I don't know but sure hope so.

Ford mentioned Fusions getting 30 MPG city. I don't if that's for the hybrid or with the Ecoboost with twin turbos and direct injection. I have heard of the dual clutch transmission making it into the Ford fleet starting around 2010-11.

 

Okay, I don't think GM should be dogged for offering the 3.6HF and 6-speed auto -- after all, everyone on this forum was screaming at them for NOT offering it in the previous gen Malibu. That said, they should offer more fuel efficient options -- be it the 3.5L VVT w/ 6-speed auto, BAS+ with 6-speed, or the upcoming 1.4L turbo.

 

It's easy to see how the elimination of the torque converter and its slippage could result in big improvements in efficiency.

I've never heard that GM has a dual-clutch program going ... can anybody elaborate? Would be great if GM wasn't late for the next big transmission technology again, as it was with 6-speeds.

 

Even with a turbo, I think a 1.4L is a little small for a Malibu. A turbo 1.6L or 1.8 turbo would be a GREAT engine for the 'Bu. Figure between 180-200 hp and high-30s highway MPG. I think you're going to see small-displacement turbo fours popping up like weeds in the backyard in the next few years.

 

wow this is impressive. Hopefully everybody will offer something like this. Passat and 37mpg amazing.

 

original article in German

Volkswagen matches 1.4 TFSI engine to DSG for the Passat for 37mpg



Will this combination be part of the Epsilon II roll out? Or will be still be offered a 17/26 mpg oversized V-6 with a traditional transmission?

Is that a rhetorical question?

You know GM will just put the 3.6 V6 and 6sp auto in it and call it a day. See that PA Dweller, I'm not making excuses for GM. GM just doesn't get it. Maybe they will, (and this new, 1.4L TC Aveo replacement has my hopes up) but I sincerely doubt they're that forward-thinking.

 

The 2.0L SIDI Ecotec is much more likely for the upper trim. I have a feeling the 3.6L DI will only be for luxury vehicles and crossovers in the coming years. The base engines for economy cars will be the 1.4L DI.

 

I hope they offer this in the GTI or something similar. I'm done with GM. They don't know how to make small cars. With gas prices rising, they should really try to rollout their compact cars now. I believe they are the only ones with out a redo in such a long time. Its time for a new Cobalt, a G4, and possibly a small Buick. Thank god the new Astra is already in the works. Hope it is up to par with the new Insignia/Aura.

 

[[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]


Will this combination be part of the Epsilon II roll out? Or will be still be offered a 17/26 mpg oversized V-6 with a traditional transmission?

I believe the combination of 4 cylinder with 6 speed automatic begins production this month on the Malibu:

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f13/2008-malibu-4-cylinder-ltz-coming-soon-61520/

I can't imagine it is not part of the EP II plans.

 

original article in German

Volkswagen matches 1.4 TFSI engine to DSG for the Passat for 37mpg



Will this combination be part of the Epsilon II roll out? Or will be still be offered a 17/26 mpg oversized V-6 with a traditional transmission?

What about the four cylinder models they make for the current Epsilon. Obviously these will at the very atleast be improved for Epsilon II.

Who cares if they have a big V-6 so long as they offer fuel efficient fours alongside. Everybody wins in that case.

Do you think Opel Epsilon II's are going to be inefficient? How about Saab's?

I'm not saying anyone should make excuses for GM...but there's no reason to bash without cause...especially when you don't know what powertrains they plan to offer.

Check your negativity against reality.

 

I'm not saying anyone should make excuses for GM...but there's no reason to bash without cause...especially when you don't know what powertrains they plan to offer.

Check your negativity against reality.

Do you think maybe that is why I asked a question?

Negativity: Malibu hybrid gets 24/32.
Reality: VW is offering a Passat that gets 37 mpg.

 

Would the 1.4L Turbo if used in a Malibu require premium fuel? With a 30-40cent difference between reg and premium thats a sizable gap in the a fuel bill over the life of a car. I know I would consider it.

 

I'm sure it does. I know my Saab turbo requires premium fuel...yesterday filled totally up and it cost me $60. Most I've ever spent. It use to be more around 30

 

Sounds cool, but...

We need to ask ourselves the following questions before bashing GM (and others):
Will it be available in the US?
If so, what will it cost?
Will it provide a decent driving experience in a mid-sized car?

Just sayin...

 

I am not sure we are ready for these engines in the US. Consider these facts: The Honda Civic sold in Europe can come with a 1.4l engine. We only get the 1.8. The Suzuki SX4 can be had with a 1.6l engine in Europe and Asia. We only get the 2.0. The Toyota Corolla can be had with a 1.5l engine in Japan and Europe, we only get the 1.8 and I believe we are the only market that can get the 2.4. The Suzuki Forenza (GMDAT) can be had with a 1.6l engine in Europe, we only get the 2.0. Our Yaris only gets the 1.5l engine and not the 1.0 or 1.3 available internationally.
We like more powerful engines. Unless we shrink the size of the cars we drive, we will not shrink too much the sizes of our engines.

 

We like more powerful engines. Unless we shrink the size of the cars we drive, we will not shrink too much the sizes of our engines.

But we also like putting presents under the tree. Seriously, Americans will adapt to 0-60s in the 8-10 sec range quite easily. It wasn't too long ago that a 0-60 in 7 sec was very fast. For those who put a priority on performance, that option will be there as well.

We like SUVs, we like fast cars, and we like lavish vacations, lots of jewelry, etc - but that doesn't mean we all get it. High performance cars just went the way of 2 carat diamond rings.

 

So... Let me see if I got this right - this car costs $41,000 and comes with a 1.4L engine. The article says nothing about how fast it can get out of its own way (I'm guessing it can't).

SO you decide - hey let's compare the fuel economy of this pig Passat to the biggest engined EP 1 I can find. That sounds like an odd approach in itself. But then you decide, there's no way the EP II will measure up unless it offers this exact same setup. Since GM has already implied that they are looking at the 1.4L ecotec for their midsize cars - I'm guessing this is another "why can't GM do DSG" rant.

FYI - in case you want to compare apples to apples - the current Passat gets no better than 29 MPG on the US HWY schedule. Thier 3.6L with A6 gets the same 17/26 that you poo-poo the current Gen Malibu for.

On the other side of the pond, the Opel Vectra gets anywhere from 5.6 to 6.4 l/100 km (extra-urban) fuel economy rating. I picked that cycle, since the article you quoted clearly left that out. I'll point out that Opel Vectra's are already available with anything from a 105 hp 1.6L engine to a 2.0L turbo ecotec that makes 175 hp while getting better economy than this Passat claims.

Sounds like the "problem" is all in your head...

original article in German

Volkswagen matches 1.4 TFSI engine to DSG for the Passat for 37mpg


Will this combination be part of the Epsilon II roll out? Or will be still be offered a 17/26 mpg oversized V-6 with a traditional transmission?

 

The 2.0 TFSI Passat starts at $27,900. Where are you getting that this 1.4L version will cost $3100 more?

 

I'm gonna laugh when GMs new 4.5L Diesel gets the trucks to 30 HWY and 22 CTY

On to the cars, i've got a 1.6L engine in a car that curb weights around 2700lbs and let me tell, ya 100 TQ and 105 HP is down right scary merging onto the hiway from a stop. It dosent make power till around 3500-4000 RPMs... I honestly wish more emphasis would be put on making TQ at 1500-2500 RPM.. I like the TQ curve of steam engines, 1000 TQ at like 1500 RPM but only 200 HP at 3500 RPM..

why dont we persue the development of steam engines? (seriously, wouldnt that be the most economical engine? no harmful emisions, no reliance on fosil fules, etc..)

OH and GM is developing an 8 Speed trans. probably a DSG at that. 1.4L Diesel with 8 speed DSG, can we say 50MPG....

 

very nice, an under powered car, plus VW's reliability and great value. Or lack there of. However, the technology leadership is great for VW. I hope GM prevent being late to the party.

 

I dunno, I'm all for economy, but that sure seems like a pretty teensy engine for a car that big. I know it's turbo and all, but 1.4...just seems like it would have a severe lack of giddy up.

 

It's crazy how VW announces a midsize car that can get 37mpg...and GM announces a new Cadillac that has a 556 hp engine. Though I like that Cadillac is moving further in the luxury category...I'd just rather hear that GM is working on midsize vehicles that are getting 30mpg or better in the city.

 

I think I will wait until it gets to our shores before I count its MPG. Volkswagen has a record of under delivering here in the US.

 

VW has promised big mpg's before only to come up short. It will have to be tested here first before they can be believed.

 

original article in German

Volkswagen matches 1.4 TFSI engine to DSG for the Passat for 37mpg


Will this combination be part of the Epsilon II roll out? Or will be still be offered a 17/26 mpg oversized V-6 with a traditional transmission?

The 1.4L will almost never reach US shores, unless VW all of a sudden cares about CAFE. All the diesels are comming here however.

And another thing to note is that GM apparently has a 260hp 3.0L vb6 prepared for the CTS wagon. I'm curious to see if it will replace all the non-DI applications of the 3.6.

 

I, for one, am excited that ALL automakers are now looking at much smaller engines with big power. This will reduce our fuel usage and allow us to keep the same big cars we have always loved.

One big question though. Having been a big fan of Volvos with turbos, I know that they have a limited life AND that you MUST cool them down to prevent bearing breakdown. Will the extra cost of turbo replacement & maintenance make the gas savings useless?

 

As far as VW gas mileage is concerned.

Our boy now has a VW Toureg. He averages 12 to 14 mpg. The size of a Trailblazer the gas mileage of a 3/4 ton Suburban.

A few years ago our friends bought a new VW Jetta. They had SO many problems with it that they traded it in on a 1991 Caprice wagon. The Caprice got the same overall gas mileage as their 2.0 4-cyl Jetta. On a side note, after 4 years the Caprice was sold for the same amount they bought it for and only needed minor repairs, alternator & a power window motor, during the course of ownership.

Personal experience from 20 years ago is why SO many complain about the American brands. Much has changed in the past 20 years. Both of these are VWs built within the past 7 years. There is good reason for me to believe that VW still makes junk.

 

Personal experience from 20 years ago is why SO many complain about the American brands. Much has changed in the past 20 years. Both of these are VWs built within the past 7 years. There is good reason for me to believe that VW still makes junk.

No, VW still makes junk. Not too long ago I was researching a used VW TDI Jetta as a possible commuter vehicle. I went to a VW forum and said I was looking for something reliable, something that won't leave me standard. They said except for the engine the car is high maintenance. Expect many things to break they told me. Maybe not a big deal for them since most of them seem to work on their own vehicles, but someone like me who takes it to the dealer or a mechanic for maintenance/work it would be a problem.

I always heard VW were less reliable but I didn't think they were that bad.