Mercedes-AMG Unveils the CLA 35

What a pathetic engine, another one of these DOHC High horsepower with weak torque at a crazy high rpm put into an ugly yellow car. This gets my Turd award. ?

I don't care for the looks, but 300hp out of a 2.0t with almost 300 lb-ft of torque sounds fine to me.... I'm interested in trying it to see how it drives. These are 4.6 Northstar specs from 10 years ago. 

I think as a hatch it looks much better.  And with that engine it should be a hoot, 

Hatch is sold in Canada.  It looks ok, I don't think any cars that start out under 35 grand are particularly nice to look at, more than just "decent" aside from the Mustang, some Mazdas maybe.

14 minutes ago, ykX said:

I think as a hatch it looks much better.  And with that engine it should be a hoot, 

Ooops! I downvoted you by accident at first.  You're right that the hatch looks better. 

That hatch is HOT. 

4 hours ago, dfelt said:

What a pathetic engine, another one of these DOHC High horsepower with weak torque at a crazy high rpm put into an ugly yellow car. This gets my Turd award. ?

That is more torque than the GM 3.6 V6.  Also this is the mid-level, there is a 400 hp coming.

I think this CLA looks a lot better than the previous one, but if were shopping this and an A-class sedan, I would just go with an A-class sedan and save the money to have essentially the same car.

16 hours ago, smk4565 said:

That is more torque than the GM 3.6 V6.  Also this is the mid-level, there is a 400 hp coming.

I think this CLA looks a lot better than the previous one, but if were shopping this and an A-class sedan, I would just go with an A-class sedan and save the money to have essentially the same car.

It's not more torque than the GM 3.6 TT..... see? I can make irrelevant comparisons too!

I like the tail end of the CLA better than the A-Class. Otherwise I'd probably just get the hatch.

Everything has more torque than the GM n/a 3.6...

17 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Everything has more torque than the GM n/a 3.6...

It has about as perfect a torque curve as one gets for a non-turbocharged engine..... this idea that you have to "rev the hell out of it to get any torque" is absolutely false, and here's the receipt to prove it.   

Mmmmm torque

Laggy.

I've driven the 2.0T Regal GS and the 3.6 Regal GS and the 3.6 LaX.

In no instance does the 2.0T feel faster than the 3.6. 

295 lb-ft in the CLA is more than adequate for a 3500 lb car.  That is more torque than the majority of sub $45k cars or small SUVs.

40 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Laggy.

I've driven the 2.0T Regal GS and the 3.6 Regal GS and the 3.6 LaX.

In no instance does the 2.0T feel faster than the 3.6. 

It isn't about which is faster. The 3.6 is faster in a straight line in every application that I could think of. It's about not needing a downshift to do the same thing the turbo engine can.

IMO, I'd prefer the three quarters of a second of lag than the three quarters of a second downshift and RPMs. 

The problem all of these DOHC engines is you still have to rev them to make torque, if you have to rev at 3000 rpm to get the 280 lb-ft of torque to get moving compared to a NA engine where it makes that torque at 1500 rpm, there is a performance difference off the line. I remember @dwightlooi covered this in detail with a delightful debate a while back about the high RPM torque engines versus NA low RPM Torque engines even if it only had 200 or 225 lb-ft compared to 300 lb-ft of torque how the off the line and performance feel is different. Turbo Lag, High revving engines to get moving compared to a low revving engine that moves is night and day different. 

Marketing has made these High Horsepower, lower torque, high revving DOHC engines seem like stars, yet they are heavier and especially with turbo equipment even more heavier for what you can get out of a push-rod V8 or even the NA 3800 V6 that moved plenty of steel.

I get the engineering marvel the DOHC engines give, but some times the simpler engine is still far superior and better. Just look at all that has been achieved with the small block V8.

Turbo-4s don't downshift? 

It's unlikely that there is any transmission tuning difference in the GMs between a 2.0T and a 3.6V6 in say the Acaida.

5 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Turbo-4s don't downshift? 

Not for smallish inputs. Such as, going up a fairly steep hill or passing where you aren't trying to get up to 90mph to make the pass. 

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

Not for smallish inputs. Such as, going up a fairly steep hill or passing where you aren't trying to get up to 90mph to make the pass. 

You know I drive a Turbo-4 every day, right?

2 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

You know I drive a Turbo-4 every day, right?

Is that what is in that Buick Encore?   

Just now, dfelt said:

Is that what is in that Buick Encore?   

yes

I'm not against Turbo-4s in the right place... like in this CLA where it is very appropriate.  But they are not usually a good V6 replacement in heavier applications, and in places where a full-size V6 will fit, I'd rather the V6.  In something like an Acadia or Traverse, you're just into the boost too much to give any fuel economy benefit plus there is the driving lag.  Even in something smaller like the Camaro, there is a reason the V6 is the buy-up engine and not the Turbo-4. 

8 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

You know I drive a Turbo-4 every day, right?

YA DON'T SAY?!?!? It also has almost identical amount of torque as my n/a 2.0 in my Focus did..which is basically zero.. in something weighing a couple hundred to a few hundred pounds more.

(looking at the 1.4T's, there are two and if you have the more powerful one, it doesn't seem like a bad match but the weaker of the two seems pretty abysmal but regardless, anything running 17 second 1/4 mile times is well underpowered, imo)

22 minutes ago, dfelt said:

The problem all of these DOHC engines is you still have to rev them to make torque, if you have to rev at 3000 rpm to get the 280 lb-ft of torque to get moving compared to a NA engine where it makes that torque at 1500 rpm, there is a performance difference off the line. I remember @dwightlooi covered this in detail with a delightful debate a while back about the high RPM torque engines versus NA low RPM Torque engines even if it only had 200 or 225 lb-ft compared to 300 lb-ft of torque how the off the line and performance feel is different. Turbo Lag...

The new 2.7T (L3B) 4-cylinder engine makes 310 hp @ 5,100 rpm with 348 lb-ft @ 1,500 rpm. According to its design engineer, this is the fastest spooling turbo GM ever made with its dual volute housing enabling it to go from braking to full torque in about 1 second. That is considered VERY VERY RESPONSIVE. But, if you cannot feel a 1 second lag, there is something very wrong with your butt.

How often do you do from brake to full throttle? That's a rare situation. 

Just now, ccap41 said:

How often do you do from brake to full throttle? That's a rare situation. 

Right, and going from brake to part throttle ALWAYS induce even more lag because you have a much slower ramp up of the exhaust energy available to drive the turbo.

6 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

YA DON'T SAY?!?!? It also has almost identical amount of torque as my n/a 2.0 in my Focus did..which is basically zero.. in something weighing a couple hundred to a few hundred pounds more.

(looking at the 1.4T's, there are two and if you have the more powerful one, it doesn't seem like a bad match but the weaker of the two seems pretty abysmal but regardless, anything running 17 second 1/4 mile times is well underpowered, imo)

I have the lesser one because I have one of the original Encores before the more powerful motor was an option.   GM geared it so that it is actually pretty peppy around town... so 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, are pretty short and give good off-the-line squirt. It's the 0-60 where the car sucks.... but in normal traffic I have no problems keeping up. 

BUT... it's laggy.... there is definitely a "Step, one, two, GO" to the engine.  My grandmother's Regal 2.0T isn't much different except that it has a better 0-60. 

9 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

Right, and going from brake to part throttle ALWAYS induce even more lag because you have a much slower ramp up of the exhaust energy available to drive the turbo.

Something I've been trying to explain for years.  Partial throttle means partial exhaust charge means slower turbo speeds. 

N/A engines also don't have full torque at part throttle and have no turbo for additional boost, pun intended.  So I fail to see how a lesser torque engine is better in any way, also at partial throttle. 

22 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

N/A engines also don't have full torque at part throttle and have no turbo for additional boost, pun intended.  So I fail to see how a lesser torque engine is better in any way, also at partial throttle. 

Because NA engines get from 0 to, let's say 60% torque, at part throttle in about 0.1 second. The delay is from the intake manifold and runners downstream of the throttle body going from a greater to a lesser amount of vacuum as the throttle opens.

With a turbocharged engine, everything that happens in an NA engine also happens. But that only gets you to the part throttle torque output of an otherwise identical NA engine. Next, the exhaust energy from the increased air/fuel charge starts spinning the turbo up. This causes the compressor to start bringing the intake ahead of the throttle to a higher pressure than atmospheric pressure. This is cut down to a fraction of that pressure by the throttle and fed into the engine. A cycle of every greater charge density, increases in exhaust energy and even greater charge density occurs until it is arrested by the waste gate opening and bleeding part of the exhaust around the turbine. This process takes a while. At part throttle, it often takes about 3~5 seconds. Compared to 0.1 the second it takes on an NA engine that feels like eternity. Also, it has a rubber band like effect where the throttle is constant and the engine rpm is not increasing much, but torque builds independently of rpm and throttle movement.

2 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

Because NA engines get from 0 to, let's say 60% torque, at part throttle in about 0.1 second. The delay is from the intake manifold and runners downstream of the throttle body going from a greater to a lesser amount of vacuum as the throttle opens.

With a turbocharged engine, everything that happens in an NA engine also happens. But that only gets you to the part throttle torque output of an otherwise identical NA engine. Next, the exhaust energy from the increased air/fuel charge starts spinning the turbo up. This causes the compressor to start bringing the intake ahead of the throttle to a higher pressure than atmospheric pressure. This is cut down to a fraction of that pressure by the throttle and fed into the engine. A cycle of every greater charge density, increases in exhaust energy and even greater charge density occurs until it is arrested by the waste gate opening and bleeding part of the exhaust around the turbine. This process takes a while. At part throttle, often takes about 3~5 seconds. Compared to 0.1 the second it takes on an NA engine that feels like eternity.

Even an Active-Fuel-Management engine can switch cylinders back on faster than a turbo can get its butt in gear at part throttle (or any throttle)

24 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

N/A engines also don't have full torque at part throttle and have no turbo for additional boost, pun intended.  So I fail to see how a lesser torque engine is better in any way, also at partial throttle. 

They have all the torque they're gonna have at 50% throttle right away.  On a Turbo engine 50% throttle doesn't get you to the same level of torque for a few seconds.... often leading to more throttle than actually needed and then a downshift.

I have never noticed a turbo engine downshifting less than a N/A engine of roughly equal output. 

I don't tend to worry too much about downshifting now with these high gear count transmissions.  On most modern transmissions, the shifts are imperceptible. 

1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Even an Active-Fuel-Management engine can switch cylinders back on faster than a turbo can get its butt in gear at part throttle (or any throttle)

That takes at most 2 rotations of the crankshaft. At cruise with the engine turning at 2000 rpm, that takes 2/2000 * 60 = 0.06 seconds.

I got nothing to contribute to this thread because:

1. "entry level" luxury to me sounds silly.

2. This particular Mercedes on paper sounds like a good idea, its just that Im not interested in it.

3. As an AMG, a turbo 4 making 300 HP and 300 ft.lbs of torque is not special enough as lowly Ford does it...

For me, Mercedes should ditch this idea that this Mercedes is an AMG and should just sell it as a Mercedes. 

4. We are bitchin' about GM's 3.6 when Nissan's 3.7 is equivalent in power and torque yet nobody on this site seems to bitch about Nissan's "lack of torque" on that engine.

5. Acura's V6 at 3.5 liters also makes about the same power numbers, yet nobody on this site bitches about Acura...Toyota's V6 also makes comoparable numbers. 

6. Mercedes  offers turbocharged 4 cylinder engines in their equivalent (3.6 liter V6 GM competition) rides that make...just as much ft.lbs of torque (273) yet nobody bitches about how that number is not sufficient, or worse, ya'll seem satisfied in how we are all forced to believe that 4 cylinder engines are the shyte. I dont care if these 4 cylinder cars are turbocharged, making 300 HP and 300 ft.lbs of torque, and I dont care if these are necessary for CAFE reasons...Im having a great deal of difficulty understanding your beef with a naturally aspirated V6...making sufficient amounts of horsepower and torque for every day driving duties...

7. This is why GM, Infiniti and Acura havent ditched these V6s just yet, because they are pretty good in what they are supposed to be doing. Which are pretty much better in doing what a turbocharged 4 cylinder engine replacing them is doing...

8. We are all pushed into turbocharged 4 cylinders, I would be having a beef with that, instead of bitching about something trivial as a naturally aspirated V6 not making enough torque, because in the real world of driving, naturally aspirated V6s seems best...

And although Im liking the idea of a turbocharged 4 cylinder engine making 300 horsepower and 300 ft.lbs of torque and Im liking that idea in a Mustang or Camaro or even in that Mercedes Benz CLA sedan, Id rather have a GM, Acura and Infiniti NATURALLY ASPIRATED 3,5 or 3.7 liter V6 making 300 horses and 275-285 ft.lbs of torque...

So it may seem I got something to say, I really dont. Im just perplexed by some in this thread...so instead of causing a commotion about it...

I will troll anyway, but I will troll this way instead

On 4/9/2019 at 4:11 PM, ccap41 said:

That hatch is HOT. 

So tell us, hot HOT do you think that hatch really is, big boy?

Is it, THIS hot?

3 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

I got nothing to contribute to this thread because:

1. "entry level" luxury to me sounds silly.

2. This particular Mercedes on paper sounds like a good idea, its just that Im not interested in it.

3. As an AMG, a turbo 4 making 300 HP and 300 ft.lbs of torque is not special enough as lowly Ford does it...

For me, Mercedes should ditch this idea that this Mercedes is an AMG and should just sell it as a Mercedes. 

4. We are bitchin' about GM's 3.6 when Nissan's 3.7 is equivalent in power and torque yet nobody on this site seems to bitch about Nissan's "lack of torque" on that engine.

5. Acura's V6 at 3.5 liters also makes about the same power numbers, yet nobody on this site bitches about Acura...

6. Mercedes  offers turbocharged 4 cylinder engines in their equivalent (3.6 liter V6 GM competition) rides that make...just as much ft.lbs of torque (273) yet nobody bitches about how that number is not sufficient, or worse, ya'll seem satisfied in how we are all forced to believe that 4 cylinder engines are the shyte. I dont care if these 4 cylinder cars are turbocharged, making 300 HP and 300 ft.lbs of torque, and I dont care if these are necessary for CAFE reasons...Im having a great deal of difficulty understanding your beef with a naturally aspirated V6...making sufficient amounts of horsepower and torque for every day driving duties...

7. This is why GM, Infiniti and Acura havent ditched these V6s just yet, because they are pretty good in what they are supposed to be doing. Which are pretty much better in doing what a turbocharged 4 cylinder engine replacing them is doing...

And although Im liking the idea of a turbocharged 4 cylinder engine making 300 horsepower and 300 ft.lbs of torque and Im liking that idea in a Mustang or Camaro or even in that Mercedes Benz CLA sedan, Id rather have a GM, Acura and Infiniti NATURALLY ASPIRATED 3,5 or 3.7 liter V6 making 300 horses and 275-285 ft.lbs of torque...

So it may seem I got something to say, I really dont. Im just perplexed by some in this thread...so instead of causing a commotion about it...

I will troll anyway, but I will troll this way instead

 

So tell us, hot HOT do you think that hatch really is, big boy?

Is it, THIS hot?

For having NOTHING to contribute, you sure made a very long post! LOL!!!

13 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

For having NOTHING to contribute, you sure made a very long post! LOL!!!

I always have something to say. Even when I dont. 

I always have an opinion about something, even when I dont.

Its a curse!!!

But I always try to keep myself informed.

28 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

I always have something to say. Even when I dont. 

I always have an opinion about something, even when I dont.

Its a curse!!!

But I always try to keep myself informed.

My whole point in blasting this engine and every other OEM out there with these DOHC High Horsepower motors and low torque is they are Bloated fat pigs of engines (HEAVY) when we were making NA Pushrod V6 that moved auto's just fine and efficiently. 

I honestly do not see any real gain that these DOHC engines brought to the table other than added complexity for no real gain in MPG and low torque.

Turbo engines again also bring added complexity and weight that does make one question a Turbo 4 300HP or a smoother V6 300hp? Only benefit is the Turbo if done right makes equal or more torque at a low RPM number compared to these 280 to 290 lb-ft of torque at 3000 to 5000 rpm.

I just do not get the need or thrill for a high revving engine when I can get the same thing out of a V8.

3 minutes ago, dfelt said:

I just do not get the need or thrill for a high revving engine when I can get the same thing out of a V8.

You're comparing V8 to turbo 4's.. and almost all turbo 4 engines now aren't high revving. 

GM's LTG makes peak power at 5600rpm

Ford's 2.0T peaks at 5500rpm 

Jeep's new 2.0T peaks at 5200rpm

BMW's 2.0T peaks from 5000-6500rpm

56 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

4. We are bitchin' about GM's 3.6 when Nissan's 3.7 is equivalent in power and torque yet nobody on this site seems to bitch about Nissan's "lack of torque" on that engine.

5. Acura's V6 at 3.5 liters also makes about the same power numbers, yet nobody on this site bitches about Acura...Toyota's V6 also makes comoparable numbers. 

FWIW, I complain about all n/a V6's. GM just happens to come up the most around here. I know I've also complained about the V6 in my dad's Taco as well. 

33 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

 

FWIW, I complain about all n/a V6's. GM just happens to come up the most around here. I know I've also complained about the V6 in my dad's Taco as well. 

 But why do you do that?

What it is about naturally aspirated V6s that get your goat? 

Not trolling you, just asking in all honesty. Id like to pick your brain for a few moments. I wanna try to understand you.

Do you prefer forced induction? And if yes, please tell me why.  

I prefer naturally aspirated. I owned a supercharged V6 and a turbo 4 cylinder and even though that supercharged V6 felt more like a V8 with all that grunt down low in the power band, I prefer a honest to goodness V8 over it and my wife's Fusion...well, it accelerates an awful lot like a 3.1 liter (1994 Potiac Grand AM GT 4 door)and 3.4 liter OHV V6s (1999 Olds Alero GLS)  that GM made in the 1990s. Making comparable power both in HP and in torque, but I prefer those 1990 V6s than that ecoboosted 1.6 liter 4.

I also drove an Acura Integra GSR (my cousin's) more than a couple of times and although that engine lacked torque but was a high revver with respectable hoprsepower numbers for the day, I prefer THAT naturally aspirated 4 cylinder over any 2.0 liter turbocharged 4 cylinder I have driven the last few years. (Ford's, GM's, Hyundai's, Honda's, VW's) 

For me, its hard to explain why.   I guess I dont like the "kick" that turbos do when they "kick" in. Its a cool feeling, Ill admit.  I just dont get any excitement with that. Plus...the lag that comes with turbos as well. Yes, modern small turbos that wind up like mad early on in the rev range do have lag on certain conditions. A naturally aspirated V6 does not have that.

You mentioned the few moments that you have to wait for the kickdown to happen on a naturally aspirated V6. Which I got to experience in my wife's 2007 FWD Ford Edge with the 3.5 V6.

So....I could see that. Its comparable to waiting for the turbos to kick in, I guess. Maybe that is because of 6 speed gearboxes?

The 1990s V6s Im talking about had those "really really old and ancient" 4 speeds. No waiting period for a kickdown to happen in those. 

My Acura's transmission doesnt have a wait to kickdown either...

Keeping in mind, this is all driving in daily, real world conditions that I want us to discuss and me to understand your reasoning in these conditions.

Anyway, hoping you answer me. 

@oldshurst442 Having grown up with a father who had a repair shop, made race cars and have driven my share of big block V8's and Supercharged V8's. I can tell you that I get where you are coming from. 

The Supercharger wine and power is amazing no doubt about it and I always loved that sound since I saw the original Mad Max Movie.

Yet with that said, I get the all natural aspirated motors. Having a custom built 402 in my Suburban, I can tell you the long hard pulls of power and movement without the wine of a supercharger or the G push into the seat of the Turbo but a true push into the back of the seat from raw big block power is something most younger people have never experienced.

I can honestly say I know now where I get my passion for Electric auto's, they give the same solid push as a massive big block V8. That long constant pull of power. 

I get what you feel and think about it. This could also be why I am a critic of all things DOHC built engine with high horsepower and weak torque. I just do not see the need for these high revving engines when we could build them simpler and cheaper. That is the attraction of electric, I still think long term, electric will simplify and be cheaper than ICE auto's to run for people and the planet.

16 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

But why do you do that?

What it is about naturally aspirated V6s that get your goat? 

The require more revs than I like. None of them are making peak torque under 3000rpm.

In the case of the Tacoma its a hybrid response. It doesn't like to rev, at all, but at the same time it doesn't make much power down low, imo. 

For a smaller engine, I prefer forced induction for the simple part of low and mid range thrust. If it were a toy I would gladly enjoy something to freely rev.

I've mentioned it before but as a Ford guy the 6.2 in the Camaro better suits my conservative driving style with its gobs of low end vs the 5.0 which wants more revs. 

21 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

You mentioned the few moments that you have to wait for the kickdown to happen on a naturally aspirated V6. Which I got to experience in my wife's 2007 FWD Ford Edge with the 3.5 V6.

So....I could see that. Its comparable to waiting for the turbos to kick in, I guess. Maybe that is because of 6 speed gearboxes?

Yeah, I feel like it is a wash in which item do you want to wait for? Turbos require boost and revving engines require a downshift.. Both take a second or two for the computers to sort out the input and realize the necessary output. Personally, on a daily driver, I like the lack of revs and it just feels like it isn't working as hard waiting for a turbo for a couple seconds going up hill or speeding up to pass. 

As for a toy.. It completely changes. I want it a manual and revs aren't a bad thing. They are thrilling and fun to hear going through the gears. 

3 minutes ago, dfelt said:

The Supercharger wine and power is amazing no doubt about it and I always loved that sound since I saw the original Mad Max Movie.

I got fed up with the supercharger whine in the end. I prefer the "pssssss'  'psssss'  from the excessive back pressure coming from the blow off valve of a turbo now-a-days than the supercharger whine. But I do prefer the instant forced induction acceleration that you get with a supercharger over a turbo....but...

That smoothness of a naturally aspirated motor accelerating is unmatched. For me. Especially if we ARE talking about a V8. 

11 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Yet with that said, I get the all natural aspirated motors. Having a custom built 402 in my Suburban, I can tell you the long hard pulls of power and movement without the wine of a supercharger or the G push into the seat of the Turbo but a true push into the back of the seat from raw big block power is something most younger people have never experienced.

??‍♂️

On 4/10/2019 at 10:49 AM, Drew Dowdell said:

Laggy.

I've driven the 2.0T Regal GS and the 3.6 Regal GS and the 3.6 LaX.

In no instance does the 2.0T feel faster than the 3.6. 

the newest Regals, 2018+, the 3.6 may still feel faster, but there's not really lag on the 2.0 and to be honest the 2.0 is a better drive.

that's just me not often being impressed by GM's 3.6.  It seems to be good in some of the Cadillacs and sucky (to me) otherwise.  At least with my perspective of having the superior Chrysler pentastar 3.6 v6 in a vehicle in my garage.

1 minute ago, regfootball said:

the newest Regals, 2018+, the 3.6 may still feel faster, but there's not really lag on the 2.0 and to be honest the 2.0 is a better drive.

that's just me not often being impressed by GM's 3.6.  It seems to be good in some of the Cadillacs and sucky (to me) otherwise.  At least with my perspective of having the superior Chrysler pentastar 3.6 v6 in a vehicle in my garage.

I dunno... even 6-speed to 6-speed between the Regal and the prior generation Lacrosse, the LaX was just giant a rocketship.  I'll give you that the Pentastar is probably smoother, but in terms of big cruisers, a LaX and 300C are pretty dern close in capability and comfort. 

All right gays, let me put it simply for you all:-

(1) An engine being turbocharged (or not) has nothing to do with whether it is, or can be, high revving. Period.

(2) Contemporary Turbocharged engines are typically not high revving because of the designers' desire to minimize lag and maximize torque down to the lowest reaches of the rev range.

(3) Turbochargers generally have a range of airflow within which it functions well. A big turbo supports higher flow -- which means higher boost or higher engine rpms. A small turbo takes less exhaust energy to drive -- which means higher output at lower rpms and less turbo lag.

(4) To be more specific, at about 20 psi of boost (~1.36 bar), the most advanced turbos can support a torque plateau of about 3000 rpm. That is to say you can have your peak torque of about 150 lb-ft/liter across about 3,000 rpm of engine speed range. This can be 1,500~4,500 rpm or it can be 4,000~7,000 rpm depending on the size of the turbo. Obviously, an engine the latter will make more power... much more power (greater than 200 hp / liter) and rev to 8,000 rpm without running out of breath. But expect 1990s style lag and rubberband like throttle response. With the former you get ~ 130~140 hp / liter, but the engine isn't dead between idle and about 3800 rpm. You can have either or something in between, but you can;t have both.

16 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

All right gays

Hey now!

Im not gay!

Nor am I a switch hittter if ya know what I mean! 

Im 100% pure Greek male heterosexual machoness...

Oh...wait a minute...

OK...

Nope...

gay...even if he is not gay...he is gay...

Yeah...like THAT guy!  Im bald like him too!

Not that there is anything wrong with that...

Because...in Ancient Greece, well...lets not go there because 

35 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

All right gays,

This would be relevant  and I do have a point to make...I think? 

All right GUYS, let me put it simply for you all:-

I just figured he was only talking to me....

50 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I just figured he was only talking to me....

I was only talking to Oldhurst442

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I just figured he was only talking to me....

That's OK, I figured he was just putting us all in the Happy Group of Auto Enthusiast!  

48 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

I was only talking to Oldhurst442

? Now I feel alone!  NOT but that is OK Dwight, I still get ya!  

On 4/9/2019 at 3:04 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

I don't care for the looks, but 300hp out of a 2.0t with almost 300 lb-ft of torque sounds fine to me.... I'm interested in trying it to see how it drives. These are 4.6 Northstar specs from 10 years ago. 

I agree.. but if GM were to have kept the Cruze going in the U.S., we might of got a Cruze SS (Brazil) with a 1.4L with 300HP

On 4/10/2019 at 11:24 AM, Drew Dowdell said:

It has about as perfect a torque curve as one gets for a non-turbocharged engine..... this idea that you have to "rev the hell out of it to get any torque" is absolutely false, and here's the receipt to prove it.   

 

Why do people always say this? 9X outta 10 they have never driven a 3.6L in GM vehicle. In the Camaro it pushes the RS to 60 in 5 seconds.. in the BLAZER.. 6 seconds. This is me in a CT6 3.6L a few months ago. It in no way felt slow: