dwightlooi

Actually, where the engine is makes a notable difference. Take ruler and tape two same sized lead weights near each end. Rotate it about the middle. Now move the weights equidistant close to center and rotate it. You'll notice that while the total weights are identical and balance about the center point are also identical, the setup where the weights are closer to the center of the ruler rotated with a lot less effort. That's polar moments. Even when two objects weigh exactly the same and center of gravity is exactly the same, the one whose dense material is concentrated near the center is more easily rotated than the one whose dense material is spread out near its rim. Low polar moments is a unique advantage of the MR layout.

What is bad about the Fiero that isn't easily addressed in a new design? Weight, generally lousy handling, uninspiring power train... I had owned both a 1988 Supercharged AW11 MR2 and a 1985 Fiero GT 2.8 V6. It's night an day. The MR2's transmission and shifter was nearly perfect, suspension is tight and balance is superb (good enough to do a controlled slide around a corner with two fingers on the steering wheel). The Fiero feel lose and scary decelerating onto an off-ramp at 60 mph. The shifter is notchy and imprecise. The car is also seriously underbraked and feels heavy both in transitions and when slowing down. The engine was actually smooth, quiet and the least objectionable part of the car. The AW11 MR2 is a much better repesentation of the small, well-sorted-out, affordable, mid-engined sports car. Funny thing is... I knew all that before I bought the Fiero. But I thought a composite bodied, V6 powered, mid-engine car with four exhaust pipes was kinda cool... so I bought it anyway. If four exhaust pipes could have that much effect on a 20-something year old yours truly, imagine what scissor doors would do. The Fiero had a lot of flaws just based on how it had to be built. When most at GM worked hard to stop the car it really effected the money that was put into the program. For the most the 1988 was suspension that Pontiac wanted in the first place. The engines were not what they wanted either but were all they were offered. Weight was fine at 2600 pounds for a cast iron V6 and would have been better with the engines they really wanted. For the most it was just lucky to have been built and even stay around for 5 years it lived. Today there are still some in GM that will not speak openly about the car due to the internal fighting. Note much on the car can be addressed easy. Mine is a very good handling car due to the addition of a 1.25 inch rear bar and a 1 inch front bar with solid rear bushings. It is amazing that just a few simple things thanks to Herb Adams could make it all work so much better. But even the MR2 was short lived and died twice. Even if the Fiero had been done right I don't think it would have made 10 years. The fact is mid engine cars are great for very low volume exotic cars but make for poor selling low priced sports cars as once the people who buy one get theirs the market drys up fast. It also did not help as Pontiac over sold the Fiero in the first two years. But I think they knew going in they were not going to last. Also the killing of the FWD F body program left a large planr with only a low volume sports car that gave them the final excuse for the ememies to kill the car. There was so much wrong with the Fiero program and what happened that it could make a very interesting book. It would give a good idea of how disfunctional GM was internally even in the 80's. One thing I did like about the Fiero was the engine compartment lid. Its simple, one piece design covering both the trunk and the engine bay is a better idea than the MR2's. Firstly, the spring loaded lid pops up conveniently and offers lots of working space (for a mid-engined car). And, then of course, it forces you to look at the engine every time you access the trunk which is actually decently sized. The Suspension though is horrendous... feels like the camber and toes are all wrong (an unadjustable), feels lose, imprecise and unstable. The steering too felt lose -- almost like the ball joints have 1/4 an inch of play even though I replaced the bushings (albiet with stock ones). The Brakes are also really, really bad. Again, imprecise, unprogressive and underpowered. The car, while small, felt big as a result. You are always looking for more room on the road while driving that thing -- run off room, braking room, room to recover from an unintended slide. I didn't do much to the car. Somehow, I felt like it was a lost cause and did only the necessary maintenance. I did try to tame it with sticker tires in the back.

It's not nitpicking; what you're writing makes perfect sense. There could be some overlap, of course, but Cadillac (1st) and Buick (2nd) should be the higher standard/optional content brands. Having a Chevrolet other than the Corvette (and to some extent a couple of versions of the Camaro) biting at Buick and Cadillac would not be a good idea. Actually, apart from the elecrochromic windows most of the "premium" features are pretty standard fare. Besides, the solution should never be never to dumb down the Chevy, the solution should be the make the Buick better. Don't look at Buick or Cadillac and ask how the Chevy needs to be inferior. Look at the Honda, Toyota and Hyundai and ask how it needs to be better. For instance, the LaCrosse CAN get the same 330hp engine in transverse, FWD/AWD form. The LaCrosse also can have better leathers, cooled as well as heated seats, dual zone climate control, self-level heat lights, vibrating massage pads in the seats, more adjustable seats, an eAssist hybrid option, all of which are not on the Impala. Buick can also have the Electrochromic Glass -- in fact, after people start flying on the 787 that may be something they start looking for in cars. The Buick, by virtue of its positioning can also be carry more sound deadening and active noise cancellation in a nicer stereo, you name it. And, sure, the LaCrosse deserves an 8-speed at around the same time frame too... The engine is not supposed to be some "Impala Special" High Output 3.6. The engine IS the new, ubiquitous, GM 3.6 -- it'll simply replace the current 3.6 across the board. As far as the LaCrosse goes, it'll probably get the same engine plus the LF3 Bi-turbo DI V6 as an option in roughly the same time frame.

What is bad about the Fiero that isn't easily addressed in a new design? Weight, generally lousy handling, uninspiring power train... I had owned both a 1988 Supercharged AW11 MR2 and a 1985 Fiero GT 2.8 V6. It's night an day. The MR2's transmission and shifter was nearly perfect, suspension is tight and balance is superb (good enough to do a controlled slide around a corner with two fingers on the steering wheel). The Fiero feel lose and scary decelerating onto an off-ramp at 60 mph. The shifter is notchy and imprecise. The car is also seriously underbraked and feels heavy both in transitions and when slowing down. The engine was actually smooth, quiet and the least objectionable part of the car. The AW11 MR2 is a much better repesentation of the small, well-sorted-out, affordable, mid-engined sports car. Funny thing is... I knew all that before I bought the Fiero. But I thought a composite bodied, V6 powered, mid-engine car with four exhaust pipes was kinda cool... so I bought it anyway. If four exhaust pipes could have that much effect on a 20-something year old yours truly, imagine what scissor doors would do.

2014 Chevrolet Impala -- another Car GM Should Build The Chevy Impala is a Front Engined, Rear Drive, 5-passenger sedan built on a long wheelbase Zeta+ Platform. As the Malibu got more compact and takes on an exclusively 4-cylinder engine lineup, the Impala grows to a size and configuration more appropriate for capturing the full size market. The vehicle features laser welded seams, high strength steel and an aluminum hood culminating in a 150 lbs weight reduction over the Pontiac G8 despite its longer wheelbase. Power comes from the updated 3.6 liter DI V6 fortified with a new block featuring a balance shaft for enhanced refinement and cylinder deactivation for enhanced cruise economy. In conjunction with a new 8-speed automatic transmission, low rolling resistance tires and an underbody pan fuel economy ratings of 20 City / 30 mpg are expected -- 3 mpg and 4 mpg better than the Pontiac G8. Standard Features ($25,950) • Power Locks / Windows / Mirrors / Steering • Real Time Tire Pressure Sensor • Remote Entry / 60-40 folding rear seats • Acoustic Laminate Front and Rear Windows • Halogen Projector Headlights and Fog lights • ABS Brakes / Stability Control / Traction Control • Electronic Climate Control • Fabric Upholstery • 6-way Power Adjustable Bucket Front Seats • 8-Speaker AM / FM / CD Stereo • On-Star • 5-year 100,000 miles warranty • 17" Aluminum Alloy Wheels • 8-speed Automatic Transmission • Goodyear Assurance Fuel Max Tires Premium Equipment Package ($4,950) • HID Projector Headlights with Amber Fog Lights • Touch Screen GPS Nav with Back-up Camera • Rain Sensing Wipers • Electrochromic Windows and Rear Wind Screen • Power Rear Sunshade / Power Moonroof • Power Adjustable Foot Pedals • Auto-dimming rear/side mirrors • Magnetorheologic shocks (Comfort / Sport / Auto modes) • 9-speaker BOSE AM / FM / Satelite Stereo w/iPod Integration • Genuine Burled Walnut Trim • Leather Upholstery with 8-way manually adjustable Buckets w/ Seat Heaters SS Performance Package ($5,950) • Requires Premium Equipment Package • 6.2 Liter 5th Generation Small Block V8 engine • Z55 Sport Suspension • Genuine Black Ironwood Trim • Helical Limited Slip Rear Differential • 6L80 6-speed Automatic Transmission • 19" Aluminum Alloy Wheels • Michelin Pilot Super Sport Tires Body / Chassis • Configuration: 5-Passenger 4-door Sedan; Front Engine, Rear-Drive • Curb Weight: 3,800 lbs (SS: 3,835 lbs) • Construction: Steel unibody with Aluminum hood • Wheel base: 118.5” • Length x Width x Height: 197” x 74.8” x 57.8” • Suspension: Hi-per Struts (Front), 4-Link (Rear) • Brakes: Single-piston sliding calipers; 12.3” x 1.1” [front], 11.3" x 0.9" [rear] vented disc (SS: 4-piston Brembo Floating Calipers w/ 13.5" x 1.2" vented discs) • Wheels: Cast or Forged Aluminum Alloy Wheels; 17” x 6.5” (SS: 19 x 8.5 [front], 19 x 9.5" [rear]) • Tires: Goodyear Assurance Fuel Max; 225/55 TR17 (SS: Michelin Pilot Super Sport; 245/40 YR19 [front], 275/35 YR19 [rear]) Engine • RPO Code: LFX (SS: LV1) • Type: 3.6 liter 60-deg V6 w/ balance shaft (SS: 6.2 Liter Gen V Small Block 90-deg V8) • Construction: Aluminum Block & Heads • Valvetrain: Chain Driven DOHC-24v w/ Intake & Exhaust VVT (SS: Pushrod-16V with independent Intake & Exhaust VVT) • Bore x Stroke: 94 mm x 85.6 mm (SS: 103 mm x 93 mm) • Displacement: 3564 cc (SS: 6199 cc) • Compression Ratio: 11.7 : 1 (SS: 12.3:1) • Aspiration: Normally Aspirated with Cylinder Deactivation • Direct Gasoline Injection • 330 bhp @ 6500 rpm (SS: 450 bhp @ 6000 rpm) • 280 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm (SS: 432 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm) • Redline @ 6500 rpm / Rev limit @ 7000 rpm (SS: Redline @ 6000 rpm / Rev Limit @ 6200 rpm) • 87 Octane Recommended (SS: 91 Octane Required) • Transmissions: Hydramatic 8L50 8-speed Automatic (SS: Hydramatic 6L80 6-speed Automatic) Performance Estimates • 0-60 mph: 6.6 secs (SS: 4.5 secs) • 60-0 mph: 121 ft (SS: 116 ft) • Skidpad Roadholding: 0.79 G (SS: 0.88 G) • Fuel Economy: 20 / 30 mpg (SS: 17 / 25 mpg)

A trend we see with 2-seat sports coupes is that each subsequent generation sell worse and worse compared to the previous. Part of the reason, I believe, is that they get more and more sophisticated and expensive. The profile of a customer for a car like is a young person in his 20s. A young person in his twenties really can't afford 30, 40, 50 thousand dollar cars. So the first priority is to keep the entry price under $25K, preferably closer to $20K. You also need to load up with differentiating characteristics to broaden the appeal. Here we put forth two... When is the last time you can buy a car with Lamborgini style scissor doors for $23,000? And, when has a car with a 5.5 sec 0-60 time even been able to deliver 42 mpg? Here we are able to do both. Scissor doors are fancy, but they are not really expensive -- beyond the cost of a pair pair of gas struts it's just a door. 42 mpg is made possible by the 2500 lbs weight of the vehicle and a 3-cylinder powerplant with (relatively high compression). A three cylinder power plant has less frictional elements and surfaces than a 4-cylinder of equivalent displacement, the combination of relatively low boost with modestly high revolutions makes possible higher than typical compression ratios (for a turbo engine). The appeal of such a car is five fold... It's fast... pretty darn fast It really handles... 2,500 lbs, really fat tires, low polar moments It's really cool... it looks like a McLaren It's Efficient, 42 MPG is practically Hybrid Teritory It's cheap... you can buy one for the price of a loaded Cruze LTZ And, no, it's not a Fiero... more like an AW11 MR2, except it's a lot faster and a lot cooler.

Chevrolet Speed -- a Car GM Should Build The Chevy Speed is a mid-engined, RWD, 2-seat sports coupe built on the aluminum monocoque μ (“Myu”) Platform. The vehicle features scissor doors and a very low slung styling with wheels pushed out to the extreme corners. Power comes from a turbocharged 3-cylinder engine developed from the High Feature V6 family. Combined with a low curb weight of 2,500 lbs and a highway fuel economy rating of 42 mpg, the Speed is marketed as a trendy, agile sports car for the New Generation. Standard Features ($22,950) • Power Locks / Windows / Mirrors / Remote Entry • Halogen Projector Headlights with Amber Fog Lights • ABS Brakes / Stability Control / Traction Control (all user defeatable) • Manual Climate Control • Fabric Upholstery • 4-way manually Adjustable Bucket Seats • 4-Speaker AM / FM / CD Stereo • 5-year 100,000 miles warranty • Cast Aluminum Alloy Wheels • Goodyear Eagle GT Tires • No Power Steering Premium Equipment Package ($3,950) • HID Projector Headlights with Amber Fog Lights • Touch Screen GPS Nav • Electronic Climate Control • Rain Sensing Wipers • Auto-dimming rear/side mirrors • Magnetorheologic shocks (Comfort / Sport / Auto modes) • Helical Limited Slip Differential • 5-speaker BOSE AM / FM / Satelite Stereo w/iPod Integration • Leather and Suede Upholstery with 6-way manually adjustable Recaro Buckets w/ Seat Heaters • Lightweight Forged Aluminum Alloy Wheels • Michelin Pilot Super Sport Tires • No Power Steering Manual Transmission Package (no cost) • Getrag F28/6 6-speed Manual Transmission Body / Chassis • Configuration: 2-seat Hardtop Coupe; Transverse Mid-Engine, Rear-Drive • Curb Weight: 2,495 lbs (2,550 lbs with Premium Equipment Package) • Construction: Aluminum Monocoque with composite & steel body panels • Wheel base: 100” • Length x Width x Height: 155” x 67” x 46” • Suspension: Macpherson Struts (Front), Chapman Struts (Rear) • Brakes: Brembo 4-piston floating calipers; 12.3” x 1.1” vented discs • Wheels: Cast or Forged Aluminum Alloy Wheels; 17” x 7” (Front), 17” x 8.5” (Rear) • Tires: Goodyear Eagle GT or Michelin Pilot Super Sport; 215/45 R17 (Front); 245/40 R17 (Rear) Engine • RPO Code: LFS • Type: 1.6 liter Inline-3 w/ balance shaft • Construction: Aluminum Block & Heads • Valvetrain: Chain Driven DOHC-12v w/ Intake & Exhaust VVT • Bore x Stroke: 89 mm x 85.6 mm • Displacement: 1598 cc • Compression Ratio: 10.7 : 1 • Aspiration: Turbocharged and Intercooled; Honeywell-Garrett MGT2052 Turbocharger @ 11.8 psi • 210 bhp @ 6200 rpm • 178 lb-ft @ 2200 ~ 6200 rpm • Redline @ 6200 rpm / Rev limit @ 7000 rpm • 91 Octane Recommended (87 Octane Required) • Transmissions: Hydramatic 6T45 6-speed Automatic (Standard); Getrag F28/6 6-speed Manual (No Cost Option) Performance Estimates • 0-60 mph: 5.5 secs • 60-0 mph: 108 ft • Skidpad Roadholding: 1.02 G • Fuel Economy: 30 / 42 mpg

Let's hope that eventually, the freeway signs read DO NOT EXCEED THE SPEED RATING OF YOUR TIRES DO NOT SLOW DOWN FOR MERGING TRAFFIC SEAT BEATS AND HELMETS RECOMMENDED SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT (MINIMUM PENALTY FOR DUI -- 5 YEARS IMPRISONMENT) (MINIMUM PENALTY FOR CAUSING A LETHAL ACCIDENT WHILE IMPAIRED -- DEATH)

Aesthetically, I prefer the grille of the old car. Not so much the size or design, but the fine chrome wire mesh screen as opposed to the black plastic honeycomb of the new car. Overall, the evolutionary styling changes is a good thing. In this class you want something modestly handsome, but not necessarily something strikingly bold -- because strikingly bold can also mean strikingly polarizing.

More likely... If they don't do a new 6T transmission variant it'll be a 3.0 TT with 300~330 hp / 300 lb-ft If they do a new 6T transmission variant it'll probably be about 360 hp / 360 lb-ft Not bad. Good enough to get the SRX's 0-60 time into the sixes, but not exactly wow inspiring by "V" Standards. Hpwevver, it is a transverse FWD platform, so they can't drop the LSA into it. Even if they could the 6T family wouldn't be able to be beefed up enough to pull 551 lb-ft duty. So my guess is that there won't be an "SRX-V". Instead the 300hp 3.6 will become the "standard engine" replacing both the 3.0 and 2.8T. At some point they may bring on a 3.0TT as an upgrade option making 320~360 hp, very much like the 2.8T was, but no V for the RX350 wanna be.

I don't really mind that the Malibu will only have four potters. However, it better be a good four potter. Unfortunately, GM's current breed of high output four cylinder engines are... well... just so-so. The LDK and LHU are actually a step backwards compared to the LNF. Just a little background about these three... LNF is the engine in the Solstice GXP, Sky Redline, HHR SS, Cobalt SS, etc. It is a 2.0 liter Direct Injected DOHC-16v 4-pot engine with dual VVT and a twin scroll turbo. The engine is equipped with twin balance shafts for refinement. Output is a stout (for its time) 260hp @ 5250 rpm, 260 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm, and the engine was available in both transverse FWD and longitudinal RWD layout. It has been discontinued. LDK is the engine GM replaced the LNF with. Same displacement, bore and stroke. It is the engine in the Turbo Regal among others. The LDK switched from a lost foam cast block to a sand cast block. It also switched from a Bosch Motronic ME 2.8 ECU to a Delphi E39. The intake/exhaust ports are a little more restrictive and power is down to 220 hp @ 5300 rpm with 258 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm. Mainly the loss is at the upper end of the rev spectrum where the LNF simply aspirates better. LHU simply the LDK with various an in tank fuel sensor and components switched to corrosion resistant variants so it is E85 compatible. Output is still 220hp / 258 lb-ft for the "typical" LHU engine, although a version with cranked up boost pressure makes 255 hp @ 5200 rpm and 295 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm. Despite the higher boost pressures and a strong torque peak, the LHU still struggles behind the LNF as the needle winds past 5000 rpm. OK... let me say that these engines are not that bad -- in fact the LDK nearly mirrors the VW/Audi 2.0T FSI in terms of its power characteristics, and just a little bit behind in refinement and response. In short, they are OK, but they are not inspiring. I hope the Malibu packs something a step beyond these two. .

Here's the easy way to cut $10K maybe more from the Volt. Replace the $12K 16kWh battery with a $2000 2kWh Battery (still 50% higher capacity than the Prius's battery) Remove the Plug-in charging hardware Use the ICE to recharge the batteries and work in parallel mode most of the time Should still hit beat the Prius in fuel economy...

dwight what is the highest capacity transaxle gm has?, im just wondering about the Twin turbo idea The SRX is a Transverse FWD platform (with the option of AWD). GM has four transverse six speed automatics. These and their torque ratings are:- Hydramatic 6T40 -- 177 lb-ft Hydramatic 6T45 -- 232 lb-ft Hydramatic 6T70 -- 280 lb-ft Hydramatic 6T75 -- 301 lb-ft Now, an interesting fact few people pay attention to is that the 6T70 (Malibu V6, Lacrosse, etc) is the same transmission as the Ford 6F-50 (Fusion V6, Taurus V6, etc.) GM builds theirs at Warren Michigan, Ford puts theirs together in Sharonsville, Ohio. But, the transmissions are jointly developed by GM and Ford, and are both rated for 280 lb-ft. GM did some minor tuning and produced the 6T75 which is uprated to 301 lb-ft. Ford did some more substantial work and produced the 6F-55 which is rated at 350 lb-ft (this is the Ecoboost tranny). Basically, GM should have no problems producing a 350 lb-ft capable 6Txx if they want to without changing the architecture. But they haven't done that. And they may not bother, given that the LF3 engine under development is a 3.0 bi-turbo. You can tune that engine to about 320 hp @ 5600 rpm and stick to a modest but extremely broad 300 lb-ft @ 1600~5600 rpm. It won't be bad. Such an engine will come on boost before you even realize there's a pair of turbos at work and it'll still make more power than a BMW 335, which is decent enough.

Should have had the 3.6 from day one. Fuel economy would have been better or no different from the 3.0 (based on experiences with both on the CTS). But, I guess its better late than never...

Not quite... but it is substantial. The BAS is 79 lb-ft at 0 rpm. But by 2800 rpm it has dropped to 28 lb-ft, which corresponds to 15 hp. Assuming that the decrease is linear, at 1600 rpm when the ICE hits its torque plateau of 200 lb-ft, the BAS is capable of about 50 lb-ft from the electric motor for a total of about 250 lb-ft. In reality though, the assist output will probably be dialed back to keep the total torque output to about 232 lb-ft -- the maximum rating of the 6T45 automatic transmission. The motor will make 50 lb-ft only when the ICE is not at Wide Open Throttle, which is when the engine needs the most help anyway. BTW, the 5000 rpm red line is there because a SMALL turbo like the MGT15 will run out of breathe anyway and going to the 2.4's 7000 rpm theoretical redline will make a lot of noise and nothing else. The car will be faster if you shift at ~5000 rpm anyway. However a small turbo also spools faster and lets you hit 200 lb-ft at a rock bottom 1600 rpm as well as minimize lag in those 2000~4000 rpm freeway passing scenarios. This is also where the motor is at its 15bhp peak rating which all plays together well. Anyway, the whole idea is that where people do most of their driving -- be it pulling away from the light, passing on the freeway or putting pedal to the floor, the engine pulls like a 3.0~3.5 liter V6 up to about 4000 rpm or so. The engine also beats a Cruze automatic on fuel economy while incurring a the minimum Hybrid premium. Also, unlike more elaborate Hybrids, this one actually makes economic sense. At a 8mpg advantage over a 4-cylinder Malibu, the premium of $1000 pays off after about 3.5 years at $4 a gallon instead of the 11~13 years for most Hybrids. So, you don't have to drink the Global Warming coolaid to justify buying one.

The idea here is not to produce the ultimate gas savings or the highest performance. Instead it is a Mild Hybrid which combines amicable fuel consumption with lively driving characteristics. The system is avoids the weight and cost burden of a big battery, while benefiting from an efficient asymmetric combustion cycle. The price premium will be in the order of $1000 over a turbo Malibu, while the driving experience -- especially in daily driving regimes in the idle to 4000 rpm range -- will be similar to a 3 liter V6. Ecotec XFE • 2.4 liter DOHC-16v Inline-4 Miller Cycle Engine w/ Intake & Exhaust VVT • Turbocharged and Intercooled; Honeywell-Garrett MGT1548 Turbocharger @ 10.3 psi • 88 mm (bore) x 98 mm (stroke); Bore Centers 96 mm • Static Displacement 2384 cc • Effective Displacement 1788 cc • Effective Compression 10.2 : 1 • Direct Gasoline Injection • Dual Balance Shafts • BAS II Mild Hybrid system with 115.2V Lithium Ion Electric System (0.5 kWh) • 175 bhp @ 4600 rpm (ICE) + 15 bhp @ 2800 rpm (Electric) • 200 lb-ft @ 1600 ~ 4600 rpm (ICE) + 79 lb-ft @ 0 rpm (Electric) • Redline @ 4600 rpm / Rev limit @ 5000 rpm • 87 Octane Required • Applications: Chevrolet Malibu (Gen VIII) Hybrid; Buick Regal eAssist, Lacrosse eAssist • Transmission: Hydramatic 6T45 6-speed Automatic w /Idle Stop Control Axle Ratio 2.89 : 1 Gear Ratio (Maximum Speed in Gear) 1st : 4.584 (25mph @ 5000 rpm) 2nd : 2.964 (41mph @ 5000 rpm) 3rd : 1.912 (66mph @ 5000 rpm) 4th : 1.446 (86mph @ 5000 rpm) 5th : 1.000 (122mph @ 5000 rpm) 6th : 0.746 (130mph @ 3908 rpm) * * Governed; Maximum Speed rating of H-rated Goodyear Assurance Fuelmax tires Cruising RPM 1954 rpm @ 65 mph 2405 rpm @ 80 mph Est. Fuel Economy 28 mpg (City) / 40 mpg (Hwy)

Actually, I think the culprit is the multi-axis joint used to couple the trunk lid to the trunk. It gives it an upmarket feel (ala the 2001 Passat) but it also makes the trunk opening about 6 inches narrower and about 2 inches shorter than a run of the mill J-joint would have afforded.

Let's forget weight, design, performance and even small mpg gains for a minute. Not that these aren't important, but they are NOT the most important things about a car in this category. The Camry is not the weight, design, performance or mpg leader... yet it outsells current (very respectable) Malibu 3:1 to 4:1 depending on which sales period you look at. The current Malibu has a few big issues which matter to family sedan buyers more than the shape of the tail lights or even whether the car gets 30 mpg or 32. The trunk is disproportionately small and shallow for the size of the car. The headroom in the car is worst in class and the seats don't drop low enough to the floorboard even for a 5' 9" person like me. The arching roof line is pretty, but the windows are small and the beltline is catastrophically high for small ladies. In short the Bu is a big car that manages to feel small. Going to a shorter platform doesn't make it easier to address these questions, so they better try really hard. That, or bring over the VE Commodore as an Impala.

The reason there is no V8 is that the V8s remain on the Pushrod Small block architecture -- fortified with cam-in-cam Dual Independent VVT, Direct Injection and Cylinder Deactivation of course. A 6.2 liter Gen V small block so configured will probably be make 450~470 hp on premium and probably around 420 hp on regular. To get to a similar output, a 4.3 liter "Varitec" V8 will need to be making over 100 hp per liter. This means either forced induction or revving into the 7500~8000 rpm range. The engine will be more expensive, bulkier, heavier and probably no more efficient on fuel... which then beckons the question why? What does that get you? A bit more refinement? The balance shafted 3.2 60 deg V6es already get you plenty of that for the mainstream models, whereas a bi-turbo V12 caps off the ultimate luxury-performance class. Instead of a high revving V8 or bi-turbo V8, I think the Corvette, ATS-V and CTS-Vs are better served with a compact, light, affordable and efficient Pushrod V8. The trucks even more so by a 87 octane compatible version of the small block as well as the 4.5 & 6.6 liter Duramax Diesels. In fact, it is probably not a bad idea to add a 4.6 liter V6 based off the 6.2 V8 for lower end trucks -- more power, more accessible torque than Varitec V6; much less expensive and less worrisome on maintenance than a bi-turbo V6. A 4-engine Pushrod lineup looking something like this... Gen V Small Block Family Common characteristics:- 90 deg Aluminum block with high mounted camshaft 111.76 bore centers, 103mm bore, 93 mm stroke Direct Injection Cam-in-cam dual VVT Cylinder deactivation Vortec 284 • 4.6 liter Pushrod-12v 90-degree V-6; Naturally Aspirated • Static Displacement 4649 cc • Single Balance Shaft • Compression Ratio 10.7:1 • 315 bhp @ 5600 rpm • 315 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm • Redline @ 5600 rpm / Rev limit @ 6000 rpm • 87 Octane Recommended • Applications: Chevrolet Caprice Patrol, Suburban, Tahoe, Silverado, Express; GMC Sierra, Yukon • Transmissions: Hydramatic 6L50 6-speed Automatic Vortec 378 • 6.2 liter Pushrod-16v 90-degree V-8; Naturally Aspirated • Static Displacement 6199 cc • No Balance Shaft • Compression Ratio 10.7:1 • 420 bhp @ 5600 rpm • 420 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm • Redline @ 5600 rpm / Rev limit @ 6000 rpm • 87 Octane Recommended • Applications: Chevrolet Camaro SS, Caprice Pursuit, Impala SS, Suburban, Tahoe, Silverado; GMC Sierra, Yukon Denali; Holden Commodore SS • Transmissions: Hydramatic 6L80 6-speed Automatic; Tremec 6060 6-speed Manual SS 378 • 6.2 liter Pushrod-16v 90-degree V-8; Naturally Aspirated • Static Displacement 6199 cc • No Balance Shaft • Compression Ratio 12.3:1 • 470 bhp @ 6000 rpm • 438 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm • Redline @ 6000 rpm / Rev limit @ 6200 rpm • 91 Octane Required • Applications: Cadillac ATS-V, STS 6.2, Escalade 6.2; Chevrolet Corvette • Transmissions: Hydramatic 8L80 8-speed Automatic; Tremec 6060 6-speed Manual SC 378 • 6.2 liter Pushrod-16v 90-degree V-8; 2.1 liter Eaton 4-lobe Roots Supercharger • Static Displacement 6199 cc • No Balance Shaft • Compression Ratio 10.3:1 • 600 bhp @ 6000 rpm • 600 lb-ft @ 3800 rpm • Redline @ 6000 rpm / Rev limit @ 6200 rpm • 91 Octane Required • Applications: Cadillac CTS-V; Chevrolet Camaro ZL1, Corvette Z07 • Transmissions: Hydramatic 6L100 6-speed Automatic; Tremec 6060 6-speed manual

This of course is a depiction of what can be and may be, but not necessarily what is.

GM Varitec Family The Varitec Family of Engines… Replaces the Family One, Ecotec and HF V6 engine families Are designed to be most advanced, efficient and refined in their class Share a standardized 98mm Bore Centers, 88 mm Bores and 88 mm Strokes Span 1.6 to 6.4 liters with 3, 4, 6 and 12-cylinder variants Ground Breaking Technologies Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) – At low engine speeds and load, Varitec engines operate without using the spark plug to ignite the fuel-air mixture. Instead, it increases the effective compression ratio and adjust the mixture to cause spontaneous ignition very much like a diesel engine. This enables up to a 20% increase in brake specific fuel consumption at cruising speeds. Varitec engines are capable of operating in HCCI mode between 1500 rpm 3000 rpm. Tricam VVTLD – One Concentric and One regular cam shafts per bank affords Variable Valve Timing Lift and Duration control of the intake valves, as well as exhaust cam phasing. The ability to continuously alter the intake cam duration and timing allows the engine to negate up to 30% of the compression stroke and operate in Atkinson Cycle (or Miller Cycle) mode when maximum power is not needed. Atkinson Cycle operation creates a longer power stroke relative to the compression stroke improving energy recovery and fuel economy – Miller Cycle is similar concept but applied with forced induction. This ability to alter the effective compression stroke also allows for the effective compression ratio to be dynamically adjusted which is a necessary ingredient to enabling HCCI operation. Effective displacement of Varitec engines is variable from 70% to 100% of their swept volume during operation, whereas Effective Compression can be adjusted from 9.4 to 13.5:1 (8.2 to 11.7:1 on turbocharged applications). Flywheel Integrated Generation and Starting (FIGS) – Varitec Engines do not have a belt driven alternator and a regular starter motor. Instead, they carry a 30 mm thick Generator-Motor in place of the flywheel. A 1.5 kW version provides basic electric generation as well as engine starting. As a standard feature, Varitec engines have the ability to automatically stop the engine when it is idled for over 5 seconds at standstill and restart it when the driver lifts the foot off the brake pedal. This feature is enabled when the transmission setting is in ECO mode. In vehicles equipped as mild Hybrids, a 15 kW Flywheel Integrated Generator-Motor offers up to 15 bhp / 80 lb-ft in electric assist in addition to electric generator and starting. Both the 1.5 kW and 15 kW FIGS operate on long life Lithium-Iron-Phosphate batteries. The basic Generator-Starter operates on a 12.8V electrical system, whereas the assist capable 15kW system runs at 115.2 V. Refinement Tuning – The Varitec family is designed from the ground up to be the most refined engines in their class. This is achieved through four main avenues. The first is that all Varitec engines (except the V12 which is naturally balanced) feature balance shaft(s). This includes the 60 deg V6es – a configuration which traditionally do not receive a balancer because the 1st order vibrations are considered mild. The Second is an extensive strengthening of the engine blocks through the incorporation of isogrid girders in the exterior of the block and using a one piece lower block with cast in place bearings. Thirdly, the engines make extensive use of Helmholtz resonators and strategically placed insulation around the noisy direct injectors. Finally, because the Varitec family has the ability to adjust its effective compression, the engine automatically switches to the lowest compression ratio and maximum intake stroke negation during idle and low loads when not operating within the HCCI regimes. Incidental to the reduction in compression ratio is a reduction in combustion noise. Varitec 3-cylinder Engines Varitec 16 HCCI • 1.6 liter Tricam-12v Inline-3; Naturally Aspirated • Static Displacement 1606 cc • Single Balance Shaft • 1.5kW Flywheel Integrated Generator-Starter • 135 bhp @ 6200 rpm • 128 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm • Redline @ 6200 rpm / Rev limit @ 6350 rpm • 87 Octane Recommended • Applications: Chevrolet Cruze 1.6, Sonic SS; Daewoo Tosca 2.1; Opel Astra 1.6 • Transmissions: Hydramatic 6T40 -6-speed Automatic; Getrag F28 6-Speed manual Varitec 16 T • 1.6 liter Tricam-12v Inline-3; w/ Honeywell-Garrett MGT1548 turbocharger • Static Displacement 1606 cc • Single Balance Shaft • 1.5kW Flywheel Integrated Generator-Starter • 170 bhp @ 5200 rpm • 175 lb-ft @ 2000~5000 rpm • Redline @ 5200 rpm / Rev limit @ 6200 rpm • 87 Octane Recommended • Applications: Chevrolet Cruze 1.6T; Opel Astra 1.6T • Transmissions: Hydramatic 6T40 -6-speed Automatic; Getrag F28 6-Speed manual Varitec 4-cylinder Engines Varitec 21 HCCI • 2.1 liter Tricam-16v Inline-4; Naturally Aspirated • Static Displacement 2141 cc • Dual Balance Shafts • 1.5kW Flywheel Integrated Generator-Starter • 180 bhp @ 6200 rpm • 170 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm • Redline @ 6200 rpm / Rev limit @ 6350 rpm • 87 Octane Recommended • Applications: Buick Verano 2.1, Regal 2.1; Chevrolet Malibu 2.1; Daewoo Tosca 2.1; Holden Epica 2.1; GMC Terrain 2.1; Opel Insignia 2.1 • Transmissions: Hydramatic 8T50 8-speed Automatic; Getrag F28 6-Speed manual Varitec 21 eHCCI • 2.1 liter Tricam-16v Inline-4; Naturally Aspirated • Static Displacement 2141 cc • Dual Balance Shafts • 15kW Flywheel Integrated Generator-Motor • 180 bhp @ 6200 rpm + 15 bhp @ 2800 rpm (Electric) • 170 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm + 80 lb-ft @ 0 rpm (Electric) • Redline @ 6200 rpm / Rev limit @ 6350 rpm • 87 Octane Recommended • Applications: Buick Verano eAssist, Regal eAssist; Chevrolet Malibu ECO; Holden Epica Hybrid; Opel Insignia Hybrid • Transmissions: Hydramatic 8T50 8-speed Automatic Varitec 21 T • 2.1 liter Tricam-16v Inline-4; Honeywell-Garrett MGT2252 Turbocharger • Static Displacement 2141 cc • Dual Balance Shafts • 1.5kW Flywheel Integrated Generator-Starter • 270 bhp @ 6000 rpm • 250 lb-ft @ 1600~5600 rpm • Redline @ 6000 rpm / Rev limit @ 6200 rpm • 87 Octane Recommended • Applications: Buick Verano 2.1T, Regal 2.1T; Cadillac ATS 2.1T; Chevrolet Malibu 2.1T; Daewoo Tosca 2.1T; Holden Epica 2.1T; GMC Terrain 2.1T; Opel Insignia 2.1T • Transmissions: Hydramatic 8T50 8-speed Automatic; Hydramatic 8L50 8-speed Automatic; Getrag F28 6-Speed manual Varitec 6-cylinder Engines Varitec 32 HCCI • 3.2 liter Tricam-24v 60 deg V6; Naturally Aspirated • Static Displacement 3211 cc • Single Balance Shaft • 1.5kW Flywheel Integrated Generator-Starter • 270 bhp @ 6200 rpm • 256 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm • Redline @ 6200 rpm / Rev limit @ 6350 rpm • 87 Octane Recommended • Applications: Buick LaCrosse 3.2, Enclave 3.2; Cadillac CTS 3.2, SRX 3.2, XTS 3.2; Chevrolet Impala 3.2; Daewoo Veritas 3.2; GMC Acadia 3.2; Holden Commodore 3.2 • Transmissions: Hydramatic 8T50 8-speed Automatic; Hydramatic 8L50 8-Speed Automatic Varitec 32 eHCCI • 3.2 liter Tricam-24v 60 deg V6; Naturally Aspirated • Static Displacement 3211 cc • Single Balance Shaft • 15kW Flywheel Integrated Generator-Motor • 270 bhp @ 6200 rpm + 15 bhp @ 2800 rpm (Electric) • 256 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm + 80 lb-ft @ 0 rpm (Electric) • Redline @ 6200 rpm / Rev limit @ 6350 rpm • 87 Octane Recommended • Applications: Buick LaCrosse eAssist, Enclave eAssist; Cadillac CTS 3.2e, SRX 3.2e, XTS 3.2e; Chevrolet Impala 3.2 ECO • Transmissions: Hydramatic 8T50 8-speed Automatic; Hydramatic 8L50 8-Speed Automatic Varitec 32 T • 3.2 liter Tricam-24v 60 deg V6; 2 x Honewell-Garrett MGT-2052 Turbochargers • Static Displacement 3211 cc • Single Balance Shaft • 1.5kW Flywheel Integrated Generator-Starter • 400 bhp @ 6000 rpm • 375 lb-ft @ 2000~5500 rpm • Redline @ 6000 rpm / Rev limit @ 6200 rpm • 87 Octane Recommended • Applications: Buick LaCrosse 3.2T; Cadillac ATS 3.2T; CTS 3.2T, Escalade 3.2T, SRX 3.2T, STS 3.2T, XLR 3.2T; GMC Acadia Denali; Holden Caprice 3.2T • Transmissions: Hydramatic 8T70 8-speed Automatic; Hydramatic 8L80 8-Speed Automatic Varitec 12-cylinder Engines Varitec 64 T • 6.4 liter Tricam-48v 60 deg V12; 2 x Honewell-Garrett GT-2860RS Turbochargers • Static Displacement 6422 cc • No Balance Shaft • 3kW Flywheel Integrated Generator-Starter • 720 bhp @ 6000 rpm • 700 lb-ft @ 1600~5200 rpm • Redline @ 6000 rpm / Rev limit @ 6200 rpm • 91 Octane Recommended • Applications: Cadillac STS-V, Escalade-V, XLR-V • Transmissions: Hydramatic 6T100 6-speed Automatic

I'll reserve final judgement until I have seen the whole car. But, the tail lights do not impress by themselves. They look unnecessarily cluttered and out of place on a cleanly sculpted body. But again, I come from the school of design that thought the Clinique Soap Box Audi A4 (2003~2005) were the best looking cars on the street, so I have an unusually high level of intolerance for clutter and unnecessary lines.

GM has a "mechanicals bank", so they go there and and fish for an offer of something each of the major markets depending on what they see as more appropriate for that market. In Europe it means the Cruze and Astra dpon't share engines, in the US it means the Verano gets the 2.4L engine while the Cruze gests the 1.4T. It does not take away anything from the Cruze's "world car" status (more even when the Cruze gets a diesel in the US in a couple of years). No, no. What I mean is that while the 1.4T might be a useful engine in the lineup in giving GM a range of engines that fits worldwide needs, its use in the Cruze cannot be explained or justified by the desire to avoid European displacement taxes. The very simple reason being that the Cruze is NOT offered with that engine in Europe, hence its selection cannot be explained by the desire to accommodate European market realities. The 1.4T does not appear to offer a cost, fuel economy or performance advantage over a direct injected 1.8 or 2.0 liter engine. In this regard, it is a poor choice -- the additional complexity and cost of forced induction with no payback. It is smooth, yes, but so is a 2.0 with balancers.

This is really a detraction from the topic of this thread... but here are some basic facts.

Uh... except the 1.4T is not available in Europe. The Europeans get a 1.6 and a 1.8 NA four, plus a 2.0 Turbodiesel. The 2.0 Turbodiesel is actually the highest performance motor for the Cruze at 150hp / 240 lb-ft Couple of quick comments/clarifications: 1. The 1.4T is sold in over here on the Astra, in manual and automatic versions. Exact same powertrain as the NA Cruze IIRC. 2. The highest power 2.0L diesel is now rated at 163PS (don't remember torque figures). Is there a chance that beside final drive ratio, GM messed up the software somehow losing a few mpg in the process? But not in the European Cruze; which does nothing in making the Cruze a world car.