|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Someone please link me to this 200hp Aveo?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Quote:
If the car is going to be successful across the board they are going to have to offer a V-6 as a option. It's a great car but the 4 banger is going to scare a lot of folks away.
Disagree. The 2.4 is plenty powerful and the 2.0 Turbo even moreso. Tons of low-end torque on that puppy.
I love the whole "turbo 4" philosophy coming in vogue. Plenty of low-end power when you need it, fuel economy when you don't. (especially "real world" fuel economy, since the engine won't have to consume a ton of gas to get up to speed with peak torque coming in below 2000 RPMs)
One of the great things about the Hyundai Sonata is that the chassis was lightened because it didn't have to accept a V6. The combo of a direct injection I4 and lighter engine means V6-like acceleration and amazing real world fuel economy (which I have read is much higher than the EPA estimates).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Turbocharged cars are typically lower in power in the lower RPM ranges due to turbo lag as a result of insufficient exhaust pressure to spin the turbine in the turbocharger. You're going to find most of your power in the middle of the RPM range on a turbo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Quote:
Turbocharged cars are typically lower in power in the lower RPM ranges due to turbo lag as a result of insufficient exhaust pressure to spin the turbine in the turbocharger. You're going to find most of your power in the middle of the RPM range on a turbo.
Not in today's turbos.
The Chevy Cruze's turbo will hit peak torque at 1850 RPM's and the Taurus (and future EcoBoost engines) hit peak torque at 1500 RPM's. Not much, if any turbo lag there. Plenty of low end grunt for city driving.
Hell, the EcoBoost in the Taurus is so good that it's being tweaked for the F-150, and it's going to be a premium engine that hauls ass and gets 23 MPG highway, which for a truck is excellent.
Last edited by Ammo; 05/23/10 01:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Maybe so. I get a bit of lag in my '04 WRX.
Either way, bolting a turbo onto a 1.4L 4-banger so that you can get the same power as a 1.6-2.0L naturally aspirated 4 with ~5 mpg difference seems counterintuitive to me, but I suppose people don't keep their cars for more than 3 or 4 years any more. Not to mention peak torque that low in the power band is pretty useless unless you're just driving from stoplight to stoplight. Maybe that's why they're putting a 6-speed in a car with 140hp though.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Quote:
Maybe so. I get a bit of lag in my '04 WRX.
Either way, bolting a turbo onto a 1.4L 4-banger so that you can get the same power as a 1.6-2.0L naturally aspirated 4 with ~5 mpg difference seems counterintuitive to me, but I suppose people don't keep their cars for more than 3 or 4 years any more. Not to mention peak torque that low in the power band is pretty useless unless you're just driving from stoplight to stoplight. Maybe that's why they're putting a 6-speed in a car with 140hp though.
A WRX turbo is tuned differently than a Cruze's turbo, for example.
A WRX is tuned for performance, requires premium fuel, etc.
Cruze is tuned for fuel economy.
And you're exactly right about it being for stoplight to stoplight, it helps raise city MPG. As for the 6 speed, I can't wait to feel the difference between a 4 speed and a 6 speed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
I understand that. My point is that a turbo on a 1.4L 4-cylinder engine is unnecessary, especially for city driving. Turbos are hard on engines, less efficient, and require more vigilant maintenance. If you're looking for a city car, go with a naturally aspirated engine. Better yet, ride a bicycle.
Don't get me wrong, I think its cool that you're this enthusiastic about the new breed of American automobiles. I just think some of these developments are kind of silly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 540
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 540 |
Quote:
I understand that. My point is that a turbo on a 1.4L 4-cylinder engine is unnecessary, especially for city driving. Turbos are hard on engines, less efficient, and require more vigilant maintenance. If you're looking for a city car, go with a naturally aspirated engine. Better yet, ride a bicycle.
Don't get me wrong, I think its cool that you're this enthusiastic about the new breed of American automobiles. I just think some of these developments are kind of silly.
If you're talking about the 1.4T that's going into the Cruze, it's quite efficient; it helps that the engine was designed with the turbocharger in mind from the beginning though. The new turbochargers are quite a bit more advanced in comparison to previous versions such as different sized vanes, direct injection for the engines which controls the amount fuel in the cylinders and combustion chambers better than previous fuel injection systems, and can also keep temperature levels down for the turbo as well.
If you're one of those types who absolutely needs more efficiency out of your compact, you could buy the Eco model of the Cruze which gets 40 mpg highway(numbers not officially confirmed, but it should hit it when the EPA tests it).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 647
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 647 |
I hate how my Cavalier/Corolla only had/has a 4-speed auto. I envy those with 5- and 6-speed automatics. The taller gears help MPG so much. Although my 'Rolla gets 38-39 mpg hwy in the summer, it would be 45-50 with more gear to work with.
I'd love a stick Corolla but those are super rare.
Go Browns!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 647
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 647 |
Also, pick up a Cobalt XFi...36mpg with a bare bones Cobalt...6-speed stick, skinnier tires, no options...very rare car made in '08 and '09 IIRC. Similar to the Cruze mentioned here.
Go Browns!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 540
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 540 |
Quote:
Also, pick up a Cobalt XFi...36mpg with a bare bones Cobalt...6-speed stick, skinnier tires, no options...very rare car made in '08 and '09 IIRC. Similar to the Cruze mentioned here.
We'll see if the Cruze gets the Voltec architecture that the Chevrolet Volt is using; it'll be intresting to say the least. Though I'm not entirely sure if it's cost competitive or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
jc..
If someone could make a decent electric vehicle, that doesn't look like a dork mobile, and is priced competitively to similar gas cars, I'd buy one to commute to work, and save my Mustang for weekend driving.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 540
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 540 |
Quote:
jc..
If someone could make a decent electric vehicle, that doesn't look like a dork mobile, and is priced competitively to similar gas cars, I'd buy one to commute to work, and save my Mustang for weekend driving.
Can you wait a few years?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,723
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,723 |
Quote:
Disagree. The 2.4 is plenty powerful and the 2.0 Turbo even moreso. Tons of low-end torque on that puppy.
I can't speak for the entire country but in the area I live in 95 percent of Buick buyers will RUN from a 4 banger. We still sell more V-8 and Diesel trucks than anything, followed up by SUV's and we are not alone in that mentality.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
Disagree. The 2.4 is plenty powerful and the 2.0 Turbo even moreso. Tons of low-end torque on that puppy.
I can't speak for the entire country but in the area I live in 95 percent of Buick buyers will RUN from a 4 banger. We still sell more V-8 and Diesel trucks than anything, followed up by SUV's and we are not alone in that mentality.
I read somewhere the GS will be like 0-62mph in 8.2 secs with the 2.0T, that's not impressive. Don't know how accurate those figures are cause the article was like a year old.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Everything I have read about the "GS" is 0-60 in under 6....are you sure you are not reading about the base model???
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Like I said, the article was like a year old and I read it like a month or so ago, while researching superchargers for my Mustang.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 540
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 540 |
That's correct -- though the 0-60 run depends on the final horsepower/weight numbers. (A lot of people want the hp above 255).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Me included...LOL 
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 540
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 540 |
Quote:
Me included...LOL
Curious question: How much higher than 255 would you want it? There's a debate going on as to what's a good amount for the vehicle to have without sacrificing some of the 295 ft lbs that the car currently has.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Well 300 will put it at about 12 pounds per hp (assuming 3600 pound car) which would put it on par(or slightly better actually) with the Cadillac CTS GDI (12.7#) and the STS V8(12.4#). But as it sits at 255 each hp is pushing 14+ pounds. I mean if you think about it...this is supposed to be a lighter more nimble and quicker car than those 2...
Granted the torque is what is really helping this car as well as its gearing if it is getting to 60 in less than 6 seconds...But personally I would be shooting for the 290-300 mark if reliability can be maintained. (but then I don't know how much torque you are losing either...) In the end I think you want to be on the lower end of the 5 seconds rather than the upper end of that 5 seconds when it comes to a 0-60 time.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
all the hp in the world is no good if you sacrifice the torque that will get the car moving.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
exactly...which is why I said my little disclaimer...but I don't expect they would lose too much in trying to get to that realm. If so, there are other motors they can work with that don't have to be so big as the V6's...It just so happens they got a good torque rating out of this 2.0 that they like, they like the weight....but they might..and I stress MIGHT be held back by the hp when it comes down to it in the end.
This car will end up being compared with the Audi A4's, the Acura TSX, Lexus IS350, and possibly even the Infinity G37 and BMW 3 series (maybe not in finish but in performance)
And at current configuration...it is at the bottom of the group.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 540
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 540 |
Quote:
Well 300 will put it at about 12 pounds per hp (assuming 3600 pound car) which would put it on par(or slightly better actually) with the Cadillac CTS GDI (12.7#) and the STS V8(12.4#). But as it sits at 255 each hp is pushing 14+ pounds. I mean if you think about it...this is supposed to be a lighter more nimble and quicker car than those 2...
Granted the torque is what is really helping this car as well as its gearing if it is getting to 60 in less than 6 seconds...But personally I would be shooting for the 290-300 mark if reliability can be maintained. (but then I don't know how much torque you are losing either...) In the end I think you want to be on the lower end of the 5 seconds rather than the upper end of that 5 seconds when it comes to a 0-60 time.
Here's the issue: the engine can reach 300 hp no problem, but the problem is, you'd start to lose the amount of torque you've tuned the engine for at that point; IIRC the powertrain guys said during their initial testing, that they could have 300 hp, but your torque would be around 260-270 or so? (this isn't confirmed by SAE or anything like that, it's just what they've done messing around with it the engine in their labs).
I think the Cobalt SS T/C ran into this same issue with the performance kit that GM offered for the car(it was around $1000 extra, and it kept the factory warranty).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Funny thing is, everyone is so stuck on HP numbers that you could give them "head flattened to the seat" torque, but if the HP number on the sticker is low they assume it's slow. Stop light to stop light, it's all about torque. You may get 60-100 faster than me, but I'm getting 0-60 fast enough that you have a lot of catching up to do, and we'll be stopping for the next light before you catch me. I see it all the time with the ricers and their turbos. From a 40-50mph roll they can keep up or pull away slowly, but from a stop they are just a spot in my mirror. I blame it on the giant wing, not providing them enough down force to provide rearend traction for their front wheel drive car. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 540
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 540 |
Quote:
Funny thing is, everyone is so stuck on HP numbers that you could give them "head flattened to the seat" torque, but if the HP number on the sticker is low they assume it's slow.
Stop light to stop light, it's all about torque. You may get 60-100 faster than me, but I'm getting 0-60 fast enough that you have a lot of catching up to do, and we'll be stopping for the next light before you catch me.
I see it all the time with the ricers and their turbos. From a 40-50mph roll they can keep up or pull away slowly, but from a stop they are just a spot in my mirror.
I blame it on the giant wing, not providing them enough down force to provide rearend traction for their front wheel drive car.
What? I thought the stickers and giant mufflers and NAWZZZ added tons of horsepower?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
What? I thought the stickers and giant mufflers and NAWZZZ added tons of horsepower?
no, it's all about removing the air filter to get that cool 'whizzing' sound.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
That's why I added the part about wanting to be at that low end of the 5 second 0-60 time rather than the upper end of it...because in the end...it will come down to the performance and there has to be a balance. I mean if you have the competition running almost a full second faster to 60, you have already lost. if you can gain that second at 260 hp...then 260 hp works...BUT you have to market the performance and NOT the hp...
I mean why would you buy the GS at approx 35K (guesstimate) if the Lexus IS 350 is a second quicker and only 2K more??? Unless the target is the A4. Why buy the A4? To step up or beat the GS you have to drop another 10-15K for the S4.
All in all though, I still think GM would want to aim this car to be in the low end of 5 seconds to 60 mph to beat or be with the competition. And to do that, they will need to bump the hp some. Hopefully they can find a happy balance with the torque that will provide the best performance.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,476
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,476 |
Quote:
Quote:
What? I thought the stickers and giant mufflers and NAWZZZ added tons of horsepower?
no, it's all about removing the air filter to get that cool 'whizzing' sound.
I still use playing cards in the spokes ! 
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Sat in a 2011 Buick Regal last
night
|
|
