Leaderboard

Looks like Uncle Buck's ride, but in better shape.

That takes at most 2 rotations of the crankshaft. At cruise with the engine turning at 2000 rpm, that takes 2/2000 * 60 = 0.06 seconds.

Because NA engines get from 0 to, let's say 60% torque, at part throttle in about 0.1 second. The delay is from the intake manifold and runners downstream of the throttle body going from a greater to a lesser amount of vacuum as the throttle opens. With a turbocharged engine, everything that happens in an NA engine also happens. But that only gets you to the part throttle torque output of an otherwise identical NA engine. Next, the exhaust energy from the increased air/fuel charge starts spinning the turbo up. This causes the compressor to start bringing the intake ahead of the throttle to a higher pressure than atmospheric pressure. This is cut down to a fraction of that pressure by the throttle and fed into the engine. A cycle of every greater charge density, increases in exhaust energy and even greater charge density occurs until it is arrested by the waste gate opening and bleeding part of the exhaust around the turbine. This process takes a while. At part throttle, it often takes about 3~5 seconds. Compared to 0.1 the second it takes on an NA engine that feels like eternity. Also, it has a rubber band like effect where the throttle is constant and the engine rpm is not increasing much, but torque builds independently of rpm and throttle movement.

Right, and going from brake to part throttle ALWAYS induce even more lag because you have a much slower ramp up of the exhaust energy available to drive the turbo.

The new 2.7T (L3B) 4-cylinder engine makes 310 hp @ 5,100 rpm with 348 lb-ft @ 1,500 rpm. According to its design engineer, this is the fastest spooling turbo GM ever made with its dual volute housing enabling it to go from braking to full torque in about 1 second. That is considered VERY VERY RESPONSIVE. But, if you cannot feel a 1 second lag, there is something very wrong with your butt.

Congrats to @ccap41 for getting engaged! Not that she would have said no.

You're such a wiener... Spotted this a Audi 100 on the way to work today. Classic plates, classic driver.

Aside from what is mentioned in the article, it would be utterly pointless to have 700+ HP in a vehicle with the aerodynamic properties of your average brick. Just dumb IMO.

Promaster Hellcat would help Amazon deliver faster..

Yeah, a friend of mine just got his Android P update the other day too. I've had Android P since it was released.

I have the lesser one because I have one of the original Encores before the more powerful motor was an option. GM geared it so that it is actually pretty peppy around town... so 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, are pretty short and give good off-the-line squirt. It's the 0-60 where the car sucks.... but in normal traffic I have no problems keeping up. BUT... it's laggy.... there is definitely a "Step, one, two, GO" to the engine. My grandmother's Regal 2.0T isn't much different except that it has a better 0-60. Something I've been trying to explain for years. Partial throttle means partial exhaust charge means slower turbo speeds.

yes I'm not against Turbo-4s in the right place... like in this CLA where it is very appropriate. But they are not usually a good V6 replacement in heavier applications, and in places where a full-size V6 will fit, I'd rather the V6. In something like an Acadia or Traverse, you're just into the boost too much to give any fuel economy benefit plus there is the driving lag. Even in something smaller like the Camaro, there is a reason the V6 is the buy-up engine and not the Turbo-4.

You know I drive a Turbo-4 every day, right?

Turbo-4s don't downshift? It's unlikely that there is any transmission tuning difference in the GMs between a 2.0T and a 3.6V6 in say the Acaida.

Interesting that it's badged 100, IIRC the mid 80s ones like that were still badged as 5000 in the US. Haven't seen an Avant in decades probably.. Edit--looks like they switched to 100 badging in the US in 1989.

That wasn't my point. My point was that Ford may be the next company PSA looks at, even if they get rebuffed again. A merger of equals between the two wouldn't be the worst of ideas.

For those who would like to read more about the 2.9 liter I6 that is coming.

It has about as perfect a torque curve as one gets for a non-turbocharged engine..... this idea that you have to "rev the hell out of it to get any torque" is absolutely false, and here's the receipt to prove it.

Everything has more torque than the GM n/a 3.6...

Let me introduce you to the wondrous world of the aftermarket ?

That is more torque than the GM 3.6 V6. Also this is the mid-level, there is a 400 hp coming. I think this CLA looks a lot better than the previous one, but if were shopping this and an A-class sedan, I would just go with an A-class sedan and save the money to have essentially the same car.

Done

There is the turbo I6 coming

This is Mitsubishi. They did not spend the $$$$ necessary to disallow engine drone noise in the cabin. If you want a quiet cabin, buy a Buick. Otherwise, nice job Mitsubishi.

video of the Peugeot 508 in Atlanta : first part : 19m55 - 20m45 second part with Peugeot staff : 29m30 - end of the video

Some one has to use the Tesla emission credits since they do not need them, might as well make some money on it. Good business sense here. Keeps us in the Hellcat game while also supporting green tech auto's.

Power Wagon Time. What year? I have no clue but figure 70's?

I want a PSA-Renault/Nissan-FCA- Tata/JLA super merger.

Hey...this body shell is still sexy AF. I like the Model S and all, but the Model S is really showing its age right about now. The Model 3 is fresher. Even if its smaller and similar looking to the Model S, the Model S is long in the tooth the design department. And that is even if you like the Model 3 design or not... But the Karma Fisker/Revero still looks good. Both came out about the same time, non? The new body shell would be a great idea for Bob Lutz to use and update his company's model for a Blackwing V8. Or really go medieval and ditch GM and get a Hellcat crate engine. Or really really go bat$h! crazy and get the Hellephant crate engine for it... But I wished the Revero was a 100% battery electric vehicle more than anything less at this point...

Who saw a start-up in a repurposed GM plant with a rebadged Lotus eventually upseating the c-class in sales??

Smaller wheels & better integrated flares, then build it- I agree! Needs to have a solid wall bed option, too. I like this a 1000 times better than the Wrangulator.

How about a supercharged version? The reason why I ask is because Ford just released a supercharged version as you know. You mentioned it. The Mustang has 3 flavours of V8s in the Mustang. 1. Over 700 horsepower on a supercharged 5.2 liter V8 . Possible torque? Maybe Im hoping over 600 ft.lbs because this flavoured Mustang is not only a Chevy Camaro ZL1 competitor for track and hp numbers alike, but Hellcat muscle car competitor as well...and torque is needed for that. 2. A 520 horsepower 5.2 liter "flat plane crank" V8 for track. Naturally aspirated. The torque might be a little lower on this, but its a high revver. This flavoured Mustang really has no equal because this particualr Mustang is more European flavoured than the other two pony cars. 3. 480 horsepower and 420 ft.lbs on a 5.0 liter naturally aspired. These are 3 DISTINCT and UNIQUE V8 versions of the Mustang. Unlike the same ole shyte V8s from GM and Dodge offerings but just add a supercharger on the V8 and let the horsepower and torque fly difference on their versions. Mopar and GM go about it differently in distinguishing the "personalities" of their different versions of the Challenger and Camaro respectively, but the engines in these trims are basically the same "personality, but with a steroid approach to distinguish them. Ford's approach to the engine versions are truly different from one another. How would a turbo benefit Ford's V8 hierarchy the way it is now? To add it to the Voodoo? Well, the "flat plane crank" at 5.2 liters the way Ford has done it might have reach its potential and that is why they chose the more conventional American way of doing a V8 with the supercharged 5.2 on the GT500. To ecoboost the 5.0? That would probably increase the horsepower rating beating out the Voodoo. But what benefits that approach? The GT350 is special for many reasons. And 520 NATURALLY ASPIRATED horses is but one (of many) of those reasons. (European flavoured is another) I agree, an ecoboosted V8 SHOULD have been made by Ford...but for the Ford GT... Ford wanted to toot toot toot the ecoboost banner, maybe an ecoboosted V8 would have been ideal. Maybe not. Maybe Ford should have put an ecoboosted 2.7 liter V6 or take the tranverse 3.5 ecoboosted Taurus SHO, make, it longitude and sell the ecoboost V6 moniker BOTH on GT AND the Mustang...and make that engine into a 450 V6 horsepower affair. In other words, a DETUNED Ford GT motor for the Mustang... And had they did that, increase the 5.0 to 480 HP as it is now for 2019 back then 2-3 years ago... But I dont see how an ecoboosted V8 would benefit Ford for the Mustang as of now. If Ford decides to stop producing the GT350, then and only then would I see a need for a turbo V8.

Naturally. The suspension would want a little bit of a firm up too. The base model suspension is tuned more for comfort.

The venerable, revered Slant 6!

BMW never stopped making I6es... so Mercedes is just following them. Regal, Lacrosse, XTS, XT5, Enclave, Acadia, Impala, Traverse, Fusion, Taurus, Flex, Edge, Explorer, MKX, MKZ, Continental, S90, XC90, CLA AMG45, RLX, MDX, Maxima..... off the top of my head... all have 300+ available horsepower in a FWD chassis..