[smith7629]

Not sure why the number of cylinders would equate to more or less longevity when proper maintenance is performed. I've seen V8's last less than 100,000 miles but my single cylinder lawnmower has been going strong for 20 years. LOL not exactly the same, I know, but it's just a chance either way.

I should also clarify the size of the engine too; 1.2L 3 cylinder turbo must be one hard working engine. I feel it’s undersized for the task; which to me translates to greater risk of wear and tear.

 

[1958carnut]

I should also clarify the size of the engine too; 1.2L 3 cylinder turbo must be one hard working engine. I feel it’s undersized for the task; which to me translates to greater risk of wear and tear.

That is a good point. Too small a power plant will have to work harder and have more stress, & wear and tear on it than something slightly bigger. Edit: and thus it wont get the economy that they want/think it should .

 

[AWHoden]

I should also clarify the size of the engine too; 1.2L 3 cylinder turbo must be one hard working engine. I feel it’s undersized for the task; which to me translates to greater risk of wear and tear.

I don't see that as an issue. All the reviews say that the power is ample, and it doesn't sound strained even with four people on a hill (according to one reviewer at Motor Trend). I don't see why it would be working harder, it's the gearing that makes the difference, not the number of cylinders or the displacement. The engine will make the power it is designed to make, it's not "working harder", it's doing the work of a larger engine with fewer parts, that's efficiency. I3's are just as reliable as I4's, they just do the same work with greater efficiency.

It's not like a 1.0L Geo Metro engine in a Silverado, it's a 137hp engine in a 3200 pound car, just like the 1.4T, 153hp engine that was in the 2800-3300 pound Chevrolet Cruze. Feels like a "bigger is better" Ameicanism, Europe has been using 3-cylinders for decades. We're just used to our lumbering, large displacement V8's (which, instead of increasing efficiency to make more power, we simply made bigger to make more power).

 

[NHRATA01]

I should also clarify the size of the engine too; 1.2L 3 cylinder turbo must be one hard working engine. I feel it’s undersized for the task; which to me translates to greater risk of wear and tear.

Eh, so about 15-20 years ago your entry level econo car probably was a ~120hp 1.8ish liter 4 cylinder. Honda made them last pretty long, and also spun them to the moon (7k). So now you have a ~137hp 3 cylinder but you're using boost instead of revs, and with more modern engine design elements. The Small Gas Engines get a forged crank and rods which is a lot more robust than say, the cast parts used to use in the old 60 degree V6s that at one time made similar power with much more displacement.

 

[smith7629]

Eh, so about 15-20 years ago your entry level econo car probably was a ~120hp 1.8ish liter 4 cylinder. Honda made them last pretty long, and also spun them to the moon (7k). So now you have a ~137hp 3 cylinder but you're using boost instead of revs, and with more modern engine design elements. The Small Gas Engines get a forged crank and rods which is a lot more robust than say, the cast parts used to use in the old 60 degree V6s that at one time made similar power with much more displacement.

I do like hearing they have forged crank and rods. Hopefully the turbos have great oil flow.

 

[6cylinder]

That makes it more a waste. Econo cars don't break cranks and rods.

 

[AWHoden]

That makes it more a waste. Econo cars don't break cranks and rods.

Why is increasing engine longevity a waste?

 

[NHRATA01]

That makes it more a waste. Econo cars don't break cranks and rods.

Not at all a waste. Like the poster I responded to noted, you've got a physically smaller engine now making the same power as one about 25% larger in displacement and cylinder count. That means your cylinder pressures to produce that power are higher. Having smaller but stronger parts will only help longevity. And your turbos now have priority oiling plus water cooling for durability.

 

[6cylinder]

I'd still take the American displacement. I've seen enough too small or high strung, engines burning oil, and getting worse real world economy than the larger motor.

That said, I think the Trax will sell well enough. Some are over defensive with it.

 

[AWHoden]

I'd still take the American displacement. I've seen enough too small or high strung, engines burning oil, and getting worse real world economy than the larger motor.

That said, I think the Trax will sell well enough. Some are over defensive with it.

It's over 100hp per liter, if it were a V8 we'd be losing our minds in the OTHER way.

 

[6cylinder]

Feel free to lose your mind. But it's supposed to be a value/economy car.

 

[AWHoden]

Feel free to lose your mind. But it's supposed to be a value/economy car.

I'm not losing my mind, I'm commenting on how some people are crying that it's underpowered, it's only 3 cylinders, the engine lacks displacement, yadayadayada. At 114hp per liter, it's rather good.

I KNOW it's supposed to be a value/economy car and I don't care that it's a 1.2L 3-cylinder. Actually, I take that back, I want one BECAUSE it's a 1.2L 3-cylinder. My other choice was a Nissan Rogue but that variable compression "too many moving parts" tech worries me a bit and I don't like CVT's.

Can't have it outperforming its bigger brother the Trailblazer so of course they put the cheaper to make 1.2L in it instead of the 155-hp 1.3L. The 1.5L they use in China/South Korea is capable of getting the car to 60 in 7.9 seconds which is only 0.6 seconds to 1.0 second faster (depending on where you look), so it's not really worth the added expense for the buyer to have that engine choice. For an entry level affordable car I think it's perfect. The roominess, tech, safety features and premium features (the big touch screen, the heated seats and steering wheel) will sell this car. At this price, no one is really looking at 0-60 times or thinking of doing dyno runs.

 

[FenwickHockey65]

I would guess the Chinese-spec engine also isn't rated for US emissions.

 

[6cylinder]

I'm not losing my mind, I'm commenting on how some people are crying that it's underpowered, it's only 3 cylinders, the engine lacks displacement, yadayadayada. At 114hp per liter, it's rather good.

I KNOW it's supposed to be a value/economy car and I don't care that it's a 1.2L 3-cylinder. Actually, I take that back, I want one BECAUSE it's a 1.2L 3-cylinder. My other choice was a Nissan Rogue but that variable compression "too many moving parts" tech worries me a bit and I don't like CVT's.

Can't have it outperforming its bigger brother the Trailblazer so of course they put the cheaper to make 1.2L in it instead of the 155-hp 1.3L. The 1.5L they use in China/South Korea is capable of getting the car to 60 in 7.9 seconds which is only 0.6 seconds to 1.0 second faster (depending on where you look), so it's not really worth the added expense for the buyer to have that engine choice. For an entry level affordable car I think it's perfect. The roominess, tech, safety features and premium features (the big touch screen, the heated seats and steering wheel) will sell this car. At this price, no one is really looking at 0-60 times or thinking of doing dyno runs.

Have you ever been a Ford salesman? Trailblazer has the smaller footprint, so it should start cheaper. Trax and Envista look nice enough to differentiate them with e-assist at least. Ideally onto a yes cheap bigger displacement motor. No awd option is starting to look like a handicap.

 

[AWHoden]

Have you ever been a Ford salesman? Trailblazer has the smaller footprint, so it should start cheaper. Trax and Envista look nice enough to differentiate them with e-assist at least. Ideally onto a yes cheap bigger displacement motor. No awd option is starting to look like a handicap.

A MINI has a smaller footprint, should it be cheaper? A Corvette has a smaller footprint than a Tahoe, should it be cheaper? It's not about the size, it's about the production cost and component set that determine the price of a vehicle. The Corvette uses higher-tech building processes, more hands-on production methods and better tech/materials than a Tahoe, so it costs more even though it carries fewer people, weighs less and has that "smaller footprint" you seem concerned with. The Trailblazer also has far more options available such as a bigger engine, more transmission gears, AWD, panoramic roof and soft-touch IP materials, therefore, a larger build component set begats a higher price. No, it shouldn't be cheaper simply based on the "footprint".

Why is no AWD a handicap? Works for the Hyundai Venue, Nissan Kicks, KIA Soul and other FWD-only cars, which is what Trax/Envista are competing with, not the Sportage, CR-V, Rogue, etc. Not everyone wants or needs AWD and, as a replacement for the Cruze/Sonic/Spark, the Trax is just fine. It's a crossover wagon, not an SUV.

Size=price is not a good argument.

 

[smith7629]

For the first time I drove a 3 cylinder 1.3L in a Trailblazer a few days ago. My wife and I were both impressed with the NVH of the engine and drivetrain. It was a smooth application of adequate power. I'm a bit more open now to getting a Trailblazer for my daughter this Fall/Winter.

 

[AWHoden]

For the first time I drove a 3 cylinder 1.3L in a Trailblazer a few days ago. My wife and I were both impressed with the NVH of the engine and drivetrain. It was a smooth application of adequate power. I'm a bit more open now to getting a Trailblazer for my daughter this Fall/Winter.

I'm going to test drive a Trax this weekend, I imagine the NVH is similar to the Trailblazer, was the one you drove a CVT or the 9-speed automatic? I don't care for CVT's so I'm glad the Trax has a normal automatic transmission.

For an entry level vehicle, I think it's fine. I don't understand our obsession with more power, lower 0-60 times and snap-your-neck torque delivery. We don't need EVERY car to be a rip snorting performance car. Would we really rather put our kids in a car with a lot of power as their first car? No. Those that say a car is dangerous because it doesn't have enough power probably shouldn't be driving if the only thing keeping them (and us) safe is mo'power. lol

 

[6cylinder]

A MINI has a smaller footprint, should it be cheaper? A Corvette has a smaller footprint than a Tahoe, should it be cheaper? It's not about the size, it's about the production cost and component set that determine the price of a vehicle. The Corvette uses higher-tech building processes, more hands-on production methods and better tech/materials than a Tahoe, so it costs more even though it carries fewer people, weighs less and has that "smaller footprint" you seem concerned with. The Trailblazer also has far more options available such as a bigger engine, more transmission gears, AWD, panoramic roof and soft-touch IP materials, therefore, a larger build component set begats a higher price. No, it shouldn't be cheaper simply based on the "footprint".

Why is no AWD a handicap? Works for the Hyundai Venue, Nissan Kicks, KIA Soul and other FWD-only cars, which is what Trax/Envista are competing with, not the Sportage, CR-V, Rogue, etc. Not everyone wants or needs AWD and, as a replacement for the Cruze/Sonic/Spark, the Trax is just fine. It's a crossover wagon, not an SUV.

Size=price is not a good argument.

I agree not everyone needs awd.
"start cheaper" doesn't mean options. Good for Trailblazer.
I lean to seeing Corvette as a separate brand. Tahoes are really nice still.
You named a bunch of A-to-B vehicles. Trailblazer/Trax fit.
MINIs aren't good on gas for the size, has a smaller turbo motor.

 

[AWHoden]

I agree not everyone needs awd.
"start cheaper" doesn't mean options. Good for Trailblazer.
I lean to seeing Corvette as a separate brand. Tahoes are really nice still.
You named a bunch of A-to-B vehicles. Trailblazer/Trax fit.
MINIs aren't good on gas for the size, has a smaller turbo motor.

But not everyone wants AWD either, right? By emphasizing "needs" with italics, it implies that everyone wants it although they may not need it. Not true. I don't want it, nor do I need it. The fuel economy penalty, performance penalty and "more stuff to break" penalty far outweigh that one or three times a year it might, MIGHT be used.

"Start cheaper" does mean options when it comes to available component sets for vehicle builds. The lower number of available options (read, "parts") means a lower number of possible build configurations which means lower costs which means lower price/higher profit margin. The reason fewer options keeps the price down is the manufacturer doesn't have to design, test, build/buy, stock and install as many parts in so many different configurations. The Model T was cheap because they were all built to the same spec right down to the color. No choices means only one set of parts which means less expenditure by the manufacturer which means they can sell it for less.

MINI's get 29 city/38 highway. How is that not good for their performance level? Again, this fixation with size is getting in the way. Fuel efficiency isn't solely dependent on vehicle size, although it can play a part. Gearing and engine design have far, far more to do with it.

Painting with a too-large brush, these comments are.

 

[6cylinder]

I was implying some people want awd.
I know the Mini Cooper. Disappointing real world mpg. Geared tall, so it's the engine.
Trailblazer and Trax are sibling vehicles. Awd and 3 engine/trans combo choices exist already. Questionable choices.
Auto mfg's aren't afraid to price options to pay for themselves.
Trax will do okay because of styling and space usefulness for price.
-Prediction: it won't be a strong draw for the Sonic and Cruze people.
Chevy doesn't now have a better body for mpg, counting Malibu as too big.
Are you "Ed"-ing me now? ...Really?