dwightlooi

Obviously, there's room for interpretation of the intangible. However, I maintain that when it comes down to signing the bottom line, any 'V12 perception' is only bringing in a literal handful of V6 / V8 buyers. And with the bulk of sales in the mid-range (V8s)- I still question if MB would sell any appreciable amount less V6/V8 s-class, if there were no V12 model. That aside, I see no reason a competitor could not target the segment that does buy the V6/V8 models by themselves (assuming the business case for doing so is there). Perhaps, perhaps not, but the XTS does not even have a V8. The notion of a V6 "only" flagship is dubious, turbos not withstanding. The notion of a Transverse FWD platform based flagship is doubly dubious, hybrid drive train not withstanding.

Again, I think the 1.4T is probably not the best choice. A better choice ought to be a low boost, Miller Cycle, version of the 2.0T and a regular Otto Cycle 2.0 (Non-turbo). At base car will out perform the Civic, Sentra, Focus, etc. by virtue of its DI 2.0 power plant. The extra cost Eco-Turbo engine uses a turbocharger along with late closing intake valves (~ 1.5 liter effective displacement) and makes identical power, but with superior torque and economy... And, perhaps with the second model year, an SS with a non-Miller version of the 2.0T. 2.0 (LT / 1LT / 2LT) DOHC-16v Otto-Cycle Inline-4 (w/Dual VVT & Direct Injection) 86 x 86 mm (Bore x Stroke); 1998 cc Naturally Aspirated 170 bhp @ 6200 rpm 152 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm 6200 rpm / 6350 rpm (Redline / Rev Limit) 6T40 6-speed Automatic Transmission (w/ 2.89 axle ratio) Est. 24 (city) / 35 (Hwy) mpg -- 87 Octane 2.0 T (LTZ / ECO) DOHC-16v Miller Cycle Inline-4 (w/Dual VVT & Direct Injection) 86 x 86 mm (Bore x Stroke); 1998 cc Honeywell-Garrett MGT-2052-7 Turbo @ 8.8 psi (max boost) 170 bhp @ 5200 rpm 175 lb-ft @ 1500~5000 rpm 5200 rpm / 6350 rpm (Redline / Rev Limit) 6T40 6-speed Automatic Transmission (w/ 2.89 axle ratio) Est. 27 (city) / 40 (Hwy) mpg -- 87 Octane [ECO MODEL: 27 (city) / 42 (Hwy) mpg w/ lightening & aerodynamic enhancements) 2.0 T (SS) DOHC-16v Inline-4 (w/Dual VVT & Direct Injection) 86 x 86 mm (Bore x Stroke); 1998 cc Honeywell-Garrett MGT-2259-3 Turbo @ 13.2 psi (max boost) 270 bhp @ 6000 rpm 250 lb-ft @ 1600~5600 rpm 6000 rpm / 6350 rpm (Redline / Rev Limit) 6T70 6-speed Automatic Transmission (w/ 2.89 axle ratio) or Getrag F28/6 6-speed Manual Transmission (3.72 axle ratio) Est. 22 (city) / 32 (Hwy) mpg -- 91 Octane For purpose of expediency and economies of scale, the 2.0 T SS engine is also the V6 replacement engine on the new Malibu. Whereas the base Malibu gets the 182hp 2.4 liter from the Regal.

Actually, I beg to differ on two premises. (1) That the existence of the S600 does not lend exclusivity and perceived stature to the S-class is probably untrue. No, the V6 buyer probably will never trade up to a V12. But the V12 makes the S-class a more prestigious S-class as opposed to say a Avalon or a Genesis. This is especially true of Cadillac -- a brand which currently lacks the same degree of recognition compared to the Teutonic marques. It is probably also why neither M-B or BMW has axed their S600s and 760s. (2) The other notion that is suspect is that of a twin turbo V6 being substantially or at all more economical than a Pushrod V8 of similar output. One has to but look at the 6.2 liter Camaro (16/25 mpg) or Corvette (16/26 mpg), and compare that to others car in the 400~450hp class with twin turbo six cylinder power or turbo V8s of substantially lower displacement (eg. 4.4 liters). At best you'll see a 1 mpg deficit, sometimes the big V8 is actually more economical. Speaking of volume, if that is what Cadillac is after with the XTS, then the target should not be the S-class. It should be the ES350. This means a $40~45K price tag, spacious interiors and refinement, free of the burden of being a flagship. Again, IMHO, this should be a model for Buick.

BMW USA would like to disagree with you... I stand corrected then! I was mislead by the nomenclature of 740i instead of 735i, and had mistakenly thought that the 740i is a 4.4 V8 perhaps absent the 750i's twin turbos

Actually, oil is NOT subsidized in the US, we just don't artificially inflate the price of oil. Oil is 2.5 times more expensive in the EU simply because it is taxed there for reasons ranging from the bogus believe in global warming or the need to artificially accelerate the transition to alternative sources. BTW, there is no gasoline six cylinder S-class or 7-series in the US. A Caddy flagship is not going to be a volume seller no matter what. Caddy's fortunes will be made or broken with the CTS and ATS. It is more important that the Flagship car be distinguished as a flagship -- something to elevate the marque but not necessarily bring in the sales volume. A diesel nay not be a bad idea for EU, but not some weezy V6 diesel. Perhaps a 6.6 liter Duramax Pushrod-32v V8 with 400 bhp and 770 lb-ft (1043 Nm) of torque matted to a 6-speed Allison tranny. If not anything, that will have undeniable character.

Don't discount the new A6 just because it comes standard with FWD. It has an aluminum intensive body, longitudinally mounted engine, and 55/45% weight distribution -- a very different animal from Epsilon II. And if the XTS were theoretically to come with a small diesel, it'd share the unit from the 9-5, which just isn't as good as the "world-class" (sorry) A6's. It's less powerful, slower, emits more, and consumes more. A longitudinal engine in a FWD car (ala Audi and Subaru) is actually more a liability than an advantage. It pushes the weight balance further forward than a transverse layout. In Audi's case they do it for the convenience of integrating AWD because the transfer case because integral and inline with the output shaft of the tranny. The Epsilon is a fine enough platform. The problem GM has is the groany, unrefined note of the 3.6 DI V6 and the acceptable by below average 6T70 (and 6T75) transmissions. Personally, I don't see the XTS as a flagship, but an ES350 competitor. It should have been a Buick, but the notion of a large, transverse V6 powered, FWD/AWD cruiser or the comfort oriented buyer is not a bad one. But regardless of what the Greenies think, transverse V6 with out without Hybrid assist is not really the gold standard (or the upcoming one in the ear future) for flagship luxury. Caddy deserves and can be well served by a stretched Sigma II with a 7.2 V12 option created by Siameing two 3.6 V6es and a quiet tuned Pushrod small block V8 as the standard power plant. If they want to add a V6 Hybrid to the mix, that's fine, but that will be the niche not the V8 powered car... let's face it, there are not that many Prius drivers upgrading to a Flagship Luxury car (S-class, 7-series, A8 or whatever Caddy has), and those pitiful few will probably buy a Lexus LS600h.

Putting out a diesel is not difficult. Putting out a class leading diesel is. But... just dropping in the Opel 2.0 CDTI Bi-turbo engine is a start. 190hp @ 4000 rpm, 300 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm is "good enough", especially for the ATS. They do need a Diesel V6 though... something that has been missing since the Opel Signum got axed a few years back.

Oh there are all kinds of problems; NVH is just one of them. Actually, the NVH is not that bad. Reports indicate a slight "ringing" afternote to the engine sound; not particularly obtrusive. The biggest problems are three fold... To have HCCI function, you need to (1)know the precise pressures within the cylinders in real time, (2)be able to control it and (3)be able to precisely meter and time the introduction of fuel. If you can't do any of these you can't have HCCI. The last problem is generally a non-issue with the advent of direct injection. The first requires a reliable and long lived pressure sensor -- that is being worked out. This leaves the ability to control pressures in real-time. This is the hard part. There is basically only one way to control cylinder pressures -- by varying compression ratio based on temperatures, speed and load. One way you can do this by raising or lowering the deck height relative to the crankshaft, but nobody does that (actually Saab tried it once, but not very successfully). The most practical means of controlling effective compression ratio in real-time is to have a continuously variable intake valve opening duration. By closing the intake valve late past BDC, the engine ends up kicking part of the intake charge back out of the cylinders instead of compressing it. This reduces effective displacement (amount of air actually remaining in the engine) and effective compression (the less air remains, the less is compressed against the same combustion chamber size at TDC, the lower the compression ratio). To continuously vary intake duration, most solutions use two separate camlobes and an additive rocker to operate an intake valve. The valve only opens when both lobes are not on the base circle. Usually, the intake cam is actually a cam-in-cam setup so the timing of one lobe can change relative to the other to alter the intake duration. Even with all these elaborate controls, GM has been struggling to get HCCI to operate above 60mph -- actually it's more like above the top gear engine rpms at 60 mph (about 2500 rpm). Go to a taller set of gears and there isn't enough power in HCCI mode at freeway cruising speeds. Lower gear ratio and the HCCI crusing speed falls below 60mph. I think that once they can get HCCI to work between about 1500~3000 rpm or even 2000~3000 rpm, it'll be ready for prime time. In all likelihood, HCCI engines will be Triple-cam engines. Or, more precisely speaking, a DOHC style engine where the intake cam is actually a concentric cam-in-cam setup.

I always love 911 fanboys. 0-60 2.9 really? that's only with launch control ON without it slower than 3.4 0-60 second. Also have fun with those 0-60 in 2.9 when you blow your tranny and it's not under warranty since you used launch control too much What's MSRP on a 911 turbo again yup 140k+, 4-5k of bolt-ons on that Zr1 you are blowing the 911 turbo out of the water with an extra 35k+ in your pocket. Really a flat 6 TT is more efficient than a LS9/LS7 lol obviously not to mention all MPG tests the turbo is out of boost pretty simple to get MPG ratings low. First of all, comparing engines to engines, the 3.8 Turbo Flat Six in the 911 Turbo is not in the same class as the ZR1’s LS9. It is 138 hp and 104 lb-ft short. Secondly, the 911’s acceleration advantage is not due to its power-to-weight ratio (it’s inferior), it is due to the traction advantages of AWD and shifting speed of the dual clutch transmission. A better comparison is between the 505 hp / 470 lb-ft LS7 engine in the Z06 and the 500 hp / 480 lb-ft 3.8TT engine in the 911 Turbo. The LS7 is the lighter, smaller, less complex and less costly engine. Fuel Economy wise, the Z06 posts 15/24 mpg to the 911 Turbo’s 16/24 (manual transmission on both). IT also goes to show that displacement is pretty low on the list of characteristics that determine fuel economy. That's a 1 mpg difference between a 7.0 liter engine and a 3.8 liter mill (almost half its swept volume).

If we take a step back and reconsider the good old Tachometer, one has to ponder... does all those markings and graduations matter? I mean do you really care if to know if the engine is making 4153 rpm? If you do, most tachs are not marked that precisely anyway. If all that is important is knowing roughly where you are in the rev range then do all those graduations serve only to clutter up and confuse? In the course of daily driving -- even spirited driving -- what really matters really are the basics. Is the engine idling at the intended RPMs? Am I about to bump the rev limiter? Where I am on the rev range? Am I crusing at an economical engine speed? I propose a very simple tachometer design for future HCCI equipped vehicles. The gauge has no markings except:- A "0" denoting engine is off A single notch indicating the warm idle A blue band from 1500 to 3000 rpm indicating the RPM range over which HCCI may operate A red "7" and band indicating the redline If the driver really whats to call up the exact rpm for diagnostic purposes (which is rare) he can call it up amongst one of the modes on the text display which also serves as the odometer, trip computer, mpg readout, etc. All the other nonsense are simply eliminated. I think it's a starkly clean look! What do you think?

For trucks, I am a proponent of BIG BORES, LOW RPMS, LESS VALVES and FEW CYLINDERS. This gives you stump pulling torque along with superior fuel economy, at the expense of some perceived refinement (which isn't a top concern with a truck). Really, forget the 2.4 Ecotec or the 3.6 DOHC V6. Take the 6.2 Pushrod V8, add chop it into 6 and 4 cylinder variants and you'll end up with a line of excellent truck motors. Especially if you load up with state of the art features like Direct Injection, VVT and Cylinder Deactivation:- 6.2 Gen V Small Block V8 -- DI, VVT, AFM, 87 Octane -- 420bhp @ 5600 rpm / 420 lb-ft @ 2600 rpm / 6000 rpm Rev-Limit 4.7 Gen V Small Block V6 -- DI, VVT, AFM, Balance Shaft, 87 Octane -- 315bhp @ 5600 rpm / 315 lb-ft @ 2600 rpm / 6000 rpm Rev-Limit 3.1 Gen V Small Block I4 -- DI, VVT, AFM, Dual Balance Shafts, 87 Octane -- 210bhp @ 5600 rpm / 210 lb-ft @ 2600 rpm / 6000 rpm Rev-Limit

The 1.4T will be about ~150 hp / ~162 lb-ft if you go to DI and but keep 87 Octane as the recommended fuel grade. An Atkinson / Miller with an effective displacment of 1.5 liters is more efficient than a 1.5 liter. 10%, maybe 15% better. That is why cars like the Prius use an Atkinson Cycle engine. The Prius's 1.8 has a geometric compression of 13:1 but an effective compression of 9.5:1 -- that is a geometric displacement of 1.8 liters and an effective displacement of 1.3 liters. This 2ZR-FXE 1.8 liter Atkinson Cycle power plant makes 98hp vs 140hp of the Otto Cycle version of the engine (2ZR-FE).

Well... nice of them to offer such a nice paint. But, let's hope there will be a "White Diamond" or "Silver Specter" Edition coming along. I never buy Black cars... too hot in Summer, looks dirty unless you wash it every other day. Plus, it shows off scratches and nicks like crazy. I have a habit of buying 3~4 year old cars because they represent a much superior value. Once the E90 M5, W204 C63 AMG or LSA powered CTS-V falls under the $30K threshold I'll buy one. With used cars, I have learned to accept compromises in color and specific options as long as a car is in great condition, has low miles and is at a good price. But there is one rule I never violate. If it's black I don't want anything to do with it.

Not by much. If you turn back the clock to the 1980s, manual cars tend to have somewhat better fuel economy than automatics. That is due to three primary reasons; two of which are no longer valid and the third has been mitigated. Manuals had more ratios Manuals had a wider ratio spread Torque converter introduces slippage losses Today's 6-speed, 7-speed and 8-speed automatics have equal or more ratios than a manual. Today's automatics also have a wider ratio spread than a manual (6.0 ~ 7.5:1 vs 5.2 ~ 6.0:1). That leaves the torque converter. The torque converter is a hydraulic pump and turbine coupling. It serves to allow slippage and also provide some degree of torque multiplication. Think of it as two propellers in a tank of water facing each other; one turns and pushes water against the other in turn causing it to turn. This is necessary for the automatic to not stall the engine at idle and enable smooth slam shifting between gears (which is what an automatic does). However, like all pressure based systems a torque converter is only efficient when there is a speed difference between the input and output impellers. At cruise, both are turning at basically the same speed. When you open up the throttle, the input impeller needs to get to a certain speed differential before energy is passed on to the output impeller. Momentarily there is always a "lag" during which energy is wasted. Herein lies the basic reason automatics are less efficient. However, in today's context, this is also greatly mitigated with the introduction of the converter lock-up clutch. Basically, unless the car is at very low speeds or there is a big amount of power flowing through the transmission, the torque converter is locked up and there is no hydraulic action. This is how an automatic operates at freeway cruising speeds and mild throttle openings meaning there is no converter losses, period. The converter only unlocks when the diver accelerates hard or when creeping around in 1st. So... of the three sources of automatic inefficiency, two are gone and one is half gone, leaving today's automatics similarly efficient to manuals. The PREDOMINANT reason the Eco is more efficient than the LT/LTZ models is that it has a much taller effective gear ratios (combination of the gear ratios and final drive). This allows the Eco's engine turns at abuot 500 rpms slower than the automatic at 75 mph. This is gives it 42 mpg on the freeway. But the taller final drive also means that the Eco took 9.8 secs to reach 60 mph whereas the automatic only needed 8.9 secs. If we simply re-gear the 6A to a similarly tall gearing, it'll be around 27/40 mpg -- even without the lightening, special tires and aerodynamic tweaks. But, it'll also take another second to reach 60 mph so its not a free lunch.

A 2.0 liter engine does not cost more than a 1.4 liter. The only adder here is the aluminum block and the Direct Injection fuel system. How much? Probably about $500 in retail price worth. Remember, the engine is less powerful and more efficient, but no more or less costly than what went into the HHR or Cobalt SS. Such an engine is probably a good "Eco" engine for the Malibu or Regal. It'll perform better than the 2.4L DI engine while also turning in better fuel economy; it's not a rocket ship power plant, but it'll do alright.

This is a Hypothetical Vehicle which combines most of the Cruze Eco's modifications to a revised power train. The goal is to achieve superior fuel economy to the standard LT / LTZ models, while offering improved performance and retaining the automatic transmission (a quintessential feature to most US consumers). From a performance stand point, this is no Cobalt SS. Rather, it is in the same class as an Acura TSX. The XFS -- standing for Xtra Fuel-economy Sport -- is positioned above the LTZ and comes with all the LTZ's amenities at a $1000 premium over the LTZ. The XFS uses the Cruze ECO as a starting point. Here's what we keep and what we change:- Center Head Rest Delete => XFS retain Head Rests Center Arm Rest Delete => XFS retain Arm Rests Thinner Sheet Metal Reduced Weld Seams Torsion Beam Axle replaces Z-Link Rear Suspension => XFS keeps Z-Link rear Unequal Length Half-Shafts replaces Balanced Half-shafts => XFS retains Balanced Half-shafts Automatic front grille shutters Full underbody tray Reduced Tow rating Lightweight 17" Forged Aluminum Wheels Low Rolling Resistance Tires (Goodyear Assurance Fuelmax; 215/55 HR17) => XFS switches to Goodyear Eagle GT; 215/55 VR17 6-speed Manual Transmission (3.83 Final Drive) => XFS switches to 6-speed Automatic Transmission (6T40 w/ 2.89 Final Drive) 1.4L Turbo Engine => XFS switched to 2.0L Miller Cycle Direct Injection Turbo Engine The 2.0L Engine here is basically a Miller Cycle version of the 2.0T in the Regal. Miller Cycle is basically Atkinson Cycle with Forced Induction. Like an Atkinson cycle engine, a Miller Cycle engine closes the intake valves late into the compression stroke such that the first 25~30% of the compression stroke is nullified. This has the effect of reducing the effective displacement and compression by about 25~30%. More importantly, it makes the power stroke longer than the (effective) compression stroke which improves the amount of energy extracted from each drop of fuel burned. Any engine can be made into an Atkinson or Miller Cycle engine by replacing the Intake Camshaft with one which has a significantly extended opening duration. Doing so however, also reduce output by about 25~30%. Engine Type: Inline-4; Aluminum Block and Heads (LNE) Valve Train: DOHC-16v w/ Intake and Exhaust VVT Fuel Injection: Common Rail Direct Gasoline Injection Bore x Stroke: 86 x 86 mm Displacement: 1998 cc (Geometric); 1499 cc (Effective) Compression Ratio: 13.0:1 (Geometric); 9.8:1 (Effective) Aspiration: Honeywell-Garrett MGT2052D Dual Scroll Turbocharger @ 11.8 psi Aftercooler: Air-to-Air Power Output: 200 bhp @ 6000 rpm Torque Output: 177 lb-ft @ 1900~5900 rpm Redline / Rev Limit: 6000 rpm / 6350 rpm Fuel Requirement: 87 Octane Unleaded / E85 Ethanol Transmission Type: GM Hydramatic 6T40 6-speed Automatic Final Drive Ratio: 2.89:1 Gear Ratio (Max Speed in Gear) 4.58 (34 mph) 2.96 (53 mph) 1.91 (82 mph) 1.45 (108 mph) 1.00 (157 mph) 0.75 (211 mph) RPM @ 60 mph: 1800 rpm RPM @ 80 mph: 2400 rpm Fuel Economy (EPA): 26 mpg (City) / 40 mpg (Hwy) 0-60 mph (Est): 7.8 sec

That's not good... It's hard to be articulate with a blown mind.

The Cruze's turbo has a water cooled bearing section and a turbine housing that is also the engine's exhaust mannifold. The former is not new, the latter is an emerging trend that is increasingly popular in the last several years. Watercooled turbos are 30 years old. Every turbo since the 80s have a water jacket around the bearing cartridge. Before this became the defacto standard for turbocharger design, turbos were cooled solely by the oil fed to and drained from the bearing section. This lead to a lot of issues with oil -- especially non-synthetics -- coking on the bearing and causing them to fail. The water jacket basically eliminated oil coking issues even when the engine is driven extremely hard for prolonged periods. This made turbochargers practical and relatively reliable for mass production cars. However, oil coking can some times still happen when the engine is driven very hard then abruptly shut off. What happens then is that oil and coolant stops flowing while the turbo is still glowing red hot and oil carbonizes on the bearings. Some owners put in "Turbo timers" which is an ignition delay device that continues to idle the engine for a few minutes even if the key is out and the car is locked. This helps lead footed drivers preserve their turbo's longevity without having to sit patiently in the car for a few minutes after a hard drive. Since the 1990s some engines -- the VW/Audi 20v 1.8T for example -- incorporate an after-run water pump. This is a small electric water pump that turns on after the engine is shut off which continues to circulate coolant through the turbocharger cooling it down. This makes worry free, hassle free turbos that lasts 200,000 miles a reality. Recently, a the practice of casting the exhaust manifold and turbine housing as one piece became popular. This actually does not make the turbo perform better or last longer. It does however eliminate the flanges, bolts and assembly work needed to attach the turbo to the exhaust manifold. This saves assembly costs. It is also more compact allowing for tighter packaging or a closer location of the catalytic converter. The turbo in the Cruze is a Honeywell-Garrett MGT-1544. GT-15 is the basic Garrett designation for the small frame, size 15 turbo. The "M" indicates that this is a Manifold integrated version. "44" denotes the compressor wheel's exducer diameter.

In a descending order of effectiveness in terms of improving fuel economy:- Electric Assist / Regenerative energy recovery (Hybrid) -- reuse otherwise wasted energy Reduce the Final Drive Ratio -- lowers pumping & frictional losses Reduce Weight / Improve Aerodynamics -- reduce energy needed to attain and maintain velocity Adopt a higher efficiency combustion cycle (Atkinson, Miller or Diesel) -- improve thermal efficiency Reduce the number of Cylinders -- equivalent to reducing cylinder wall friction, plus doing 7 & 8 at the same time Reduce displacement -- reduce pumping loses Increase compression ratio -- improve thermal efficiency Reduce the number of Camshafts -- reduce frictional losses Reduce the number of Valves -- reduce frictional losses

Well, let's put it this way... the new Focus 2.0 Di-VCT (29/40 mpg) gets better mileage than the Cruze 1.4T (26/36 mpg) despite having 50% greater displacement. Yes, the Cruze is a good 300 lbs heavier, but that cannot account for 3~4 mpg, especially the highway numbers for which weight has a relatively small bearing*. So, do I believe that a DI 1.8 or 2.0 might have been a better engine for the Cruze over the 1.4T? Yes, I do. In fact, I have always said that displacement is 4th or 5th down the list of what's most important to fuel economy. But that GM has already tooled up and put into production the 1.4T, so changing it out for something else any time soon is not really an option. What is an option however is running the boost up on the 1.4T a little bit to give it more working torque (~170lb-ft), then going to a taller final drive (Eg. 2.89:1 vs 3.83:1). This will get the 6-speed auto to about 28/40 mpg -- good enough for parity. The Cruze can then shine based on the merits of its refined power train, impressive "quiet tuning" and nice interior. * Most of the EPA Hwy cycle is done with very little change in speed or elevation. In otherwords, you are basically overcoming drag -- tire drag, aerodynamic drag, powertrain drag, etc. Weight doesn't play a role unless you are trying to change velocity or fight gravity on an incline.

Well, the Cruze does not have an independent rear, but you don't absolutely need that for AWD. You CAN have an independent front and a live axle in the back with a panhard. Tune it well and it handles reasonably, especially on decent road surfaces -- like the Mustang does. $29K for an AWD Cruze is actually roughly where it will be. This is $7,000 over the LTZ. $7,000 will handily pay for the cost delta 2.0T engine, the transfer case and the rear diff. All in all, that's about $3000~4000 worth of hardware (selling price not GM's costs). The rest can go to the brakes systems, wheels and the like.

There IS a Cruze Diesel, they just don't sell it in NA. The Cruze 2.0 VCDi makes 150 bhp @ 4000 rpm, with 241 lb-ft @ 2600 rpm.

I propose the following changes to the Cruze Powertrain lineup:- Cruze SS Specifications Base Price: $29,950 Vehicle Layout: Transverse Front Engine, AWD Engine: 2.0 liter Inline-4 w/dual VVT and direct injection Compression Ratio: 9.2:1 Aspiration: Honeywell-Garrett MGTX-2860RSD dual scroll turbocharger @ 18.4 psi Air-to-water aftercooler Power Output: 320 bhp @ 5600 rpm Torque Output: 300 lb-ft @ 2600~5600 rpm Redline / Rev Limit: 5600 / 6350 rpm Transmission: GM Hydramatic 6T75 6-speed Automatic (Standard) Aisin AF40 6-speed manual (Optional) Axle Ratio: 2.77:1 (Automatic); 3.83:1 (Manual) Drivetrain: AWD; Differentials: Open (Front), Biasing Helical (Center), Electronic/Haldex (Rear) 40 (F) / 60 ® torque split (default); Up to 30 (F) / 70 ® ~ 50 (F) / 50 ® Curb Weight: 3,450 lbs Wheelbase: 105.7 in Length x Width x Height: 181 x 70.7 x 57.6 in Acceleration 0-60 mph: 4.8 sec Quarter Mile: 13.2 secs @ 102.5 mph Braking; 60-0 mph: 112 ft EPA city/hwy economy: 18 / 28 mpg Fuel Requirement: 91 Octane Unleaded Gasoline Cruze Hybrid (Replaces ECO) Specifications Base Price: $22,500~24,500 Vehicle Layout: Transverse Front Engine, AWD Engine: 1.4 liter Inline-4 w/dual VVT and port fuel injection Electric Assist: 15kW Belt Alternator Starter; 115.2V Lithium Ion Battery pack (0.5kW/h) Aspiration: Honeywell-Garrett MGT-1548D - dual scroll turbocharger @ 11.8 psi Air-to-air aftercooler Power Output: 162 bhp @ 5000 rpm (combustion) + 15hp @ 2,200 rpm (electric) Torque Output: 170 lb-ft @ 2000~5000 rpm (combustion) + 79 lb-ft @ 1000 rpm (electric) Redline / Rev Limit: 5000 / 6500 rpm Transmission: GM Hydramatic 6T40 6-speed Automatic Axle Ratio: 2.89:1 Drivetrain: FWD; Differential: Front (Open) Curb Weight: 3,300 lbs Wheelbase: 105.7 in Length x Width x Height: 181 x 70.7 x 58.1 in Acceleration 0-60 mph: 8.0 sec Quarter Mile: 16.4 secs @ 87 mph Braking; 60-0 mph: 122 ft EPA city/hwy economy: 37 / 50 mpg (LT/LTZ) Fuel Requirement: 87 Octane Unleaded Gasoline Cruze LT / LTZ Specifications Base Price: $18,500 ~ 22,500 Vehicle Layout: Transverse Front Engine, AWD Engine: 1.4 liter Inline-4 w/dual VVT and port fuel injection Compression Ratio: 9.2:1 Aspiration: Honeywell-Garrett MGT-1548D - dual scroll turbocharger @ 11.8 psi Air-to-air aftercooler Power Output: 162 bhp @ 5000 rpm Torque Output: 170 lb-ft @ 2000~5000 rpm Redline / Rev Limit: 5000 / 6500 rpm Transmission: GM Hydramatic 6T40 6-speed Automatic Axle Ratio: 2.89:1 Drivetrain: FWD; Differential: Front (Open) Curb Weight: 3,100 lbs Wheelbase: 105.7 in Length x Width x Height: 181 x 70.7 x 58.1 in Acceleration 0-60 mph: 8.3 sec Quarter Mile: 16.6 secs @ 86 mph Braking; 60-0 mph: 122 ft EPA city/hwy economy: 28 / 40 mpg (LT/LTZ) Fuel Requirement: 87 Octane Unleaded Gasoline Cruze LS Specifications Base Price: $16,500 Vehicle Layout: Transverse Front Engine, AWD Engine: 1.8 liter Inline-4 w/dual VVT and port fuel injection Compression Ratio: 10.5:1 Aspiration: Natural Power Output: 136 bhp @ 6300 rpm Torque Output: 123 lb-ft @ 3800 rpm Redline / Rev Limit: 6300 / 6500 rpm Transmission: Aisin AF40 6-speed Manual Axle Ratio: 3.94:1 Drivetrain: FWD; Differential: Front (Open) Curb Weight: 3,050 lbs Wheelbase: 105.7 in Length x Width x Height: 181 x 70.7 x 58.1 in Acceleration 0-60 mph: 9.5 sec Quarter Mile: 17 secs @ 84 mph Braking; 60-0 mph: 121 ft EPA city/hwy economy: 26 / 36 mpg Fuel Requirement: 87 Octane Unleaded Gasoline Basically, this is what we are doing:- Add 320hp AWD SS model -- gives the platform credence against the WRXes and Lancer Evos of the world. Switch to a slightly bigger turbo and a taller final drive on the 1.4T -- improves fuel economy Replace the Eco model with an eAssist equipped mild Hybrid going to a slightly bigger turbo and switching to the 2.89:1 final drive ratio the Malibu uses with the same transmission.

Don't know if they stalled out, but I just confirmed it:- Chevy Cruze 1.4T 6A as a 3.87 Final Drive http://www.chevrolet.com/cruze/features-specs/

Unless, this is what's happening... Final Drive: 3.87 1st : 4.584 (26mph @ 6500 rpm) 2nd : 2.964 (40mph @ 6500 rpm) 3rd : 1.912 (63mph @ 6500 rpm) 4th : 1.446 (83mph @ 6500 rpm) 5th : 1.000 (120mph @ 6500 rpm*) 6th : 0.746 (161mph @ 6500 rpm*) * Theoretical; the car is electronically governed to 103 mph Here are the corresponding rpms at 75 mph 1st : N/A 2nd : N/A 3rd : N/A 4th : 75mph @ 5873 rpm 5th : 75mph @ 4063 rpm 6th : 75mph @ 3028 rpm We can easily verify this without counting gears. All you have to do is floor it in 1st and witness it shift to 2nd at ~26 mph. That'll confirm that they put in a VERY SHORT 3.87 final drive. If this is true, then it beckons the question as to why? Why saddle the Cruze 1.4T which is supposed to be GM's fuel economy badge of honor with such a fuel guzzling final drive ratio? It can't be that the car won't accelerate smartly with the standard 2.89 final drive ratio of the 6T40 transmission. The manual model moves along fine with a similar effective ratio in 1st, and the Cruze 1.4T has a similar power to weight ratio as a 2.4 liter Malibu and actually a slightly better torque to weight ratio. If the Malibu was OK with the 2.89 final drive, so should he Cruze. It wouldn't be a rocket ship, but the Cruze isn't going to be one anyway.