Wagoner gives Kalamazoo Newspaper details on 1.4L turbo

[Chaz_23]

That moronically-named Cruze better be one light car or accelerating onto freeway will be terrifying.

[FenwickHockey65]

45 MPG puts it into prius highway range at a few thousand less.
Once again proving that the prius is the ultimate waste of money.

[knicker26]

Will the Turbo 1.4 require premium fuel?

[Quickening]

I would guess so. Saab use to offer three engines in their 9-3 range. A 2.0t which had a turbo but did not require premium fuel, and then the 2.0T which does require premium. Of course the non premium fuel, got better gas mileage and was slower and eventually got cut from the line.

So it is possible to have turbo'd engine without premium fuel and might work wonderfully in the Cruze.

[Beau]

A tiny Direct Inection 4 cylinder like this could achieve upwards of 38 MPG, I doubt we'll ever see 40 MPG as they state, but close enough.

The only thing is, I don't anticipate this motor being able to handle more than 280 wheel torque. This motor is going to be built for fuel economy, and light reciprocating mass. Therefore it will not be a real strong tuner engine, however if they make the head flow well, you'll see people swapping out internals in NO time. It would be nice to have a cammed built bottom end people pushing 350 whp, and still getting 30+ mpg tooling around town!

[usa1]

Originally Posted by goblue

VW / Audi seems to be in the lead on fuel economy. DSG transmissions, DI turbos, supercharged-turbos, diesels in compact / midsize cars with DSG transmissions....

Hmm, they come in behind Chevrolet and 0.01 MPG ahead of Pontiac in this MPG survey.

Most Fuel Efficient Automakers List Released

Mark

[psece]

Originally Posted by t-rex

It shouldn't be. Volkswagen are getting over 200 horsepower out of their new TSI 1.4-litre.

Interesting powerplant, that new VW TSI. The higher models employ both a supercharger and turbocharger. Demand for the new engine is through the roof.

Highest I have seen is 170 horsepower to go into the Passat and that requires premium fuel at 20 to 40 cents more a gallon. I also haven't read anything to indicate that they are bringing it to the states anytime soon. But 4 dollars a gallon might change that....

I am willing to bet the VW TSI engine is a lot more expensive to produce than the GM Ecotec 1.4. Although, adding an electric motor and battery to get bottom end torque has to more expensive than a supercharger.

[big swede]

Originally Posted by Chaz_23

That moronically-named Cruze better be one light car or accelerating onto freeway will be terrifying.

Forget that it's cake. Someone mentioned putting it in the Malibu, now that's scary.

[tholland]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

45 MPG puts it into prius highway range at a few thousand less.
Once again proving that the prius is the ultimate waste of money.

That is what I've been thinking. This engine with BAS+ would be much simpler and cheaper than the Prius HSD while returning similar combined mileage... maybe even slightly higher highway mileage. GM could undercut the Prius with such a car and introduce the Volt not as a Prius fighter but as a superior offering as well it should.

[benroethig]

Originally Posted by TheWraith

if a lot of people do start migrating to smaller 4 cylinder cars, i'd expect to see a lot more widespread sales of stick. if people are really going to start making every penny count on gas mileage, people are going to start closely watching and realizing that automatic transmissions are much less efficient.

Manuals are more efficient but a pain in the rear end. I'd rather be focusing on the road and other traffic than what gear I should be in.

[Flyingbunnys]

Things I see with this are:
1. It has to be able to run on regular, if it's to be an economy engine.
2. It needs to start hitting dealers 2 years from now not just going into production.
3. It needs to be an automatic transmission, and it needs to have an option for auto when it releases.

Also autos are not necessarily less efficient than a manual transmission. That just happens to be the case with GM because they don't care to build an efficient transmission for their small cars.

And for those who disagree with that statement:
Honda Civic 5 speed Auto: 25/36
Honda Civic 5 speed Manual: 26/34
Toyota Corolla 4 speed Auto: 27/35
Toyota Corolla 5 speed Manual: 26/35
Ford Focus 4 speed Auto: 24/33
Ford Focus 4 speed Manual: 24/35

So why is it that the cobalt drops 2mpg on both city and highway?
Chevy needs a new efficient automatic transmission for its small cars. I'm going to guess that the 6-speed they have is to large and heavy for small cars or they would have used that by now. So if that is the case they need a new 4 or 5 speed asap.

Not to mention that the Focus is up for redesign when this engine is suppose to hit, and Honda won't be far behind.

[04Colorado]

I've never found driving a manual transmission to cause a problem with focusing on the road. Stereo, cell phone yes, but not a manual transmission.

[blkwrxsti]

Originally Posted by TheWraith

if a lot of people do start migrating to smaller 4 cylinder cars, i'd expect to see a lot more widespread sales of stick. if people are really going to start making every penny count on gas mileage, people are going to start closely watching and realizing that automatic transmissions are much less efficient.

3 problems

1. The way most people drive a stick, it's not more efficient - people don't drive the sticker.

2. Laziness is far more important to people than even 1 MPG. People would just get a slightly smaller car with an auto than a larger one with a stick, just like they've been doing for years.

3. If automatic transmissions are so much less efficient - explain to me the Cadillac CTS: 6-sp manual gets 16/25 (with or without DI) while the 6-sp auto gets 18/26, 17/26 if you want DI. Since I predict that you'll blame it on gearing, I'll point out that that performance is similar and so is the gearing:

http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en...8_6L50_MYB.xls

http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en..._Aisin_MV7.xls

[smokyn454]

Originally Posted by benroethig

Manuals are more efficient but a pain in the rear end. I'd rather be focusing on the road and other traffic than what gear I should be in.

Why are they a pain in the rear end? Because you have to depress a clutch and move your arm? OMG, you might have to actually do something physical. Put down your burrito and your cellphone because you have to actually drive the car.

Statements like yours only come from people who have never learned how to drive a clutch and are scared of them. Pay attention to traffic? Dude, when you drive a clutch, you don't look down at what gear you are putting it in. It just becomes second nature, you don't actually have to think about shifting once you learn how.

I am surprised that there isn't a study out to show that manual drivers actually pay more attention to the road than automatic drivers. Manual drivers actually have to pay attention to what they are doing. My 6-year old nephew could drive an automatic.

I wish the trend would be more manuals on the road, it might actually teach some people how to drive.

[hrcslam]

Originally Posted by blkwrxsti

3 problems

1. The way most people drive a stick, it's not more efficient - people don't drive the sticker.

2. Laziness is far more important to people than even 1 MPG. People would just get a slightly smaller car with an auto than a larger one with a stick, just like they've been doing for years.

3. If automatic transmissions are so much less efficient - explain to me the Cadillac CTS: 6-sp manual gets 16/25 (with or without DI) while the 6-sp auto gets 18/26, 17/26 if you want DI. Since I predict that you'll blame it on gearing, I'll point out that that performance is similar and so is the gearing:

http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en...8_6L50_MYB.xls

http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en..._Aisin_MV7.xls

The guy you replied to probably doesn't realize that GM is the largest supplier of transmissions in the world.