How Much Power Does The Chevrolet Malibu Turbo Deliver?

That's four tenths faster than the Regal GS with -11 hp and -35 lb-ft.

Daggone 300-lb curb weight difference...

shame they didn't add leg room to the car.........

turbo should be powerful enough, just too bad the numbers weren't a little better for the spec sheet shoppers.

shame they didn't add leg room to the car.........

turbo should be powerful enough, just too bad the numbers weren't a little better for the spec sheet shoppers.

They intentionally cut the rear leg room...shortened the wheelbase by about 5 inches. I looked at one closely at Barrett-Jackson in January, the rear door openings seem really tight...

I finally got into a new Malibu. There is things I like better than ours and things I am not crazy about.The one I was in was an eco that in person really was not that thrilling in color or interior. after just driving a Regal turbo I would have a hard time buying the Malibu.

The sad part is I am not a Ford fan but the new Fusion is a looker inside and out. The price will be key on that one. It could really hurt the Malibu. It is not a case the Malibu is a bad car it just was not as good as I had hoped. I will wait to see a different color non Eco one to see it it will change my mind.

This 2.0 must be the new Eco Turbo II. With a non SS st this HP makes me wonder if we will soon see a boost to the GS and the hinted too SS. Could we be seeing a 300 HP turbo soon? A few others in this class are now just reaching over 300 HP.

While this might not be a home run hit that some wanted, this Turbo and size will meet many families needs.

I for on would never consider this car as once I get in the front seat, no one can sit behind me. The shortness they did and tight rear will make it a challange for anyone 6' tall or taller.

Excited by the high output and the great gas mileage.

As a matter of technical accuracy, there is no way peak torque can be 260 lb-ft and available from 1,700 rpm to 5,500 rpm. By definition, 260 lb-ft @ 5,500 = 272 hp @ 5,500 rpm. If max hp is 259, then torque at 5,500 rpm must be less than or equal to 247 lb-ft at that engine speed.

As a matter of technical accuracy, there is no way peak torque can be 260 lb-ft and available from 1,700 rpm to 5,500 rpm. By definition, 260 lb-ft @ 5,500 = 272 hp @ 5,500 rpm. If max hp is 259, then torque at 5,500 rpm must be less than or equal to 247 lb-ft at that engine speed.

Remember that GM has a sneaky habit of pitching low HP numbers at first and then upgrading them. Kinda like how the LLT went from 304 to 312 hp without any engineering improvements whatsoever.

That may be true, but 259hp (max hp) along with 260 lb-ft @ 1,700~5,500 rpm is not a mathematical possibility. 260 * 5500 / 5252 = 272.28

I would assume the numbers are just fake press release marketing blather, but the 'SAE-certified' implies they are real...interesting, I didn't realize there was a correlation between hp, RPM, and torque....

I would assume the numbers are just fake press release marketing blather, but the 'SAE-certified' implies they are real...interesting, I didn't realize there was a correlation between hp, RPM, and torque....

Yea I really did not get the full grasp between the three either and in looking up online, there are many ways of this being explained but did find this site that seems to have one of the best explanations on this and it toally syncs with what diwightlooi mentions above.

Check it out: http://www.epi-eng.c..._and_torque.htm

Rock on Torque!!!

I would assume the numbers are just fake press release marketing blather, but the 'SAE-certified' implies they are real...interesting, I didn't realize there was a correlation between hp, RPM, and torque....

Yea I really did not get the full grasp between the three either and in looking up online, there are many ways of this being explained but did find this site that seems to have one of the best explanations on this and it toally syncs with what diwightlooi mentions above.

Check it out: http://www.epi-eng.c..._and_torque.htm

Rock on Torque!!!

After thinking about it, that was probably one of those formulas I learned in high school AP Physics 25 years ago but haven't used since then...

A simple way to look at it is that an engine produces torque. Torque is measure in Foot-Pounds. A Foot-Pound is exactly that -- the amount of twisting force you will experience if you hang a 1 pound weight off a 1 foot long crank. Horsepower is simply Torque x RPM divided by 5252. It is a measurement of the rate of application of torque.

Let's say a hand crank produces constant 1 foot-pound of torque. One that is being turned at 20 rpm is twice as "powerful" as doing so at 10 rpm. Why? Because you are applying that 1 foot-pound of torque at with twice the number of repetitions over a given amount of time.

The amount of torque an engine is capable of producing is described by the torque curve. At every point along that curve it maps to a horsepower figure equivalent to the torque at that point times the rpm at that point divided by 5252. At 5252 rpm, torque and horsepower is exactly the same figure. At engine speed above 5252 rpm, a foot-pound of torque is worth more than a foot-pound of horsepower. Conversely, at any point below 5252 rpm each foot pound of torque produces less than 1 hp.


If we hold gear ratio constant, a car will always accelerate the hardest at when torque is highest. Horsepower is important because it allows you to take advantage of lower gearing. With a gearing of say 2:1 200 lb-ft becomes 400 lb-ft. However, the engine has to make two turns for each turn of the wheel. At a gearing of 4:1 200 lb-ft becomes 800 lb-ft but the engine has to make 4 turns to spin the wheels once. Therefore an engine making 200 lb-ft at 6000 rpm can be geared to created twice as much torque as an engine that makes 200 lb-ft at 3000 rpm while turning the wheels at a given speed! It is for this reason that horsepower is important -- it is a measure of how fast the engine can spin while making a given amount of torque.

That may be true, but 259hp (max hp) along with 260 lb-ft @ 1,700~5,500 rpm is not a mathematical possibility. 260 * 5500 / 5252 = 272.28

You may have just mathematically made my point.

</noscript>

Pontiac Solstice GXP 260 lb-ft ( 353 Nm ) @ 2500 - 5250 rpm SAE CERTIFIED Saturn Sky Red Line 260 lb-ft ( 353 Nm ) @ 2500 - 5250 rpm SAE CERTIFIED Chevrolet HHR SS ( Automatic transmission ) 222 lb-ft (301 Nm) @ 1650 rpm SAE CERTIFIED Chevrolet HHR SS ( Manual transmission ) 260 lb-ft (353 Nm) @ 2000 rpm SAE CERTIFIED Chevrolet Cobalt SS ( Manual transmission ) 260 lb-ft (353 Nm) @ 2000 rpm SAE CERTIFIED

This is the info provided when the LNF came out. The HHR and Cobalt were also listed up to 5250 RPM too.

If there any question on how these numbers were determinded I would contact BIll Duncan GM Driveline Engineer. He is the guy behind much of the magic with this engine.

All I can say is I have driven and owned many torque monsters over the years and the pull on this little engine is in more of the RPM range than any of them. Most built to a peek at some point but my engine has a great deal of pull at low mid and higher RPM.

I am at 315 FT LB and GM claims with the upgrade it starts around 1700 RPM and went to 5250 like these ratings here.

I would think if these numbers were false someone would have called GM on it by now. It never takes the perfromance community to call BS on engine output. May LNF's have made it to the dyno on many of the forums and I have yet to see anyone dispute GM HP or Torque numbers yet.

Not matter true or not to understand this engine it needs to be driven. I was not a believer in this power plant till I drove one.