Drew Dowdell

Stress is relative to the way the engine is built. See the oldsmobile diesel for example. No turbo yet way too much stress for the head bolts *as built*. The designers of this 2.0t walked into the room knowing this was going to be a turbo charged engine and designed accordingly. Or do you really think that all of those million mile turbo diesel big rigs only survived the stress of the turbo because of xanax....

The press release says "The 2.0T has a wide torque curve, delivering 90 percent of its peak 260 lb-ft. of torque (353 Nm) from 1,500 rpm to 5,800 rpm" Doesn't that mean it has at least 260 lb-ft at 1,500 rpm?

You clearly haven't driven each one back to back. The 3.6 is shift happy because it often has less torque than the 2.0T and the torque always is at a much higher, stressful, RPM than the 2.0T no matter which version of the 3.6 we're talking.

Did they benchmark the S/C 3800 for that engine? Maybe GM should bring it back.

I guess you'd prefer to see GM liquidated Loki..... and Chrysler... and probably Ford too. No they wouldn't have been bought by another car company. Fiat couldn't have done the deal they did without the financing. No other car company, not VW, not Toyota, not Honda, not Nissan/Renault, not Benz could have swallowed GM with special financing much less on their own. I have no qualms with the Government giving GM and Chrysler money when they fell on hard times. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have been getting government handouts from Japan and local governments in the US for YEARS now. The payout back to the government in income tax will more than make up for what we've lost on the deal. Incomes that wouldn't be there had GM succumbed and taken Chrysler and Ford with them while severely damaging Toyota and Honda in the process.

Saw this while I was in NY this week

ghastly.

thats not a leak, it's a bad photoshop You are correct. It will be smaller and lighter than the Equinox by a large margin.

Fail

SoCal - it will likely be over 200hp for the ATS. Turning the engine 90 degrees allows for better breathing. Additionally, this is an all new engine, I believe there was some power left on the table when they announced the spec for the Malibu. Even the old 2.4 liter Ecotec could do 180hp with direct injection. They can get more than that from a brand new engine with DI.

There is nothing stressed about the 2.0T, even the current one has more torque than a Northstar at a lower RPM.

I think most of you are off with your assessments.

Changing the LFX from transverse to longitudinal takes the power from 305 to 317. So I would expect the 2.5 to be over 200 in the ATS.

I think the 2.5 might see a hp bump for the ATS.

Finally some sanity!

The biggest single mistake that Acura ever made was canceling the Integra.

Look for the turbo to be between 260 and 280

190 hp is the non-turbo SoCal

I am departing the Hudson Valley today for the small town of Forty Fort, PA. Lets see what the fuel economy of an unladen Beetle Turbo is.

I don't see it as a risk at all. GM can always turn up the boost a bit if they think that more horsepower will drive sales. I no longer think that is the case. 300hp is pretty much the extreme upper limit of what a typical family sedan shopper will ever insist on anyway. Most Camry and Accord drivers are happily cruising along with their 160 - 180hp 4-bangers. The key for the Malibu will be having great torque down low in the RPM range. If they can do that, the horsepower number won't matter so much.

It looks like it has about as much front overhang as a 1996 W-Body!

I thought the Olds' were all about the torque.

is it going to be a RAM?

Sidevalves of course.