dwightlooi

If the Alpha can be stretched that far and/or the Omega can be greenlighted it'll make a good addition to the Caddy lineup which they sorely lack. The engines are not that hard to conjure... the ubiquitous (by then) LFX 3.6 DI DOHC-V6 making 318~323 hp with or without a Dual-Mode Hybrid tranny. A 6.2 liter DI Pushrod-V8 in the 430~470hp range. And, possibly, for true flagship credentials a 7.2 liter V12 based on siamesing two 3.6 liter V6s and generating 630~650hp. The V6 and V8 models will be the volume drivrers. The V12 can be a limited production rate car with a hand built motor.

Is there by chance this listing for previous years? Like 2007-2010? And what makes up the difference in HP figures when comparing things like the LLT engine between the truck and car listings? It ranges from 280-313hp. Torque/RPM is the same thing. In theory would performance parts from one, be capable of use in the other? Or factory components switched out to help bump up performance? I'm thinking bolt on stuff like an intake (engine bay packaging taken into consideration), to internals like cams or lifters. Not in a table, no. But you can get all that info on a specific engine or transmission here:- http://www.gmpowertrain.com/VehicleEngines/ProductPortfolio.aspx

Bring it on as a Chevrolet Astra or, heck, Cruze Hatch. Sort of a Chevy GTi FWD, 1.4T, 6A, Starting $18K FWD, 2.0T, 6A/6M, Starting at $23K Still, I wish they would fix the 2.0T so it would be less torque heavy and make a bit more power... Instead of 220hp / 260 lb-ft, 260hp / 220 lb-ft would be better suited to FWD applications -- especially lighter ones.

Because traditionally piston speed is the biggest limiting factor on permissible engine revs and the associated durability of the engine. Contrary to what many people think, revs don't kill engines piston speed do. You see... you can turn the rotating assemblies like the camshafts and the crank at few tens of thousands of rpms without much problems -- jet engines routinely do. The stuff going up an down are a different matter. Valves are one problem area, but the biggest is the piston slugs going up and down. This is where all that power and torque is being generated and where the biggest mechanical stresses are. These stresses are generally a function of the square of piston speed -- kinetic energy = 0.5 x mass x velocity^2 and that has to be decelerated and accelerated twice in opposite directions per revolution per piston. So... very high piston speeds means either one of two things... GM has made serious strides in the stoutness and lubrication of its engines, or the engines are not going to last! I hope its the former.

Most of the time it has nothing to do with Stupid Europe but with cylinder wall thickness and resistance, i.e. longer term engine durability. Because... a 2.5 running lower boost and higher compression may actually post better MPG numbers than a 2.0 using lower compression and higher boost. This is because thermal efficiency and brake specific fuel consumption gets better when compression ratio gets higher. While cruising on the freeway (or during the EPA highway test cycle) the engine will generally be in a vacuum or some very low boost condition (1~3 psi). The larger displacement engine makes more power off boost than a lower displacement engine, this means that you can put taller gearing on it and still have enough to maintain cruising speed without a downshift -- this further saves fuel by reducing the cruising rpm and the associated frictional losses. Finally, the engine will also be more responsive and linear because it takes less time to get to 10 psi vs 18 psi (which was what the LNF ran), especially when compounded by the larger displacement motor having more exhaust volume with which to run the turbine.

Interesting Fact: With a 101 mm Stroke and a 7000 rpm rev limit, the new 2.5 liter Ecotec will have a maximum Piston Speed of 4639 ft/min. That is a little lower than the original (2.0 liter; pre-2004) Honda S2000, but right about where a 2009 Formula 1 race car (4689 ft/min) is at and higher than a Ferrari F360 Modena (4406 ft/min). Piston Speeds Honda S2000 (pre-2004) -- 84mm Stroke x 9000 rpm = 4965 ft/min 2009 Formula 1 engine -- 39.7mm Stroke x 18000 rpm = 4689 ft/min Ecotec 2.5 DI-VVT -- 101mm Stroke x 7000 rpm = 4639 ft/min Ferrari F360 Modena -- 79mm Stroke x 8500 rpm = 4406 ft/min

This prediction for the Ecotec 2.5T is based on the new 2.5 liter engine announced for the Malibu. This represents a viable direction GM may take with regards to providing V6 equivalent power from a 4-cylinder. The focus is on attaining a power level similar to the high output versions of the 2.0T (LNF), while rendering maximum torque at the lowest possible rpm, maximizing fuel economy and retaining 87 octane compatibility. The solution combines increased compression and displacement with lower boost levels. The new 2.5 liter block is especially suited for this recipe because it has a 88mm bore along with a 96mm bore spacing. The resulting 8mm wall thickness is not particularly suited for high boost applications. On the other hand, the longish 101mm stroke along with increased displacement is ideal for torque production and fuel economy. For additional refinement and durability, the maximum engine speed is limited to 5350 rpm which produces identical piston speeds compared to the 2.0T at its 6350 rpm limit (Approximately 3550 ft/min). This engine is mated to the 6T70 6-speed automatic. A tall 2.77:1 axle ratio and 6.05:1 ratio spread ensures reduced fuel consumption. The engine's torque rating of 270lb-ft is also particularly well matched to the transmission's 280 lb-ft rating. Ecotec 2.5T 2.5 liter DOHC-16v Inline-4 w/ Intake & Exhaust VVT Turbocharged and Intercooled; Honeywell-Garrett MGT2052 Turbocharger @ 10.3 psi 88 mm (bore) x 101 mm (stroke); Bore Centers 96 mm Displacement 2457 cc; Effective Compression 10.3 : 1 Direct Gasoline Injection Dual Balance Shafts 250 bhp @ 5000 rpm 270 lb-ft @ 1600 ~ 4600 rpm Redline @ 5000 rpm / Rev limit @ 5350 rpm 87 Octane Required Applications: Buick LaCrosse; 2013 Chevrolet Malibu; 2012 Chevrolet Cruze SS; Chevrolet Traverse; 2013 Cadillac ATS 2.5T Transmission: Hydramatic 6T70 (MH2) -- 6-speed Automatic w/ 2.77:1 axle ratio Gear Ratio Maximum Speed in Gear 1st 4.484 (28mph @ 5350 rpm) 2nd 2.872 (45mph @ 5350 rpm) 3rd 1.842 (69mph @ 5350 rpm) 4th 1.414 (90mph @ 5350 rpm) 5th 1.000 (128mph @ 5350 rpm) 6th 0.742 (172mph @ 5350 rpm) * Rev 2.882 * Governed to 130 mph Cruising RPM 2020 rpm @ 65 mph 2486 rpm @ 80 mph Est. Fuel Economy 18 mpg (City) / 26 mpg (Hwy) - Traverse 22 mpg (City) / 32 mpg (Hwy) – Malibu LTZ 23 mpg (City) / 32 mpg (Hwy) – Cruze SS

I think it's LTZ only. I am not so sure about that... Looks like the eAssist Hybrid gets the conventional tail lamps, whereas the non-Hybrids get the LED Chrismas lights.

Haha, I figured I was the only nut who obsessed on interior light schemes. I am a HUGE fan of the direction GM is going with illuminating the interior at night. Hey--the Lucerne doesn't even have ambient lighting but I took a friend in one a couple of years ago and the first thing she commented on was how much she loved how everything "glowed a cool blue, and was so neatly and brightly lit up." These little things are eye catchers, and garner "oohs" and "ahhs". Hopefully the illumination will be on all trims, or at least 1LT and above. I can't imagine it costs them much too much to do. I like some of it, but not others. The indirect lighting in the doors and footwell... love that. The light blue lighting color in the cluster and elsewhere... hate that. I'll much rather they used red or deep orange.

GM would not be happy to hear that its drivetrains barely able to get 35 mpg in a Cruze were getting 45 mpg in a 45 year old Chevy II. Actually, it probably won't. Older cars are inferior in every way except perhaps weight (on some economy models). Weight has a lot less bearing on the Highway MPG numbers than aerodynamics. You'll probably see a bit more in the city, but on the freeway you'll probably lose out. At cruise speeds, you don't have to change velocity much and as long as you are not changing velocity the amount of power it takes to keep 1 ton or 10 tons or 100 tons at 65 mph is exactly the same if the exterior size and shape is exactly the same. In other words, it's all aerodynamic drag. This is why trains are so economical on fuel use per ton of stuff hauled. It's a long, narrow, object with extremely low rolling resistance wheels that doesn't change speeds a lot once it gets going.

I don't think they have plans for selling that as a crate engine.

Summary: On sale Early 2012 as 2013 Model 15kW Gen II Belt-Alternator-Starter w/ 115W Electrical System and Lithium Ion Batteries (eAssist) 180hp DI 2.4 liter engine instead of the new 2.5 Liter 6T40 6-speed Automatic Automatic Grille Shutters for drag reduction 4-piece Full Underbody Tray Smaller, More Aerodynamic Mirrors Revised Tail Lamps Light Weight Alloy Wheels with Low Rolling Resistance Tires Fuel Economy: 28 MPG (City) / 38 MPG (Hwy) GM Official Release

Engine Description: Ecotec 2.5L Inline-4 Displacement (cu. in. / cc): 152.5 / 2457 Bore & stroke (in. / mm): 3.46 x 3.97 / 88 x 101 Block material: Lost Foam Cast Aluminum Alloy Cylinder head material: Lost Foam Cast Aluminum Alloy Valvetrain: DOHC-16-Valves w/Intake and Exhaust VVT Valve lifters: Roller Finger Followers w/ Hydraulic Lash Adjusters Ignition system: Coil-on-Plug Direct Ignition Fuel delivery: Direct Gasoline Injection Throttle Control: Electronically Controlled Throttle Body Compression ratio: 11.3:1 Horsepower: 190 bhp / 141 kW @ 6200 rpm Torque: 180 lb-ft / 245 Nm @ 4500 rpm Recommended fuel: Regular unleaded (87 Octane) Max. engine speed: 7000 rpm Emissions: PZEV; Secondary Air Injection (SAI) system + close-coupled catalytic converter, positive crankcase ventilation & vapor recover system Additional features: Extended-life spark plugs, Extended-life coolant Estimated fuel economy: >= 35 MPG (Hwy) Transmission Description: Hydramatic 6T40, 6-Speed Automatic w/ Lockup converte Axle Ratio: 2.89 : 1 Gear ratios: [List1] [*] 4.58 : 1 [*] 2.96 : 1 [*] 1.91 : 1 [*] 1.45 : 1 [*] 1.00 : 1 [*] 0.75 : 1 Official GM Release

I like LEDs, but I don't like using them the way a lot of car makers currently do -- as a dozen little point sources of light. LEDs can and should be placed behind a diffuser just like light bulbs are. The BMW light pipes are an example, as are the Caddy style complex refractors.

If you want to see the SAE report... you can get it here.. http://standards.sae.org/cpgm2_12cadcts It's a thousand bucks though... otherwise you can just trust me on this.

BTW, just in case anyone is still wondering... the engine IS the LFX. This is NOT a minor update to the engine. The engine has a new block and heads. The new head features the LF1 (3.0 DI) style 3-to-1 integrated exhaust collector such that it only has ONE outlet pot. The Camaro will also get the same power plant as will all the current 3.6 DI recipients -- albiet not all at once but over the course of 2011 and 2012. Power is rated at 323 bhp (SAE OFFICIAL NUMBER) / 278 lb-ft for the Camaro. The CTS is slightly less at 318 hp / 275 lb-ft, possibly due to exhaust and intake quietness considerations. It seems that initial expectations of about 330hp is a little optimistic, but 318~323hp isn't bad from 3.564 liters -- GM is still getting 90.6 bhp/liter out of this thing. And, yes, it still runs on 87 Octane.

PDF Format -- Adobe Acrobat Reader Required GM 2011 Power Train Lineup -- Complete Guide

Not sure about the Enclave and Acadia. But I had rented the CTS (3.6) and SRX (3.0) while travelling. They are quieter than the Camaro for sure, but the engine is still not as quiet, as smooth, as responsive or as refined as say the 3.2 V6 in the Acura TL (which I own). Not by a long shot.

For parity with the Camry and Accord, the Malibu needs to lose 250~300 lbs.

Looks like a good mix of materials and generally good looking color combo. I like the Leather/Fabric (or simulant) wrapped upper dash and instrument cluster sun-shade. Seats look good... very deep and supportive. Not so sure about the vents and the center stack... just too many lines, too much clutter. I hate clutter. Besides, a multitude of lateral slates look so 80s. The use of wood (like) trim in the window control panel also makes the wood look fake.

For those who don't want to or can't sit through an hour of blah-blah here's the summary:- Amenities Backup Camera Touch Screen Stereo / Nav Storage Behind Touch Screen Voice Command Bluetooth Dimensions (vs current car) 4.5" Shorter Wheelbase 3" Wider 0.5" Shorter 0.5" Taller Trunk is 1 cu-ft bigger Cabin is 4 cu-ft larger No Weight Numbers Yet Power Train New Ecotec Engine 2.5 Liter / 4-Cylinders Direct Injection 190 bhp / 180 lb-ft 6-speed Automatic is Standard 35MPG HWY No Mention of Turbo Version Yet No V6 at Launch, GM will not rule out V6 Models for the Future

It's the clock-clock-clock from the Direct Injection system. At higher speed it becomes a Gggggrrrrrr. I am not sure if it's the injectors themselves or the high pressure fuel rails and accumulators vibrating from the closure pulses from the injectors. Eitherway it is decidedly coarse... the 3.6 DI V6 I drove in a rented Camaro was noiser, coarser and less refined than the 2.4 liter 4-potter in the Malibu -- significantly so.

Another interesting fact... Despite being a rather old 2005 design and lacking of a 4-cylinder option, the Impala outsells the 2008+ Malibu last year. By 2014 the Impala will be 9-year old -- very long in the tooth compared to the typical 4~6 year model cycle of most cars.

The Fiero is also not that fast. A GT gets to 60 mph in about 8.5 secs. A Supercharged AW11 MR2 gets there in 7 secs flat. Not that much difference in power 140 hp vs 145 hp, not that much difference in weight either ~2800 lbs vs ~2600 lbs -- not enough to account for 1.5 secs. What really hurt was that 4-speed Manual which was difficult to drive fast. That and the relatively lethargic response of the engine.

My guess is that it'll get the LF3 engine. 3.0 bi-turbo V6. If there is no new tranny, then it'll be stuck with 300 lb-ft and perhaps between 300 and 360 bhp. If there is a stronger variant of the 6T transmission look for about 360hp/360lb-ft even. Not bad... BMW 535 class in in power. Although the DI V6es need a bit of work in the NVH department.