HHR SS almost spoils a Jaguar XF SV8 review

[racy]

Worth reading every word.

[minnfang]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

But GM had best watch out for Jaguar, as CTS may get mauled by that British kitty.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with the people saying that there needs to be another engine option for the CTS. I vote for dropping the LS3 into it for use at home, and giving it a turbo 3.6L HF-V6 for export.

Does anyone know if the 3.6L HF-V6 is beefy enough to reliably support a proper turbo application (400HP)?

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by minnfang

The more I think about it, the more I agree with the people saying that there needs to be another engine option for the CTS. I vote for dropping the LS3 into it for use at home, and giving it a turbo 3.6L HF-V6 for export.

Does anyone know if the 3.6L HF-V6 is beefy enough to reliably support a proper turbo application (400HP)?

Well, the 2.8L turbo is at 255HP. Supposedly Saab's gotten it up to 300HP or so. So a 3.6L turbo should have no problem getting up to ~400HP.

I would say no to the LS3 in a mid-high range CTS, if Cadillac can get ~400HP from a 3.6L turbo.

[zete]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

Well, the 2.8L turbo is at 255HP. Supposedly Saab's gotten it up to 300HP or so. So a 3.6L turbo should have no problem getting up to ~400HP.

I would say no to the LS3 in a mid-high range CTS, if Cadillac can get ~400HP from a 3.6L turbo.

I'd vote for the turbo 3.6 simply because most of the engine components will be shared with the normally aspirated 3.6l. Plus, bragging rights with a 400hp v6 vs. the v8 in the BMW would be welcome.

You know, a 3.6l turbo in the CTS Coupe would nicely differentiate it.

[T-Type]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

Well, the 2.8L turbo is at 255HP. Supposedly Saab's gotten it up to 300HP or so. So a 3.6L turbo should have no problem getting up to ~400HP.

It's an architecture question, not a displacement question. In theory you could get 400+ out of a 2.8L. The question is whether the block and other components can reliably handle that much power. I don't know the answer on the 3.6L, but if I had to guess, I'd say it can take 400 hp. Engines today are designed beefy for NVH reasons. A byproduct of that is that motors are a lot stronger than they used to be.

[GMforME]

All I know is the 2009 Cobalt SS lapped the ring in 8.22 and is the current sport compact record holder there. Right above it is a whole bunch of High dollar super fast stuff starting with a 996.

[mbukukanyau]

Originally Posted by zete

He should just be glad it wasn't a CTS-V as it'd just blow past him like he was standing still.


Still, a video of their expressions would have been priceless.

Its not a fair comparo.

Originally Posted by mgescuro

Well, the 2.8L turbo is at 255HP. Supposedly Saab's gotten it up to 300HP or so. So a 3.6L turbo should have no problem getting up to ~400HP.

I would say no to the LS3 in a mid-high range CTS, if Cadillac can get ~400HP from a 3.6L turbo.

Were they not consindering a Twin turbo V6 for UK and Down under for their CTS V becouse its imposible to build a RHD a V8 CTS?

[b4z]

I think some of you aren't giving the HHR SS the credit it deserves.
From what I've read it is a very capable vehicle, and Chevy has put a lot of development miles getting it right. I imagine that if the HHR had another 40-50hp, the XF might not have walked it. Some aftermarket turbo mods will have these things running 300+hp in no time.
And I bet if it had been a 300hp WRX or EVO they wouldn't have pulled away.

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by b4z

I think some of you aren't giving the HHR SS the credit it deserves.
From what I've read it is a very capable vehicle, and Chevy has put a lot of development miles getting it right. I imagine that if the HHR had another 40-50hp, the XF might not have walked it. Some aftermarket turbo mods will have these things running 300+hp in no time.
And I bet if it had been a 300hp WRX or EVO they wouldn't have pulled away.

Yeaaaa... but 300HP in a FWD car?? It might have been able to keep up and hang with the XF, but ultimately, the XF would win out still because it's RWD.

[chevyboy88]

LOL he called it a trucklet

never heard that before

[Wolfman01]

Originally Posted by zete

Man, it would have been funny to see their expressions. It looks like that little truck from GM is going to be quite popular.

And, man, would I like to see a CTS with a turbo DI 3.6. That would be an awesome engine-car combo!

As to the Jag, I like what Jaguar's done with the XF, though I still don't like the nose treatment.

My favourite part of the article are these two quotes:

And proof, if nothing else I suppose, that suspension sorting at the Ring really must work if it can turn a cartoon Chevy wagon into a would-be XF hustler.

There are no pesky Chevy laundry vans to out-run on the way back, but the XF almost begs to be hustled and leaned on.

I just love that little turbo-4 GM's been putting into select cars. An amazing little engine.

I've been contemplating replacing the Aveo with something more fun once I get my current priorities taken care of, and no longer have this long commute. I test drove an Astra yesterday, and like it ALOT. However, that HHR SS would be a hoot, and still give me a level of "practicality" that has kept me from pulling the trigger in the past on a fun vehicle.

[DemonKnightDK]

what would the power levels of that 2.0L Turbo be with out the turbo? 190? 185? could be a good base engine followed by the 2.2. or a good top-line engine in the aveo... could it bumped up to say 2.5L with a turbo hitting maybe 300-315HP and used in mid level cars like Malibu or even as a base for a price special camaro? )no leather, crank windows, basic suspension, no nav, blue tooth, or MP3 or IPOD, just a basic point A to point B econ version...)

[TimR]

I think what this shows is just how good all cars have become. Handling, braking, chassis development, engines have all reached a point where there is no clear cut obvious winner in any contest. Notice that people will argue endlessly (and stupidly IMHO) how a certain car is .01 seconds faster round the 'ring...like they'll ever even come close to using that potential.

Once at speed, its very hard to "lose" someone...usually acceleration is where you pull away with big powerful engines, any car will go fast if you give it enough time and once there is a matter of gearing and energy usage. That said, the fact they were on a twisty track, and that the HHR did so well against a much more expensive and prestigious car is simply awesome!!

[blkwrxsti]

Originally Posted by GMforME

All I know is the 2009 Cobalt SS lapped the ring in 8.22 and is the current sport compact record holder there. Right above it is a whole bunch of High dollar super fast stuff starting with a 996.

The way I read this article:

Jaguar CHIEF ENGINEER driving his baby for the 3 millionth time, manages to put some distance between himself and an "...American motoring hack". If that is really the vernacular for writer, presuming it's someone who may not have had many laps at the ring, almost certainly finds himself (herself) behind the wheel of an HHR SS for the first time, and is possibly concerned about being banned from any future events hosted by GM - why wouldn't you put your money on the chief engineer "winning" (assuming the hack was trying the whole time).

I'd say this is not the most clear cut comparison we could hope for. I'd be curious what this matchup would be like in controlled conditions. Anyone know what the XF's ring time was during development? I'm just saying that it's not inconcievable that a properly set up 260 hp wagon pushing around 3100 lbs might beat a luxury tuned 410 hp, 4200 lb sedan.

I also think the jaguar looks a little like a lucerne mated with a monte-carlo (with some regal cues thrown in). I sure hope TATA dumps this thing before people start associating them with crappy cars.

[genjy]

Originally Posted by DemonKnightDK

what would the power levels of that 2.0L Turbo be with out the turbo? 190? 185? could be a good base engine followed by the 2.2. or a good top-line engine in the aveo... could it bumped up to say 2.5L with a turbo hitting maybe 300-315HP and used in mid level cars like Malibu or even as a base for a price special camaro? )no leather, crank windows, basic suspension, no nav, blue tooth, or MP3 or IPOD, just a basic point A to point B econ version...)

A econo-tuned NA 2.0L i4 would probably do about 130-140HP on 87 octane. The SVT Focus' 2.0L made about 180HP, and that was on 91 octane. A ~200HP 2.0L i4 would be like the RSX-S and S2000's i4s. Very aggressively tuned and rather expensive.

An turbocharged 4 cylinder with 300HP would mean lots of turbo lag. It wouldn't be appealing for a mainstream daily driver that focuses on drivability like the Malibu.