to its three largest competitors and it was slightly worse than all three in fuel economy. IF you opt for the XFE version (which is no longer an apples-to-apples comparison) then the Cobalt is solidly mid-pack. Someone set me straight here.

I admit that learning the Cobalt could even be configured in such a way as to be mid-pack rather than bottom-tier was a a surprise to me because I've always thought of GM small cars as among the worst, with the Cobalt and Astra as examples which are totally uncompetitive with Japanese models.

I do hope that GM puts a little more thought into something other than SUV's, and from what I am reading it seems like they will be. With things like the Honda Insight and European Fords on the horizon, it is hard to imagine GM being competitive with anyone other than Chrysler.

Being a GM fan, I just hope that I've overlooked something about the current Cobalt which validates your claim that it is best in class.

[RSW]

Originally Posted by GMusa

Good.. now build a 300hp trubocharged 4-Cylinder and put it in the next-gen G6 Sedan GXP with XWD to do battle against the STi/Evo!!. So i can sell my Evo for an American AWD performace car!

Just what GM needs in a market of skyrocketing fuel costs - to ditch SUV's only to tackle the issue of how to make even small cars really, really inefficient too.

[Ming]

Originally Posted by 44 mpg by 2010

What would happen if they were the small Euro type turbo diesels like the Ford Duratorqs or those used in GM's Vauxhall/Opels?

These engines are delivering significant torque along with low fuel consumption.

I've advocated that before, especially the new GM Daewoo diesels that kill the "diesel engines are too expensive" argument. They are only about $1,000 Australian dollars to add to the Holden Epica (Or was it the Viva?), for instance.

But diesels in cars in the U.S. have a couple of things going against them, including strict emissions regulations (I believe they exceed EuroIV specs in some states), Ultra-low Sulfur diesel that currently costs more than gasoline (significantly more in some places), and automakers that are hesitant to offer them and consumers hesitant to buy them due to decades-old biases.

For diesel to take off, I think it really needs a sort of Prius like miracle car that is widely advertised as such, and a tad of hybrid technology couldn't hurt, either. A Prius-type vehicle that goes 70MPG on Diesel would do that.

Expanded use of BioDiesel would also help with the appeal to the Green crowd.

[TruckMan]

Originally Posted by Ming

Sounds a bit more like a rhetorical question (from a Truck fan), but I'll bite. (I kid, I kid)

In fact, I'll take it a size down to make it even more relevant -- the upcoming GM 1.4L Turbocharged 4 vs. a 2.4L naturally aspirated 4-cyl.

If you manufacture a fat, bloated, heavily cladded and un-aerodynamic mini-SUV crossover thingy that weighs far more than it should, jacked up on stilts to look more like a truck to show off its faux-by-four capabilities....(when a sedan-based wagon would hold the same 5 people and the same cargo more efficiently)...then the answer to your question is "not much".

But seriously, TruckMan, I doubt GM has the luxury to jack around with theoretical gains right now. They have to think that this plan, this bet on a very small (for the U.S. market) turbocharged engine will work out for them -- their future survival depends on it.

As far as the 4-cylinder turbos vs. a standard V6? Well, I did notice that some of the Supercharged 4-cyl. were getting comparable fuel economy with naturally aspirated, cheaper Ecotecs, which surprised me.

Think of the boost as something that is a bonus, and if you cruise around normally you can get much better fuel economy. Trust me though, as a supercharged 3800 owner, having that power on tap can kill your fuel economy if you have a lead foot! I think a lot of it is about how you drive.

But back to the turbocharged 1.4L 4-cylinders.

50% of Japan's market is awash in turbocharged 3-cylinder 660cc engines -- about half of the displacement (and one cylinder short) of GM's new 4-cyl.

Surely GM can make it work if the Japanese can run half of their car market on an engine displacement half of GM's (and often not even turbocharged).

They just need to get the weight down wherever they can.

But your original question was more of an apples to apples horsepower comparison between 200hp V6 and 200hp turbo I4. In that case, again - how heavy is the car? If I'm driving a car the size of a Grand Prix, I'd probably want the V6 just for the low end power. If I was driving a Cobalt, a V6 would seem overkill, and wasteful, especially when idling around town.

No, this was a serious question. I'm trying to understand why so many people think a hyper Turbo 4 would be better than a little efficient V6 - comparing apples to apples (hp to hp). Seems to me that the V6 would be much cheaper to produce/sell, cheaper on maintenance, quieter while driving, produces slightly more torque, and seems to get approximately the same mileage, especially in larger cars. I can understand the 4 if size/fit is an issue. I'm just trying to understand the benefits. It appears that the only benefit is for smaller cars where weight is an issue.

[Ming]

Originally Posted by TruckMan

No, this was a serious question. I'm trying to understand why so many people think a hyper Turbo 4 would be better than a little efficient V6 - comparing apples to apples (hp to hp). Seems to me that the V6 would be much cheaper to produce/sell, cheaper on maintenance, quieter while driving, produces slightly more torque, and seems to get approximately the same mileage, especially in larger cars. I can understand the 4 if size/fit is an issue. I'm just trying to understand the benefits. It appears that the only benefit is for smaller cars where weight is an issue.

Here's your answer in a nutshell: Perception.

These statements from GM and Ford management - from the article - say it all:

General Motors estimated it could have sold an additional 8,000 to 10,000 vehicles in June if it had better availability of four-cylinder models.

"Where the consumer has a choice between four and six cylinders, we have certainly seen significantly lower days-supply for fours," he said.

Sure you COULD use some kind of lower displacement 3.5LOHV, like an improved 3100 (without all the reliability issues), but it would still be a V6.

Bigger is not always better. If you had the same car, with the same horsepower, similar fuel economy, and price --- and one had a V6 and the other an I4? In this time of 4 dollar gasoline, I'd bet many would opt for the 4-cylinder simply because the V6 would come off as wasteful.

Argue torque and low RPMs and highway fuel economy all you want -- unless it's a BAS hybrid, the concept of 6-cylinders - 2 more than needed - pumping away at the stoplight or the drive in window is a deal killer.

A couple of years ago Suzuki sold a GM Daewoo vehicle called the Verona. It had a very small displacement DOHC Inline-6 co-developed with Porsche, and did not offer a 4-cylinder engine. They thought that marketing it as a 6-cylinder would have appeal, despite it having only slightly more power than some 4-cylinders on the market, and more torque than horsepower.

Didn't quite work out for them in the end. Perhaps more is not always better --- and probably more so for the Suzuki buyer, or someone who thinks - correctly or not - that if the car only offered a 4-cylinder they could get a better deal.

Last but not least, where are you driving? A 4-cylinder might seem "hyper" if you are doing 80 on SH290 for 80% of your commute. But where I live, surrounded by twisty turny country roads and cops around corners, I don't get the chance to do "hyper" much.

[TruckMan]

Originally Posted by Ming

Here's your answer in a nutshell: Perception.

These statements from GM and Ford management - from the article - say it all:

General Motors estimated it could have sold an additional 8,000 to 10,000 vehicles in June if it had better availability of four-cylinder models.

"Where the consumer has a choice between four and six cylinders, we have certainly seen significantly lower days-supply for fours," he said.

Sure you COULD use some kind of lower displacement 3.5LOHV, like an improved 3100 (without all the reliability issues), but it would still be a V6.

Bigger is not always better. If you had the same car, with the same horsepower, similar fuel economy, and price --- and one had a V6 and the other an I4? In this time of 4 dollar gasoline, I'd bet many would opt for the 4-cylinder simply because the V6 would come off as wasteful.

Argue torque and low RPMs and highway fuel economy all you want -- unless it's a BAS hybrid, the concept of 6-cylinders - 2 more than needed - pumping away at the stoplight or the drive in window is a deal killer.

A couple of years ago Suzuki sold a GM Daewoo vehicle called the Verona. It had a very small displacement DOHC Inline-6 co-developed with Porsche, and did not offer a 4-cylinder engine. They thought that marketing it as a 6-cylinder would have appeal, despite it having only slightly more power than some 4-cylinders on the market, and more torque than horsepower.

Didn't quite work out for them in the end. Perhaps more is not always better --- and probably more so for the Suzuki buyer, or someone who thinks - correctly or not - that if the car only offered a 4-cylinder they could get a better deal.

Last but not least, where are you driving? A 4-cylinder might seem "hyper" if you are doing 80 on SH290 for 80% of your commute. But where I live, surrounded by twisty turny country roads and cops around corners, I don't get the chance to do "hyper" much.

Hyper was in reference to the Turbo - more moving parts, higher rpms, etc. I deffinitely agree that a non-forced injection I4 gets better FE than a V6 (in most cases), but people have been ranting and raving about the Turbo I4. But "perception" is a perfectly legitimate answer to why a Turbo I4 over a small efficient V6 that gets the same mileage and performance. I tend to over-analyze certain physical/mechanicial aspects without considering the human/marketing side of car. If the Turbo I-4 sells more than a V-6 with exactly the same specs because of the allure of the I4, then it makes sense. It'll cost more, but you'll sell more.

[eaton53]

I admit that learning the Cobalt could even be configured in such a way as to be mid-pack rather than bottom-tier was a a surprise to me because I've always thought of GM small cars as among the worst, with the Cobalt and Astra as examples which are totally uncompetitive with Japanese models.

GM doesn't give away all their HP to gain a couple of mpg's. Examples:

The Corolla has 77% of the Cobalt 2.4's horsepower, but the Cobalt has 86% of the Corolla's fuel economy.
The Yaris has 60% of the Cobalt 2.4's horsepower, but the Cobalt has 80% of the Corolla's fuel economy.

Which ones are uncompetitive again??

And why Hondas are much better than Toyotas:
The Cobalt 2.4 has 86% of the Civic Si's horsepower, but the Civic has 92% of the Cobalt's fuel economy.
Pretty close, as long as if torque doesn't enter the equation.

And:
The Civic has 82% of the Cobalt 2.4's horsepower, but the Cobalt has 86% of the Civic's fuel economy.
Again, pretty close.