Drew Dowdell

1 minute ago, smk4565 said:

That is probably all true, but manufacturers are still going to go with the turbo 4 because they get better gas mileage, weigh less, and take up less space.  If a car is designed for 4 cylinder only they can cut weight on the body and cut space under hood and apply that to the cabin.  And even on something like an E-class wilhich is made to fit a V8 they dropped that 3.5 V6 in favor of 2.0t because of fuel economy regs, emissions regs and displacement tax.  It isn't about what the consumer wants it is about meeting regulations to a lot of these cars.

There are other ways to get there.... GM and Honda's active displacement works really well.   The ATS-V is essentially a turbo-4 at highway cruise.

3 minutes ago, Stew said:

Mt brother had a Fusion 2.0 rental a few years ago while his CTS was in the shop and had a 3.6 13 Impala for work.  Back to back, the turbo had WAY more torque off the line, but the V6 had stronger top end, but a less torquey feel.  Average FE was pretty similar though.  Modern turbo 4s are not what the used to be in the 90s.  My old Talon auto with the larger manual turbo was dead until 4k RPMs, then punched you in the back.  In my bug there is the slightest hint of turbo lag, but man that engine pulls once the turbo hits (which there is rarely any lag) it is a little rocket for what it is.  Now, torque was my old modified 00 GTP.  THAT had low end torque, but also a roots SC.  That said for 400ish in mods, I ran high 13s in that beast.  that said, top end was absolutely horrible when stock, but did get considerable better with the mods. 

"....off the line...."

That's the key that I'm getting at.  If you're flooring it every time you leave the stop light, sure, the Turbo may be better... but that's not a normal situation. People just don't drive like that.  I'm in NYC this week in my underpowered Encore... and I still don't drive like that. 

Buick took a bunch of us out to a track to drive GSes for a day.... it was just about the most boring day of track driving I've ever had. Sure they handled well in the corners, but I could watch a full episode of House of Cards on the straight-aways. Something as mundane as a Camry V6 or Cadenza feels much faster and effortless in its acceleration though neither of them would handle turns like the GS does.  

It's a really simple thing to figure out.  Go test drive two Ford Explorers... one with the turbo 2.3 and one with the V6.  Drive them normally, not as race cars.  Drive them in normal traffic... take them on a jaunt on the highway for a bit. Try and pass someone at highway speeds. 

Head on over to the Buick dealership and drive a Regal GS back to back with a V6 Lacrosse...

Then head over to Kia... try out an Optima Turbo and then a Cadenza.  Which one handles daily driving in a more competent way? 

I'm trying to imagine what kind of pig the new Traverse is going to feel like with the 2.0T spinning under the hood of the base models.  It will probably be more pig-like than the much heavier current traverse with the V6. 

19 hours ago, Scout said:

Hr seems to have the honor of being the only one banned for life. 

His attacks against me went far beyond any line that could be crossed.

12 hours ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

I don't doubt for one second that he isn't still here. Might not be posting, but still here.

Oh he's here... I see his IP addresses in the logs. Every once in awhile I'll ban an IP. 

36 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

There are ways to spin a turbo constantly to create no lag. It definitely costs fuel to do that though. It's one way the GT keeps its turbos spooled up AND gets abysmal mileage. I believe there are also electronic ways to spool them.

I also don't really know how you feel so much lag in these small turbo motors. I've felt next to none in the couple I've driven. At least nothing you'd notice in daily driving situations. I've never stood on the pedal and felt like I was waiting any amount of time. If anything I was waiting for a down shift before hearing the turbo spinning.

When you drive such a wide variety of vehicles like I do, you notice it.

I am more forgiving to Turbo-V6es because they still have a baseline torque that comes on sooner. They aren't a true V8 replacement either, but they are more satisfactory than a Turbo-4. 

15 hours ago, hyperv6 said:

Stop playing the victim. 

You can believe what you want but I will call you out if you drift from the truth. 

Since I own both engines involved and even own more 3.6 models I should have a right to defend the turbo when it is being put down for untrue reasons. I would think owning and driving one for 8 years would give me a little more insight over someone that just drove one here and there. 

If you want an informed opinion on a medical issue do you speak to  a Doctor or someone who has put a band aide on. 

I have no problem if you don't like the Turbo just prefer the V6 but when you give reasons that are not true. 

To better qualify this I just bought my last 3.6 two weeks ago so I have nothing against that engine either as the latest version is the best refined one so far. 
By the way I never called you stupid. Trust me if I felt that way I would have no problem doing so. I will say you are not accurate in your assessment due to your limited time with the product. 

The only advantage on this is I have for the last 9 years owned these engines and bought a few more and have first hand experience. I do not disagree based on opinion but based on experience. 

I was once a never a 4 or turbo guy and I have been converted as I have spent enough time with this engine to know what it can do and how well it can hold up. Spinning this thing to 23 PSI and never having enough traction due to the FWD is enough to tell  me the advantages of this engine as it will do things the V6 never would do. 

All I say is be honest and I would like to see both engines offered. Make the V6 a higher cost option to those who just have to have it and leave the Turbo standard. 

I gave Turbo-4s a chance.... I really did believe they were a decent replacement for a larger displacement V6.  But the power delivery just isn't as good. Too long to wait to spool up... even on the light duty ones.   Are turbo-4s an improvement over non-turbo-4s? Absolutely... but they are still no V6.  A V6 still has a baseline level of torque there that a that a turbo-4 doesn't.  V6es have a level of refinement that 4s cannot match. 

I also want to be clear. This is not just GM products I'm objecting to.  I'd rather have a V6 explorer than a 2.3T Explorer. 

As far as CAFE, GM can turn their V6es into 4-cylinders and back in less than a single revolution of the crank. Much less lag than a turbo. 

The Eagle Vision was the ChryCO competitor to the Bonneville at the time and was probably the best of the early LH cars. There was supposed to be a second generation...It was rebranded into the 300M.

Apparently I'm not allowed a preference. I find the experience behind the 3.6 V6 to be much more satisfying than a 2.0t in nearly all situations. The same holds true for similar situations in other brands. 

And I am in fact quite stupid and have never driven any of these cars.

8 hours ago, hyperv6 said:

Chrysler has long had issues like this. 

My boss a while back had a sedan with a Dodge name on one side and AMC On the other. 

Makes you wonder what they missed under the skin.

 

Monaco/Premier? That's the only sedan I can think of that was shared between Dodge and and AMC brand...

2 hours ago, hyperv6 said:

Some of own these and live with them daily.

The Turbo will run circles around the V6 Bu all day. Yes I have a 3.6 Bu and while a nice car not that much fun to drive. Also the 3.6 is the one that needs oil while the turbo uses not a drop. 

The reality is GM needs MPG and if it is even 1 gallon per mile they will take it. 

This is not a matter of what they could do or really want to do but more of what they have to do.

The cruel reality is they will sell 4 to 6 time the Malibu's vs the Buick models so they have toon to work with MPG.

Yes there is a difference in mpg as the turbo does get more mpg. It also has more torque and a flatter diesel like torque curve. 

You don't have to like it but it is what it is.

..... Once the torque kicks in....

Like I said. I'd rather have the lag free version.

NO turbo has no lag... It's physically impossible.

5 hours ago, hyperv6 said:

Lag is little of a problem.

also the 4 will take as much or more abuse as it is built to meet the same warranty standards.

I own 3 HF V6 and one eco turbo and all do a nice job. I would love to see both in this car.

Some of you need to get caught up and learn the Turbo is a very viable and fun engine. 

Some of us have tried many turbo 4s.  I used to be sold on the technology.... Northstar like power from a 4 cylinder sounds great on paper, but in practice it is a much less satisfying drive.   And yes, I know that the Northstar is no longer the state of the art in V8s, but they do still provide a satisfactory power delivery.

Even the old/current regal could have taken the HF V6, Buick just decided not to sell it that way.  The Insignia was sold with a Turbo 2.8 V6 that has the same external engine dimensions as the current HF V6. The engineering effort from GM would have effectively been zero.

By that measure, the Malibu could have a V6 also. There are no platform constraints.

I guess I'll call the credit union and find out their requirements first. I want to privately purchase another vehicle I've found. I'd need minimal financing on that.

What's the best way to sell a financed car without trading in? I'm not upside down.

The regal is much smaller than the lacrosse and impala. The V6 version should be just about as quick as an ATS V6

23 hours ago, The Burg said:

Yessir!!  

Not Pittsburgh though?

2 hours ago, lengnert said:

The "Bonger" permabanned??????

Say it ain't so!

The only permaban went to wings who verbally attacked me and continues to do so via email from time to time.

I'll take the lag free option thanks.

3 hours ago, Scout said:

I am certain that about 10 minutes ago I made a post saying almost the exact same thing with almost the exact same quoted text. WTF happened? As I do not post here very often I'm wondering is that common?

Server doesn't show any blips since I rebooted it for updates last night. Apache and MySQL have both been running for 23 hours.

It didn't hit me till tonight why I'm so "meh" about this car. A 1996 Eagle Talon, a car a mere 5 years away from being eligible for classic plates,  had 210 HP and 220 lb-ft of torque with only half a liter more displacement. 

It also could come with AWD and was lighter

This is progress?

For a more modern perspective, the Verano Turbo or Cobalt SS blow away the Civic SI on power for about the same price.

I guess I just expected something more special.

Not digging the look in white, but I'll do that 6.2 twice on Sundays.

10 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Easily take the Explorer or Acadia (new Version) over this.. not to mention any of the Lambdas. 

Explorer yes. New Acadia... eh.  Old Lambda, no. Just get yourself a Tahoe/Yukon, it's just about the same size and you don't have to beat the crap out of the engine just to get the thing to move.  MPG is better too. 

I'd probably aim for the Durango myself because Hemi.  This reminds me too much of a Grand Cherokee, so might as well get the real thing... plus... Hemi.

I see Buick found a place to sell surplus waterfall grilles from 2008 Lucernes.....

I don't mind the cladding, they're going for a very specific demographic with that.   I think I could sell the sportback at home.  Wagons, as a rule, are a no-go. 

A Turbo 4 should still have the torque low in the RPM band.  Even my weak 1.4T gets all of its 138 ft-lb at around 1700 rpm.... but that's all the torque you ever get.   If the Civic 1.5T gets it's peak torque anywhere near that, it should feel plenty fast. 

I like the concept from the sound of it. Sleek and ultra luxury rather than the giant cars of Rolls and Bentley