Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyg36
He did say it explicitly. The V6 would be just as efficient as the V8, but it would be more expensive to produce, so they went with the 8.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyg36
I hear Cruze is doing well, it was the hyundai and kia that didn't deliver...  |
It's not just Hyundai and Kia (they are just the most egregious examples, and all of their stuff, turbo and N/A is missing the mark). Turbo engines across the board are falling short of their efficiency promises.
Based on test results I've read, in real world driving (not the EPA cycle) the 1.4L Turbo Cruze does no better than the 1.8L N/A Cruze, and by a lot of accounts, falls short of larger, more powerful N/A engines from Ford and Mazda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyg36
If they build it...I believe it will sell in today's market. It's:
> Inexpensive (if trimmed as a base car)
> Fun (loads of torque)
> Efficient (31mpg + based on ATS numbers)
> and "it has a Turbo"!! (I am a little shocked at how much weight that little component carries with buyers..)
|
Inexpensive? The turbo engines cost more than N/A engines. So unless GM is planning on eating the extra expense, there are sticker price increases coming for it. And if it's in the base trim car, that will push up every trim above it in the process. Unless the Turbo 4 comes as an extra cost option with the V6 remaining the base (as Ford has done with some SUVs) I don't see how it doesn't end with an across the board price hike.
Fun? I'll give you that to an extent, they do tend to produce more torque. But, the 2.0T produces only the same torque as the NA V6, and less horsepower. And as I said earlier, a lot of people, particularly sports car fans, prefer the characteristics of a N/A engine.
Efficient? If 31 is the expected number, the V6 in the Camaro already gets 30. The move to the smaller, lighter platform alone will bring that to at least 31. And the V6 will run on regular. So where is the benefit?
As for the last point, the reason many fear turbos is they all know a family member who in the 80s had a turbo and had to take out a second mortgage to replace the turbo. Now, I recognize that today's turbos and synthetic oils have taken care of most of the old turbo problems, but it is still a potential issue, and if it does occur, it is very expensive, and a marginal economy increase is not worth the risk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v6sonoma
I think you're forgetting the fact that the Turbo also has 70hp and 70tq more than the 2.5L. So they aren't comparing them purely on fuel economy.
|
The same can be said of comparing the 3.6 V6 and the 2.0T. The 3.6 has a lot more power.