dwightlooi

But, that's not used for generating the EPA Highway mpg numbers. And, when was the last time you saw EPA "High Speed" mpg on the window?

LOL... the thing is that the programming is usually stock and the same as the delivered vehicles will have. However, the guidelines allow the operator to drive the vehicle as he deems safe and appropriate as long as he hits all the speed and acceleration benchmarks. Hence, it is for instance not a procedural violation to shift an auto manually for instance to put it in 6 when it normally is in 5, or to put it in M so as to prevent a kick down, as long as the consumer can also reproduce that series of actions. Whether they normally would is completely irrelevant. That's almost SOP! More sophisticated "cheating" involves having programming that recognizes a certain sequence of events and "adapt" itself to an upcoming EPA test. For instance, you may program the transmission to go into EPA gaming mode if the car is driven for 15 mph for 30 secs, shut off for exactly 75 secs, started and driven at a constant 5 mph for 2 minutes, shut off for 10 secs then started for 60 secs and off again. The car then goes into mpg gaming mode for a given amount of time before reverting to normal again. The chances of that happening in exactly that sequence in real life is essentially like the odds of hitting the lottery jackpot. And it is not exactly catastrophic or even particularly unsafe if it did.

The silly thing about EPA tests really, a very average dude can probably write a better test schedule that the EPA. I mean really... do you know just how stupid the procedures are? Let me give you a few facts that you may not be aware of. Do you know that... EPA City and Highway test course requirements do not exceed 11 miles in TOTAL distance driven? EPA Highway test never took a vehicle above 60 mph at an average of speed of ~48 mph? (Who drives like that?)* EPA City and Hwy Fuel Economy test DO NOT require that the HVAC system be functional EPA tests do not specify how the transmission needs to behave or be operated during the test? * Approx. 1/3 of the Highway test is driven between 40~50 mph, another 2/3rds is driven at 50~60 mph. You only kiss 60 mph three times during the entire 12~13 mins test and only for a couple of seconds. Not even the granny who always drive 5 mph under the speed limit on the right most lane on the freeway drives like that. I can go on & on. But you get the picture. Let me give you an example of a "common" trick in gaming the system. You gear the vehicle to deliver the lowest brake specific fuel consumption in 6th gear at 48 mph. 48 is the magic number because it is the average speed of the highway test. The car never really has "acceptable driveability" in 6th at 48mph, and the transmission programming never really shifts into 6th at that speed. But, but the purpose of the test, you manually force it into 6th. Nevermind that in real life the transmission will be in 5th at that speed and does not go into 6th until 63 mph and the test never takes you above 60.

Well, most drivers don't put E-10 in their car so why should anyone test with E-10 as a "standard"? As a matter of fact, using this fuel or that fuel is not particularly important. What is important is that everybody is using the same fuel during their tests. The problem with EPA numbers is two fold. The first being that EPA's defined cycles are not particularly reflective of typical driving habits of Americans (or any other market group for that matter). It is also completely separate from the standard used to determine CAFE contributions and/or European fuel consumption numbers. This has gotten slightly better over the years, but overall EPA numbers overstate mileage. IMHO, that is actually just fine as long as it is consistent. But it is frequently not. The second being that the EPA does not actually test the vehicles. Many people think that manufacturers send their cars to the EPA and they get official mpg numbers in return for their window stickers. That cannot be further from the truth. The EPA defines the test cycles and does not actually do any testing. There isn't even an independent 3rd party (like a UL or whatever) doing the testing. The manufacturers do their own testing and report their own numbers. They are supposed to base their testing strictly on EPA's test guidelines. But as it turns out, some flat of do not and others "game" the system by testing with with environmental preconditions that are not representative of typical situations.

Slipstream Drive The Slipstream Drive is primary propulsion pack for the Chevrolet Slipstream diesel-electric hybrid. It combines the most efficient internal combustion engine with innovative energy recovery measures to achieve a 75 mpg fuel efficiency target without the inconvenience of a plug in. The power train is also designed from the outset to be roughly half the cost of the Voltec powertrain – through halving the number of electric motors and quartering the battery capacity. The Slipstream drive is designed to be more refined than conventional diesel propulsion by eliminating idle operation of the diesel engine. The diesel engine is coupled directly to the 9-speed automatic transmission without a torque converter or clutch. It is technically in capable of idling in gear, initial acceleration from a standstill is always by pure electric power. The engine is always turning with the electric motor, just with or without its valves deactivated. At up to 50% throttle, the vehicle is operable in pure electric mode at up to 40 mph without activating the diesel engine. The elements of the drive train is as follows:- 1.8L Inline-3 Naturally Aspirated Diesel engine (71 bhp) Exhaust Turbine Generator (13 kWe) Directly coupled 9-speed automatic Transverse FWD transmission 72 bhp (54 kWe) Synchronous Induction Motor No reliance on Rare Earth Metals No Plug-in Requirement / No exotic Fuels Lower cost / Lower Mass (vs Voltec) 75 mpg (city) / 70 mpg (Hwy) Ecomax 1.8L Naturally Aspirated Diesel The Ecomax Diesel engine shares the same bore, stroke & cylinder spacing dimensions with GM’s 2.5L 4-cylinder Gasoline Engines although the piston and block designs are completely different. This permits shared production lines and tooling. A 2-valve per cylinder SOHC head with roller cam followers is used to minimize valve train friction. Natural aspiration and the 3-cylinder configuration are selected to maximize compression ratio and cruise (low load) efficiency over a turbocharged diesel engine. The exhaust is routed through an exhaust gas turbine which – instead of driving a compressor to increase output of the engine – powers a small generator which recovers the otherwise wasted exhaust energy as electrical charge for the battery. This forms a second source of “free” energy recovery, enabling an increase in fuel efficiency over hybrids reliant purely on regenerative braking. The turbine uses a variable vane geometry housing to allow for efficient low load generation as well as unrestrictive high rpm gas flow. Layout: Inline-3 Cylinder with counter-rotating balance shaft Valvetrain: Chain Driven SOHC 6-valve w/ Cylinder Deactivation Aspiration: Naturally Aspirated w/ Exhaust Turbine Generator Construction: Aluminum Block & Heads Displacement: 1843 cc Bore x Stroke: 88 x 101 mm Compression Ratio: 23:1 Fuel Supply: Direct Injected #2 Diesel Fuel Power Output: 71 bhp @ 4000 rpm Torque Output: 98 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm Generation Capacity: 13 kWe Maximum Engine Speed: 4200 rpm Synchronous Induction Motor The Slipstream Drive powertrain is equipped with a 54 kWe induction motor. An induction based design is selected over the more power dense and higher torque permanent magnet motor for three reasons. The first being its lower materials cost since it does not utilize expensive rare earth metals, and easier construction afforded by the elimination of magnetic forces during assembly. Secondly, because torque output – especially starting torque – is lower, it permits a transmission with lower torque capacity to be used for a given power output. Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, induction motors are more efficient at low output and loads because it is possible to vary core field strength. Type: 3-phase Induction Generator-Motor Generation Capacity: 54 kWe Nominal Efficiency: 92% Power Output: 72 bhp @ 4000 rpm Torque Output: 95 lb-ft @ 0~4000 rpm (Inverter Regulated) Electramatic 9E40 9-speed Automatic Transmission The 9E40 transmission shares the gear set and casing with the upcoming 9T40 9-speed automatic transmission. It is a transverse, FWD, design with axially located main shafts. Unlike a traditional automatic transmission, the Electramatic does not have a torque converter (or a clutch for that matter). The engine is coupled directly to the transmission input shaft and is incapable of idling. An electric motor is essential to the operation of the Electramatic transmission. At 400 rpm, cylinder deactivation is triggered to allow the engine to shutoff and freewheel without incurring pumping losses or compressional effort. Propulsion is purely electric from 0~500 rpm with the electric motor driving the vehicle and turning over the internal combustion engine. At input speeds above 500 rpm, the internal combustion engine may be started on demand by re-activating the cylinders and injecting fuel. Maximum Input Torque: 208 lb-ft Maximum Shift Speed: 4200 rpm Ratios: 9-forward, 1-reverse gears Ratio spread: 8.60:1 Battery The Slipstream Drive powertrain uses a battery roughly ¼ the size and weight of the Volt’s battery pack but uses the same chemistry and cells. The battery is housed under the central tunnel between the seats. The same Lithium-Manganese chemistry as the Volt’s battery pack is used for its excellent thermal stability and low cost (from the absence of Cobalt), however the Slipstream battery is only 4.1 kWh in capacity instead of 16.5 kWh. This is roughly the same as the Prius Plug-in Hybrid (4.4 kWh) and roughly 3 times that of typical parallel hybrids. For longevity, only 80% the battery’s true capacity is normally accessed. Theoretically, the battery has sufficient capacity to power the Slipstream for up to 8~12 miles on pure electric power, although extended operation on pure electric power is rare. Chemistry: Lithium-Manganese Oxide True Capacity: 4.1 kWh Normally Utilized Capacity: 3.3 kWh Mass: 112lbs (51 kg) Performance The Slipstream Drive is able to provide lively, if not exhilarating performance from the relatively lightweight Chevrolet Slipstream. The 4-passenger vehicle, built on the Delta A platform shares much of the architecture with the Chevy Cruze and Volt, but utilizes an aluminum unibody and composite exterior panels to achieve a curb weight of 2,800 lbs. A covered rear wheel well, slightly narrower rear track, full underbody tray, low resistance tires and golf-ball like dimples on the exterior surface allow for a aerodynamic co-efficient of 0.22 – which is between the EV-1 and the 1st Generation Honda Insight. Unlike most hybrids which have relatively small fuel tanks, the Slipstream has a relatively generous fuel capacity of 14.3 gallons – no less than most compact cars. The unrefueled range is a whopping 1000 miles; enough to drive from New York City to Jacksonville Florida on one tank of diesel fuel. This also means that a typical driver who drives 12,000 miles a year may see the gas station just once a month. Total Output: 143 bhp @ 4000 rpm Total Torque: 193 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm Electric Drive Output: 72 bhp @ 4000 rpm Electric Drive Torque: 95 lb-ft @ 0~4000 rpm 0-60 mph: 7.8 secs (2,800 lbs Chevrolet Slipstream) Unrefueled Range: 1000 miles (14.3 gallon diesel fuel tank)

I am not going to waste anymore time criticizing Displacement Taxes -- which does nothing to improve fuel economy or emissions. Legislators all over are more than capable of utter stupidity. The fact of the matter is that from a strictly technical standpoint -- from an engineering standpoint. Reducing displacement and adding forced induction is a horrible way of netting improvements in fuel mileage. And sometimes, it takes a pretty non-technical savvy publication -- like consumer reports to cut through the BS and simply present the facts. It doesn't really achieve a net reduction in fuel consumption and when it does the gains are so marginal (~0.5 mpg) that it's hardly worth the $1000~$1500 and added maintenance forced induction adds to the vehicle. If you are really serious about fuel economy, the formula is simple. Use an Atkinson cam grind (which reduces specific output by ~ 25%) Increase Displacement by 25% (to make up the loss) Reduce the cylinder count if without reducing displacement (going from 4 cylinders to 3) Reduce the number of cams and valves (going to SOHC or pushrods, and 2-valves per cylinder is a start) Use Direct Injection and as high a static compression as you can (approximately 15:1 for 87 octane Atkinson cammed engines) Do that and you'll net about 12~13% fuel economy gains over the baseline with no performance loss and no cost increase. You'll take a slight refinement hit (from the cylinder count drop) but you can mitigate that with a balancer shaft or engine mountings -- it's not unlike going from a V6 to an I5 or I4.

Actually, the reverse is true... When pushed (WOT) the efficiency of any engine delivering the same horsepower output is roughly the same. It takes X amount of fuel to be burned in Y amount of air to produce Z amount of power. It is when the engine is operating at low loads that differences are at their greatest. When cruising down the freeway at a steady 65 mph the engine only needs to produce 30~40 hp. The throttle plate is used to intentionally choke the engine such that no matter how well it breathes when unleashes it is always operating and a very low aspirational efficiency at cruise. Basically, the motor is sucking vacuum -- air at lower psi than atmospheric pressure. A smaller engine has the benefit of operating at a higher load and larger throttle opening than a bigger engine. A 1.0 engine capable of 70 hp may be operating with the throttle half open whereas a 6.0 liter engine may only be operating with a throttle that is 5~6% open. This has a direct effect on effective compression ratio because a nearly closed throttle makes the engine suck a higher degree of vacuum which means less molecues per unit piston displacement and less effective compression. This is the primary benefit of a small displacement engine and the primary benefit of say cylinder deactivation -- to allow the engine to operate with less vacuum. Compression is essential to good combustion efficiency and energy extraction from fuel. All less being equal, a 1.0 liter engine will be more efficient than a 2.0 liter predominantly because of this. The problem is that all else being equal a 1.0 liter engine also produces about half as much maximum power as a 2.0 liter. If you can accept this that's all well and good. And the 1.0 liter engine will be more efficient. However, if the objective is to produce the same approximate performance and power. Say 150 hp. A 1.0 liter engine is not going to give you that unless you do one of two things... you can rev the crap out of it or you can turbocharged the hell out of it. Now here it becomes interesting... High RPM 75 lb-ft @ 10,500 rpm = 150 hp You'll still be driving around with 75 lb-ft and probably peaking rather high in the rev range To make the car tractable you need to lower your gearing Lowering gearing directly impacts fuel economy negatively Turbocharge it 1.0 liter w/ 22~25 psi of boost = 150 hp 22~25 psi of boost requires ~8:1 compression At cruise, when boost is off, you are now running the engine at about 3~3.5 points lower compression This negatively impacts fuel economy At the end of the day, the market is littered with examples of engine which adopted either approach but fail to match or exceed the fuel economy ratings of larger displacement engines of comparable output. BMW M3's 4.0 V8 vs GM's 6.2 liter V8 is one example of high revving, small displacement engine grossly under performing a larger displacement engine with low specific output. The Cruze's 1.4T vs Focus's 20 or Civic's 1.8 is an example of high consumption and costs from a lower displacement engine relying on turbocharging compared to larger engines of the same power class. At the end of the day the market is 180 degrees in opposition to you as there is more to it than just numbers. Again you bring up the 4.0 BMW but you also have to use the understanding they need the 4.0 Liters in many markets to beat the tax issues. Contrary to how you make it there is much more to this game than just engineering numbers. The fact is GM and most other companies can not and will not sell a large displacement engine in many markets. While we may enjoy it here GM has to play the game globally with many of the smaller engines and to do so they will have to do it with smaller engines with power adders. If you care about displacement taxes, 4.0 is too big anyway. In anycase, it didn't matter to Mercedes with its 5.5 then 6.3 power plants of the same period. In Europe, where displacement taxes are prevalent, if you care about these things you won't be in the market for an M3 or a C63. And, no, manufacturers are not all going the small and forcefed route. Only the misguided ones do that and then if they are smart quickly reverse course.

The steering and chassis feel can be basically the same. The engine character... good torque from 3000 rpm and power accessible by revving to just 6000 rpm changes the character for the better!

Actually, the reverse is true... When pushed (WOT) the efficiency of any engine delivering the same horsepower output is roughly the same. It takes X amount of fuel to be burned in Y amount of air to produce Z amount of power. It is when the engine is operating at low loads that differences are at their greatest. When cruising down the freeway at a steady 65 mph the engine only needs to produce 30~40 hp. The throttle plate is used to intentionally choke the engine such that no matter how well it breathes when unleashes it is always operating and a very low aspirational efficiency at cruise. Basically, the motor is sucking vacuum -- air at lower psi than atmospheric pressure. A smaller engine has the benefit of operating at a higher load and larger throttle opening than a bigger engine. A 1.0 engine capable of 70 hp may be operating with the throttle half open whereas a 6.0 liter engine may only be operating with a throttle that is 5~6% open. This has a direct effect on effective compression ratio because a nearly closed throttle makes the engine suck a higher degree of vacuum which means less molecues per unit piston displacement and less effective compression. This is the primary benefit of a small displacement engine and the primary benefit of say cylinder deactivation -- to allow the engine to operate with less vacuum. Compression is essential to good combustion efficiency and energy extraction from fuel. All less being equal, a 1.0 liter engine will be more efficient than a 2.0 liter predominantly because of this. The problem is that all else being equal a 1.0 liter engine also produces about half as much maximum power as a 2.0 liter. If you can accept this that's all well and good. And the 1.0 liter engine will be more efficient. However, if the objective is to produce the same approximate performance and power. Say 150 hp. A 1.0 liter engine is not going to give you that unless you do one of two things... you can rev the crap out of it or you can turbocharged the hell out of it. Now here it becomes interesting... High RPM 75 lb-ft @ 10,500 rpm = 150 hp You'll still be driving around with 75 lb-ft and probably peaking rather high in the rev range To make the car tractable you need to lower your gearing Lowering gearing directly impacts fuel economy negatively Turbocharge it 1.0 liter w/ 22~25 psi of boost = 150 hp 22~25 psi of boost requires ~8:1 compression At cruise, when boost is off, you are now running the engine at about 3~3.5 points lower compression This negatively impacts fuel economy At the end of the day, the market is littered with examples of engine which adopted either approach but fail to match or exceed the fuel economy ratings of larger displacement engines of comparable output. BMW M3's 4.0 V8 vs GM's 6.2 liter V8 is one example of high revving, small displacement engine grossly under performing a larger displacement engine with low specific output. The Cruze's 1.4T vs Focus's 20 or Civic's 1.8 is an example of high consumption and costs from a lower displacement engine relying on turbocharging compared to larger engines of the same power class.

The 1.6T will have a higher cost compared to the 2.5. Displacement generally doesn't cost anything. A turbocharger, Intercooler, Bypass valve, duct work and the other associated hardware adds about $1000 to the cost of the vehicle. The 1.6T may not deliver better fuel economy in the end. The reason being that while a 1.6T has lower aspirational losses, it as inferior thermal efficiencies at cruise due to the reduced compression ratio. At a 200 hp target, the 1.6T will be running about 9:1 compression whereas a 2.5 will be running 11.3:1. At 160 hp you can run a 1.6T at about 10.5:1 compression, but you can also run a 2.5 liter with an Atkinson Cam which gives an longer power stroke than compression stroke and exemplary energy extraction from each drop of fuel (Most Hybrids uses an Atkinson cammed ICE). I am not convinced that 1.6T will generate better fuel economy numbers. After all the GM 1.4T did not generate better fuel economy numbers than the 2.0 Ford engine. Basically it comes down to this... 1.6T @ 200 hp vs 2.5 NA @ 200 hp 1.6T @ 160 hp vs 2.5 Atkinson @ 160 hp The 2.5T has lower costs and less maintenance worries down the road. For ANY given hp target, Naturally Aspirated, Atkinson cammed, engines have better fuel economy numbers than small displacement turbocharged engines of the same output. The 1.4T in the Cruze has better fuel economy than the 2.0 in the Focus and the 1.4T doesn't even have direct injection yet. Not according to the EPA... http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/31370.shtml http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32916 The Focus wins by 1 MPG despite having 43% greater displacement -- 6A to 6A just to take the dual clutch auto out of the equation which would have given the Focus an even greater edge. The Ford 2.0 also has 22 more hp and similar torque a similar torque output. The point here is that the dollars expended on the turbo is greater than an aluminum block and direct injection would have cost. Displacement (keeping the same complexity and cylinder count) essentially doesn't cost anything. Of the $4000~5000 an engine costs, only about 5% is the metal -- aluminum is $1 a pound, steel is even less -- 95% of it is machining and assembly. If GM wanted the best fuel economy and 140 hp for the Cruze, the most frugal engine is not a DOHC-16v turbocharged 1.4L. Going in the other direction will produce better fuel economy... 2.35 liters displacement 3-cylinder Inline 80% Atkinson Cycle Cam Grind (rendering 1.88L effective displacement) SOHC-6v heads with roller followers & Cam-in-Cam Dual VVT 14:1 geometric compression ratio (11.2:1 from intake valve closure) Direct Injection Aluminum Block & Heads 140 bhp @ 5600 rpm 140 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm Basically, want you are getting is an asymmetric compression-power stroke to improve energy extraction, lower parasitic friction from having only 6 valves and 3 cylinders. The engine will be cheaper to build too, freeing up money for a high strength steel in the chassis or a transmission with more speeds or automated dual clutches.

The 1.6T will have a higher cost compared to the 2.5. Displacement generally doesn't cost anything. A turbocharger, Intercooler, Bypass valve, duct work and the other associated hardware adds about $1000 to the cost of the vehicle. The 1.6T may not deliver better fuel economy in the end. The reason being that while a 1.6T has lower aspirational losses, it as inferior thermal efficiencies at cruise due to the reduced compression ratio. At a 200 hp target, the 1.6T will be running about 9:1 compression whereas a 2.5 will be running 11.3:1. At 160 hp you can run a 1.6T at about 10.5:1 compression, but you can also run a 2.5 liter with an Atkinson Cam which gives an longer power stroke than compression stroke and exemplary energy extraction from each drop of fuel (Most Hybrids uses an Atkinson cammed ICE). I am not convinced that 1.6T will generate better fuel economy numbers. After all the GM 1.4T did not generate better fuel economy numbers than the 2.0 Ford engine. Basically it comes down to this... 1.6T @ 200 hp vs 2.5 NA @ 200 hp 1.6T @ 160 hp vs 2.5 Atkinson @ 160 hp The 2.5T has lower costs and less maintenance worries down the road. For ANY given hp target, Naturally Aspirated, Atkinson cammed, engines have better fuel economy numbers than small displacement turbocharged engines of the same output.

They'll just have the contour the hood a little differently I guess. Perhaps with a central hump very much like the 5M-GE powered 1st Gen Supras. What I am saying is that Toyota can do a 2800 lbs, RWD, sports coupe at $25,000 using a derivative of the RAV4's 2.7 liter I4 engine.

Not really, at least not yet... They are moving about 500~800 a month and a tad under 7000 per year (2012). That is about on par with how many Camaros GM moves in the worst month in 2012. This is a sports coupe so demand tends to fall off after the first two years. The bright side is that they set a pretty modest target of 6000 cars so they are not saddling themselves with over capacity. Already Subaru is giving $400~600 in incentives to move their (more expensive) BRZ against the FRS -- not an auspicious thing for a 1st year coupe. The thing I don't get is that the market for sports coupes is modest enough as it is. Why they want to split the pie -- and the marketing -- between Fuji and Toyota is baffling. This should have been just a Subaru or just a Toyota. I would have preferred that it be a Toyota using a hypothetical "1AR-GE" engine. Basically the same 2.7 liter 1AR-FE Inline-4 in the RAV4, but with hotter cams and drinking premium to deliver about 220hp / 200 lb-ft. For a higher performance version, forget laggy turbos and simply the use a roots compressor on the 1AR engine. A "1AR-GZE" will be good for about 270 hp / 270 lb-ft with zero lag. The latter would be interesting. Again you need to think global! Cars like this and even the Miata live on a global scale and thrive. If you just take Miata, Prelude and Mini sale base just on NA they make little sense but on a global scale they have some very impressive numbers and profits. Even if GM does a small RWD coupe they will have to base it on a global package as the sales just in NA will be ok but they need larger numbers. Second you can not compare the Camaro or Mustang on this yet as they are in a class of their own and many who would buy them would never consider this car. This is why GM is looking into the sub Alpha car. Two different markets and two different customers. . As for Turbo engines there again you must look to the customers and what they want. Also lag is not what it once was like in the GN and Turbo T bird. Well, your assumptions are that the world wants turbos and not superchargers. That has has never been shown to be true. Your assumption that the world generally prefers high specific output, low displacement engines also not shown to be the case. Nobody is buying Cruzes because it has a 1.4T whereas the Civic has a 1.8 and the Focus has a 2.0. When they buy a Cruze, the size of the engine and presence of a turbocharger does not factor into the decision the overwhelming majority of the time and when it does it is not always a positive factor. Also, lag is ALWAYS present in turbocharged engines. It is a matter of degree. For North America, which is the car's largest market, they should have an engine that best meets the regulatory and consumption habits of North American buyers. American's don't care about displacement (one way or the other) -- you might, but Americans in general do not. America does not have a displacement tax either so small displacements have very little intrinsic value (neither does China -- the other uber sized market). The FR-S's MPG numbers -- 25/34 mpg will be easily met with a 2.5 ~2.7 liter four (the Malibu which is a much larger car that is 750 lbs heavier is already @ 22/34 mpg.

Just discontinue it... The Prius set is going to buy Priuses and/or upgrade to Teslas if and when they can afford it. People who actually care about financial benefits of fuel economy is not going to spend money on Hybrids that don't pay back their investment during the period they own the car.

Not really, at least not yet... They are moving about 500~800 a month and a tad under 7000 per year (2012). That is about on par with how many Camaros GM moves in the worst month in 2012. This is a sports coupe so demand tends to fall off after the first two years. The bright side is that they set a pretty modest target of 6000 cars so they are not saddling themselves with over capacity. Already Subaru is giving $400~600 in incentives to move their (more expensive) BRZ against the FRS -- not an auspicious thing for a 1st year coupe. The thing I don't get is that the market for sports coupes is modest enough as it is. Why they want to split the pie -- and the marketing -- between Fuji and Toyota is baffling. This should have been just a Subaru or just a Toyota. I would have preferred that it be a Toyota using a hypothetical "1AR-GE" engine. Basically the same 2.7 liter 1AR-FE Inline-4 in the RAV4, but with hotter cams and drinking premium to deliver about 220hp / 200 lb-ft. For a higher performance version, forget laggy turbos and simply the use a roots compressor on the 1AR engine. A "1AR-GZE" will be good for about 270 hp / 270 lb-ft with zero lag. The latter would be interesting.

(1) The current AFM system collapses the lifters on all the cylinders being deactivated. Compression is as before the difference being that there is no fuel charge being ignited. If there is only ONE cylinder then the crank will settle at Bottom-Dead-Center (BDC) and the effort to spin it will be considerable. However, if two or four cylinders are being deactivated and the effort is about the same as the friction of the engine plus the effort to compress those cylinders which are NOT deactivated. (2) GM's 1st generation of AFM lifters do not have a stellar reliability record. They get stuck in the collapsed position on a some trucks and some owners got them swapped out for non-collapsible lifters. They did improve them and the current production examples seems much better. (3) Lubrication has never been an issue. It is no different from a normally running 4-cycle piston engine. The upper piston ring is NEVER lubricated by the fuel spray; fuel spray does not contain significant lubricants except in 2-stroke engines burning a pre-mix of oil and fuel, or if you have a dedicated oil jet. The upper piston ring comes into contact with the oil film on the cylinder wall as it travels downwards. The oil ring (lower most ring) never completely remove the film from the wall ahead of the upper two rings -- a sponge and some solvent would, an oil ring will never do that. This is enough to lubricate both the walls and transfer enough lubricants to the upper rings to provide some protection during the top 5~10% of travel where the wall is always "dry" because it's above the oil ring at Top-Dead-Center. Basically, you don't have a lubrication problem with AFM equipped engines, period. You have a lubrication problem only when the rings or seals are perpetually in contact with dry walls and never, ever, contact lubricate wall surfaces -- such as is the case with the apex seals of a KKM Rotary (Wankel) engine. In such cases you either burn a pre-mix of oil + gas or you have an oil injector like that which Mazda's 13B and 20B engines use.

Look at it this way... 200 hp @ 7,000 rpm / 151 lb-ft @ 5400 rpm is not that bad. It would have been a terrific engine for the original AE86. The problem is that the AE86 was a 2,100 lbs car. This is 2,800 lbs. Realistically speaking the Toyota 2AR-FE 2.5 liter Camry motor (180 bhp / 173 lb-ft @ 4100) would move this car along better than the high reving 2.0 boxer. Timed performance will be about the same, but 173 lb-ft peaking at 4100 rpm will be more pleasurable in city traffic.

Well, I hope they get rid of the wheezy and not particularly economical 1.4T. Just put an Atkinson cammed 2.5 DI four in that thing and they'll get better mileage and about 150 hp / 150 lb-ft. And, given the aluminum block (vs iron on the 1.4T) and the elimination of the turbo and IC subsystem, mass will be roughly equal. Dropping the turbo improves residual value and reduces long term maintenance and repair costs too. It's time to wake up to the simple fact that displacement doesn't matter. Fuel consumption does.

I am not particularly enthused by the formula of the FR-S / BRZ (aka Toyota 86). Yes, the AE86 had it's day. But the 80s was a long time ago. The formula is partly right -- a 2,800 lbs car that is rear drive. But the insistence on 100 bhp/liter high revving low displacement engine is a mistake. This car really should have a forced induced engine in the 250~300 hp class. But even for a base model shunning the cost of forced induction, a 2.5 liter NA four delivering 200hp will be better than a 2.0 liter doing so. The torque curve will be much more accessible than in a high revving 2.0. Even if the partnership with Subaru is retained, it is not like Subaru does not have a 2.5 liter block. For humor sake, I;ll much rather have the 202 hp 2.5 liter GM I4 than the 200 hp 2.0 liter boxer. When are they ever going to get it that specific output is completely irrelevant to the performance or desirability of a vehicle?

The reason I did not advocate a supercharger is three fold... Firstly, I think it is unnecessary to go to 700 hp or even 600+ hp. The Z06 hits 60 mph just 0.1 sec behind the ZR-1 despite a 133hp deficit and while the ZR-1 is faster in the 1/4 mile both cars are solidly in the 11s. With direct injection and power ratings in the upper half of the 500s, that's plenty of power for two drive wheels and acceleration becomes more of a traction issue than anything else. Secondly, a Supercharger, the aftercoolers, and their heat exchangers & pumps adds weight. The ZR-1 is 3400 lbs compared to a Z06's 3180. These all go in the front too. A NA car will be lighter and better balanced all else being equal. Lastly, a Supercharger adds cost. For the same amount of extra dough, I'll rather more carbon bodywork or an active diff or both than more power to an already overpowered car.

Actually, one commonly missed point about displacement is that even when it comes to pumping losses, lower displacement doesn't equal lower aspiration. The Cruze's 1.4T engine turns over at ~2500 rpm @ 65 mph. A 2.0 liter engine turning over at 1740 rpm will displace the same about of air per minute assuming the same throttle induced vacuum levels. Sure, most 2.0 liters will not run that low at 65 mph (probably more like 2100~2200 rpm) but most also have higher compression than the 1.4T's 9.5:1 and consequently have better thermal efficiency (especially if DI was adopted). In the end, the EPA test cycles gave the Focus 2.0 a 27/38 MPG (6-spd Auto) whereas a Cruze 1.4T (6A) gets 26/38 MPG. So much for a 30% reduction in displacement and all the costs associated with the turbo and IC subsystem (which is more than direct injectors on the Ford engine).

I actually don't expect the 1.6T to be the base engine. The reason is simple. The base engine has to be cheaper than the premium engine. A 1.6T is not any cheaper than the 2.0T -- it's the same complexity and same approximate cost equation. Both engines have DI, VVT phasers, a turbocharger, an intercooler and all the associate plumbing. If you are going to pay for that, you are better off making the 2.0T standard and making this a 1 engine product (which may not be a bad idea given the limited volume this type of cars generate. If you think that the 1.6T is going to be more economical because it's lower displacement, that usually hasn't panned out in most of the cars we have seen lately. If you compare the MPG ratings of the 2.5 Malibu and the 2.0T Malibu for instance, there is absolutely no difference in either the Highway or the City numbers despite a 20% displacement difference. If you compare the 1.4T Cruze to its 1.8 liter and 2.0 liter competitors (like the Civic or the Focus) you'll also notice that it's mileage numbers are not any better. In fact, it is frequently slightly worse. The problem with achieving the same approximate power output using a turbocharged engine of lower displacement is that while they have slightly lower pumping (aspirational) losses, they have approximately the same frictional losses and reduced efficiency from the reduced compression ratio. The best efficiency seems to be achieved when the engine combines the high compression with minimal boost -- BMW's 300hp 3.0 liter I6s for instance. For a 1.6L such a formula will generate a mere 160hp and a level of efficiency no better than a 2.0 160hp NA engine but with better low end torque. If you are gunning for 200hp from a 1.6L, you lose efficiency due to the necessary compression loss and will likely end up with fuel economy numbers similar to a 200hp 2.5 liter four anyway. For either case, the more economic solution is to simply use a 2.0 or 2.5 NA. There are many things that increase fuel efficiency -- Atkinson cam grinds, going to SOHC, going to 2-valves/cylinder, using roller followers, increasing compression (DI enables that), going to few cylinders. Going to a lower displacement by itself is one of the least effective remedies.

LOL... I like wedges. I like the Civic's wedge shape too, just not the extremely noisy NVH

BTW, this car should have no "Black" color as a paint option. You can get in in other colors, but black is not available. Instead, for those who like black hues, there is the "Naked" color option which has the entire carbon fiber body clear coated but otherwise unpainted.