Facelifted Chevy Cruze photos emerge

My son's friend wants an American built Compact or subcompact with AWD. Any thoughts?

Well, other than the Jeep Compass/Patriot and Dodge Caliber, I don't think there are a lot of options out there ...

What don't you like about the Verano 2.0T, Rj? It's a pretty sweet (but expensive) machine.

I'm not old enough to drive a Buick ...................

Stereo Types are so ugly. It is just this type of thinking that GM is building the Verano to change.

I think if you would drive one you would be shocked how much sportier it is than you think or expect.

My son's friend wants an American built Compact or subcompact with AWD. Any thoughts?

Eagle Talon - American branded Mitsubishi built in Normal Illinois.

What don't you like about the Verano 2.0T, Rj? It's a pretty sweet (but expensive) machine.

I'm not old enough to drive a Buick ...................

That type of thinking proves you're too old to drive a Verano T

What don't you like about the Verano 2.0T, Rj? It's a pretty sweet (but expensive) machine.

I'm not old enough to drive a Buick ...................

That type of thinking proves you're too old to drive a Verano T

Too Old to drive anything Fun and too young to drive period since we are all tired of those people who putt putt along in the far left lane.

Stereo types are ugly ........... so is the car. That type of thinking proves you don't know me. Also have medicare coming up. Drove one, it was nice but over priced for an ugly ride. A 2.5L Cruze would make for a good daily beater.

Why the 2.5 and not the 1.6t when the 1.6t will have the same horsepower, more torque at a lower RPM, and get better fuel economy?

You must have read some of the reasons people don't want a turbo. It's been hashed over so many times on this site. If thats what you want thats ok with me......it's not what I want. Is that ok with you?

I guess I just don't understand why no turbo then... the recent turbos, from pretty much everyone, have turned out to be excellent machines.

Why the 2.5 and not the 1.6t when the 1.6t will have the same horsepower, more torque at a lower RPM, and get better fuel economy?

The 1.6T will have a higher cost compared to the 2.5. Displacement generally doesn't cost anything. A turbocharger, Intercooler, Bypass valve, duct work and the other associated hardware adds about $1000 to the cost of the vehicle.

The 1.6T may not deliver better fuel economy in the end. The reason being that while a 1.6T has lower aspirational losses, it as inferior thermal efficiencies at cruise due to the reduced compression ratio. At a 200 hp target, the 1.6T will be running about 9:1 compression whereas a 2.5 will be running 11.3:1. At 160 hp you can run a 1.6T at about 10.5:1 compression, but you can also run a 2.5 liter with an Atkinson Cam which gives an longer power stroke than compression stroke and exemplary energy extraction from each drop of fuel (Most Hybrids uses an Atkinson cammed ICE). I am not convinced that 1.6T will generate better fuel economy numbers.

After all the GM 1.4T did not generate better fuel economy numbers than the 2.0 Ford engine.

Basically it comes down to this...

1.6T @ 200 hp vs 2.5 NA @ 200 hp

1.6T @ 160 hp vs 2.5 Atkinson @ 160 hp

The 2.5T has lower costs and less maintenance worries down the road.

For ANY given hp target, Naturally Aspirated, Atkinson cammed, engines have better fuel economy numbers than small displacement turbocharged engines of the same output.

Well GM does not see it this way on the 1.6 turbo.

They expect better MPG, better low end torque and they can sell it globally.

Also what higher cost more maintenance? The only extra cost involves is it you would lose a part in the turbo system and at this point the parts failures just have not happened. On the HHR SS site we have many running strong will over 100,000 miles with no failure or issues. We found only a few with issues and even then they were under the factory warranty. Just as many 2.4 engines or more have failed on the site. So please do not create a issue with possibilities vs reality. Oil changes are really not any sooner and tune ups do not come any more often.

Finally China and some other countries have tax laws that effect cars with over 1.6 liters engine size taxes. With that said GM is moving more and more to engines they can sell world wide and going less and less to engines that are for one market. The cost of building so many different engines cuts into profits.

Governmental regulationsTaxation of automobiles is sometimes based on engine displacement, rather than the actual power output. Displacement is a basic fundamental of engine design, whereas power output depends a great deal on other factors, particularly on how the car manufacturer has tuned the engine from new. This has encouraged the development of other methods to increase engine power, such as variable valve timing and turbochargers.

There are four major regulatory constraints for automobiles: the European, British, Japanese, and American. The method used in some European countries, and which predates the EU, has a level of taxation for engines over 1.0 litre, and another at the level of about 1.6 litres. The British system of taxation depends upon vehicle emissions for cars registered after 1 March 2001, but for cars registered before this date, it depends on engine size. Cars under 1549 cc qualify for a cheaper rate of tax .

The Japanese method is similar to the European taxation by classes of displacement, plus a vehicle weight tax.

The United States does not tax a vehicle based on the displacement of the engine (this is also true in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). Engine displacement is important in determining whether or not smaller vehicles need to be registered with the state and whether or not a license is required to operate such a vehicle. A common threshold is 50cc.

In the Netherlands and in Sweden, road tax is based on vehicle weight. However, Swedish cars registered in 2008, or later, are taxed based on carbon dioxide emissions.[citation needed]

Displacement is also used to distinguish categories of (heavier) and lighter motorbikes with respect to driving license and insurance requirements. In France and some other EU countries, mopeds of less than 50 cm3 displacement (and usually with a two-stroke engine), can be driven with minimum qualifications (previously, they could be driven by any person over 14). This led to all light motorbikes having a displacement of about 49.9 cm3. Some people tuned the engine by increasing the cylinder bore, increasing displacement; such mopeds cannot be driven legally on public roads since they do no longer conform to the original specifications and may go faster than 45 km/h.

Wankel engines, due to the amount of power and emissions they create for their displacement, are generally taxed as 1.5 times their stated physical displacement (1.3 liters becomes effectively 2.0, 2.0 becomes effectively 3.0), although actual power outputs are far greater (the 1.3-litre 13B can produce power comparable to a 3.0 V6 engine, and the 2.0-litre 20B can produce power comparable to a 4.0 V8 engine).[citation needed] As such, racing regulations actually use a much higher conversion factor.

It is not just by chance the engines sizes most mfg. use are all the same.

You state a lot of numbers but you have to use all the numbers and facts involved and not just cherry pick what you want to really understand why things are done the way they are. .

Evan though everything on the internet is true................I rather a Cruze or Cruze wagon with a 2.5L

Why not take a page out of the Train Industry.

Just use decent powerfull Electric engines and then have a little 1L Natural Gas generator with a step up transformer to supply the power. Green, Clean and powerful.

Why the 2.5 and not the 1.6t when the 1.6t will have the same horsepower, more torque at a lower RPM, and get better fuel economy?

The 1.6T will have a higher cost compared to the 2.5. Displacement generally doesn't cost anything. A turbocharger, Intercooler, Bypass valve, duct work and the other associated hardware adds about $1000 to the cost of the vehicle.

The 1.6T may not deliver better fuel economy in the end. The reason being that while a 1.6T has lower aspirational losses, it as inferior thermal efficiencies at cruise due to the reduced compression ratio. At a 200 hp target, the 1.6T will be running about 9:1 compression whereas a 2.5 will be running 11.3:1. At 160 hp you can run a 1.6T at about 10.5:1 compression, but you can also run a 2.5 liter with an Atkinson Cam which gives an longer power stroke than compression stroke and exemplary energy extraction from each drop of fuel (Most Hybrids uses an Atkinson cammed ICE). I am not convinced that 1.6T will generate better fuel economy numbers.

After all the GM 1.4T did not generate better fuel economy numbers than the 2.0 Ford engine.

Basically it comes down to this...

1.6T @ 200 hp vs 2.5 NA @ 200 hp

1.6T @ 160 hp vs 2.5 Atkinson @ 160 hp

The 2.5T has lower costs and less maintenance worries down the road.

For ANY given hp target, Naturally Aspirated, Atkinson cammed, engines have better fuel economy numbers than small displacement turbocharged engines of the same output.

The 1.4T in the Cruze has better fuel economy than the 2.0 in the Focus and the 1.4T doesn't even have direct injection yet.

What gets lost with the Turbo engine while it may have the ability to get better MPG it also has the ability to get poorer MPG too.

The engine is very efficient if drive properly but if driven hard it will drop the MPG fast just like a V8 and in many cases the extremes are even greater with the 4.

Something else lost on many today is the fact the DI engines in at least GM's case will increase MPG with off throttle time. In other words if you can maintain speed off the throttle it will pick up a lot in mileage. This applies to all DI engines but the Turbo engines with more low end torque GM has found gives owners more off throttle time and they can pick up more mpg since they get up to speed easier.

In normal everyday driving I seldom have to rev more than 3500 RPM and generally see MPG in greater numbers than the EPA listing on the window sticker. I think my city was stated as 19 MPG and I have never seen it that low ever. The lowest I have seen in winter driving it hard even using remote start was 21 MPG. This winter even with remote I am seeing no less than 23.8 and when it warms it jumps up one MPG. IN summer it easily reaches over 25 MPG and almost 26 city.

Now note too my number will reflect two on ramps I take for a 3 mile jog on a short stretch of freeway and I will rev it there and see pretty high boost but it does not hurt me over all in MPG. The rest of my driving is stop and go on city streets and side roads.

My V6 in the BU can not touch this or even come close in city. Highway it can almost match me. Terrain will match the city on the Bu but not the highway due to the greater mass of the vehicle.

Not too the more mass the greater chance for less MPG with any turbo. But that is just common sense as with any engine.

Why the 2.5 and not the 1.6t when the 1.6t will have the same horsepower, more torque at a lower RPM, and get better fuel economy?

The 1.6T will have a higher cost compared to the 2.5. Displacement generally doesn't cost anything. A turbocharger, Intercooler, Bypass valve, duct work and the other associated hardware adds about $1000 to the cost of the vehicle.

The 1.6T may not deliver better fuel economy in the end. The reason being that while a 1.6T has lower aspirational losses, it as inferior thermal efficiencies at cruise due to the reduced compression ratio. At a 200 hp target, the 1.6T will be running about 9:1 compression whereas a 2.5 will be running 11.3:1. At 160 hp you can run a 1.6T at about 10.5:1 compression, but you can also run a 2.5 liter with an Atkinson Cam which gives an longer power stroke than compression stroke and exemplary energy extraction from each drop of fuel (Most Hybrids uses an Atkinson cammed ICE). I am not convinced that 1.6T will generate better fuel economy numbers.

After all the GM 1.4T did not generate better fuel economy numbers than the 2.0 Ford engine.

Basically it comes down to this...

1.6T @ 200 hp vs 2.5 NA @ 200 hp

1.6T @ 160 hp vs 2.5 Atkinson @ 160 hp

The 2.5T has lower costs and less maintenance worries down the road.

For ANY given hp target, Naturally Aspirated, Atkinson cammed, engines have better fuel economy numbers than small displacement turbocharged engines of the same output.

The 1.4T in the Cruze has better fuel economy than the 2.0 in the Focus and the 1.4T doesn't even have direct injection yet.

Not according to the EPA...

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/31370.shtml

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32916

The Focus wins by 1 MPG despite having 43% greater displacement -- 6A to 6A just to take the dual clutch auto out of the equation which would have given the Focus an even greater edge. The Ford 2.0 also has 22 more hp and similar torque a similar torque output.

The point here is that the dollars expended on the turbo is greater than an aluminum block and direct injection would have cost. Displacement (keeping the same complexity and cylinder count) essentially doesn't cost anything. Of the $4000~5000 an engine costs, only about 5% is the metal -- aluminum is $1 a pound, steel is even less -- 95% of it is machining and assembly.

If GM wanted the best fuel economy and 140 hp for the Cruze, the most frugal engine is not a DOHC-16v turbocharged 1.4L. Going in the other direction will produce better fuel economy...

• 2.35 liters displacement
• 3-cylinder Inline
• 80% Atkinson Cycle Cam Grind (rendering 1.88L effective displacement)
• SOHC-6v heads with roller followers & Cam-in-Cam Dual VVT
• 14:1 geometric compression ratio (11.2:1 from intake valve closure)
• Direct Injection
• Aluminum Block & Heads
• 140 bhp @ 5600 rpm
• 140 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm

Basically, want you are getting is an asymmetric compression-power stroke to improve energy extraction, lower parasitic friction from having only 6 valves and 3 cylinders. The engine will be cheaper to build too, freeing up money for a high strength steel in the chassis or a transmission with more speeds or automated dual clutches.

What gets lost with the Turbo engine while it may have the ability to get better MPG it also has the ability to get poorer MPG too.

The engine is very efficient if drive properly but if driven hard it will drop the MPG fast just like a V8 and in many cases the extremes are even greater with the 4.

Actually, the reverse is true...

When pushed (WOT) the efficiency of any engine delivering the same horsepower output is roughly the same. It takes X amount of fuel to be burned in Y amount of air to produce Z amount of power. It is when the engine is operating at low loads that differences are at their greatest. When cruising down the freeway at a steady 65 mph the engine only needs to produce 30~40 hp. The throttle plate is used to intentionally choke the engine such that no matter how well it breathes when unleashes it is always operating and a very low aspirational efficiency at cruise. Basically, the motor is sucking vacuum -- air at lower psi than atmospheric pressure.

A smaller engine has the benefit of operating at a higher load and larger throttle opening than a bigger engine. A 1.0 engine capable of 70 hp may be operating with the throttle half open whereas a 6.0 liter engine may only be operating with a throttle that is 5~6% open. This has a direct effect on effective compression ratio because a nearly closed throttle makes the engine suck a higher degree of vacuum which means less molecues per unit piston displacement and less effective compression. This is the primary benefit of a small displacement engine and the primary benefit of say cylinder deactivation -- to allow the engine to operate with less vacuum. Compression is essential to good combustion efficiency and energy extraction from fuel.

All less being equal, a 1.0 liter engine will be more efficient than a 2.0 liter predominantly because of this. The problem is that all else being equal a 1.0 liter engine also produces about half as much maximum power as a 2.0 liter. If you can accept this that's all well and good. And the 1.0 liter engine will be more efficient. However, if the objective is to produce the same approximate performance and power. Say 150 hp. A 1.0 liter engine is not going to give you that unless you do one of two things... you can rev the crap out of it or you can turbocharged the hell out of it.

Now here it becomes interesting...

High RPM

• 75 lb-ft @ 10,500 rpm = 150 hp
• You'll still be driving around with 75 lb-ft and probably peaking rather high in the rev range
• To make the car tractable you need to lower your gearing
• Lowering gearing directly impacts fuel economy negatively

Turbocharge it

• 1.0 liter w/ 22~25 psi of boost = 150 hp
• 22~25 psi of boost requires ~8:1 compression
• At cruise, when boost is off, you are now running the engine at about 3~3.5 points lower compression
• This negatively impacts fuel economy

At the end of the day, the market is littered with examples of engine which adopted either approach but fail to match or exceed the fuel economy ratings of larger displacement engines of comparable output. BMW M3's 4.0 V8 vs GM's 6.2 liter V8 is one example of high revving, small displacement engine grossly under performing a larger displacement engine with low specific output. The Cruze's 1.4T vs Focus's 20 or Civic's 1.8 is an example of high consumption and costs from a lower displacement engine relying on turbocharging compared to larger engines of the same power class.

2.5 4 popper with it's larger cylinders will be a little more of shaker than a 1.6 although with a 4 cylinder either way they would probably want to balance it.

read something recently that suggested 500cc size for cylinder is maximum optimal for a 4 popper when considering all design factors, that is why BMW is doing 1.5 3's, 2.0 4's, 3.0 6's.....most efficient and smooth when combustion chamber is kept to 500cc and under.

i've driven the 2.5 and like it. the 1.4t is great also. Just glad GM can do a 4 cylinder well, even the 2.4 misses the beat for me in some ways. the 2.0t's in the Regal, Cobalt SS and HHR SS i have driven all very very good.

What gets lost with the Turbo engine while it may have the ability to get better MPG it also has the ability to get poorer MPG too.

The engine is very efficient if drive properly but if driven hard it will drop the MPG fast just like a V8 and in many cases the extremes are even greater with the 4.

Actually, the reverse is true...

When pushed (WOT) the efficiency of any engine delivering the same horsepower output is roughly the same. It takes X amount of fuel to be burned in Y amount of air to produce Z amount of power. It is when the engine is operating at low loads that differences are at their greatest. When cruising down the freeway at a steady 65 mph the engine only needs to produce 30~40 hp. The throttle plate is used to intentionally choke the engine such that no matter how well it breathes when unleashes it is always operating and a very low aspirational efficiency at cruise. Basically, the motor is sucking vacuum -- air at lower psi than atmospheric pressure.

A smaller engine has the benefit of operating at a higher load and larger throttle opening than a bigger engine. A 1.0 engine capable of 70 hp may be operating with the throttle half open whereas a 6.0 liter engine may only be operating with a throttle that is 5~6% open. This has a direct effect on effective compression ratio because a nearly closed throttle makes the engine suck a higher degree of vacuum which means less molecues per unit piston displacement and less effective compression. This is the primary benefit of a small displacement engine and the primary benefit of say cylinder deactivation -- to allow the engine to operate with less vacuum. Compression is essential to good combustion efficiency and energy extraction from fuel.

All less being equal, a 1.0 liter engine will be more efficient than a 2.0 liter predominantly because of this. The problem is that all else being equal a 1.0 liter engine also produces about half as much maximum power as a 2.0 liter. If you can accept this that's all well and good. And the 1.0 liter engine will be more efficient. However, if the objective is to produce the same approximate performance and power. Say 150 hp. A 1.0 liter engine is not going to give you that unless you do one of two things... you can rev the crap out of it or you can turbocharged the hell out of it.

Now here it becomes interesting...

High RPM

• 75 lb-ft @ 10,500 rpm = 150 hp
• You'll still be driving around with 75 lb-ft and probably peaking rather high in the rev range
• To make the car tractable you need to lower your gearing
• Lowering gearing directly impacts fuel economy negatively

Turbocharge it

• 1.0 liter w/ 22~25 psi of boost = 150 hp
• 22~25 psi of boost requires ~8:1 compression
• At cruise, when boost is off, you are now running the engine at about 3~3.5 points lower compression
• This negatively impacts fuel economy

At the end of the day, the market is littered with examples of engine which adopted either approach but fail to match or exceed the fuel economy ratings of larger displacement engines of comparable output. BMW M3's 4.0 V8 vs GM's 6.2 liter V8 is one example of high revving, small displacement engine grossly under performing a larger displacement engine with low specific output. The Cruze's 1.4T vs Focus's 20 or Civic's 1.8 is an example of high consumption and costs from a lower displacement engine relying on turbocharging compared to larger engines of the same power class.

At the end of the day the market is 180 degrees in opposition to you as there is more to it than just numbers.

Again you bring up the 4.0 BMW but you also have to use the understanding they need the 4.0 Liters in many markets to beat the tax issues.

Contrary to how you make it there is much more to this game than just engineering numbers. The fact is GM and most other companies can not and will not sell a large displacement engine in many markets. While we may enjoy it here GM has to play the game globally with many of the smaller engines and to do so they will have to do it with smaller engines with power adders.

I still like the larger displacement idea for GM's larger and "fatter" cars, as here it would make sense.

Smaller cars, maybe not as much....

What gets lost with the Turbo engine while it may have the ability to get better MPG it also has the ability to get poorer MPG too.

The engine is very efficient if drive properly but if driven hard it will drop the MPG fast just like a V8 and in many cases the extremes are even greater with the 4.

Actually, the reverse is true...

When pushed (WOT) the efficiency of any engine delivering the same horsepower output is roughly the same. It takes X amount of fuel to be burned in Y amount of air to produce Z amount of power. It is when the engine is operating at low loads that differences are at their greatest. When cruising down the freeway at a steady 65 mph the engine only needs to produce 30~40 hp. The throttle plate is used to intentionally choke the engine such that no matter how well it breathes when unleashes it is always operating and a very low aspirational efficiency at cruise. Basically, the motor is sucking vacuum -- air at lower psi than atmospheric pressure.

A smaller engine has the benefit of operating at a higher load and larger throttle opening than a bigger engine. A 1.0 engine capable of 70 hp may be operating with the throttle half open whereas a 6.0 liter engine may only be operating with a throttle that is 5~6% open. This has a direct effect on effective compression ratio because a nearly closed throttle makes the engine suck a higher degree of vacuum which means less molecues per unit piston displacement and less effective compression. This is the primary benefit of a small displacement engine and the primary benefit of say cylinder deactivation -- to allow the engine to operate with less vacuum. Compression is essential to good combustion efficiency and energy extraction from fuel.

All less being equal, a 1.0 liter engine will be more efficient than a 2.0 liter predominantly because of this. The problem is that all else being equal a 1.0 liter engine also produces about half as much maximum power as a 2.0 liter. If you can accept this that's all well and good. And the 1.0 liter engine will be more efficient. However, if the objective is to produce the same approximate performance and power. Say 150 hp. A 1.0 liter engine is not going to give you that unless you do one of two things... you can rev the crap out of it or you can turbocharged the hell out of it.

Now here it becomes interesting...

High RPM

• 75 lb-ft @ 10,500 rpm = 150 hp
• You'll still be driving around with 75 lb-ft and probably peaking rather high in the rev range
• To make the car tractable you need to lower your gearing
• Lowering gearing directly impacts fuel economy negatively

Turbocharge it

• 1.0 liter w/ 22~25 psi of boost = 150 hp
• 22~25 psi of boost requires ~8:1 compression
• At cruise, when boost is off, you are now running the engine at about 3~3.5 points lower compression
• This negatively impacts fuel economy

At the end of the day, the market is littered with examples of engine which adopted either approach but fail to match or exceed the fuel economy ratings of larger displacement engines of comparable output. BMW M3's 4.0 V8 vs GM's 6.2 liter V8 is one example of high revving, small displacement engine grossly under performing a larger displacement engine with low specific output. The Cruze's 1.4T vs Focus's 20 or Civic's 1.8 is an example of high consumption and costs from a lower displacement engine relying on turbocharging compared to larger engines of the same power class.

At the end of the day the market is 180 degrees in opposition to you as there is more to it than just numbers.

Again you bring up the 4.0 BMW but you also have to use the understanding they need the 4.0 Liters in many markets to beat the tax issues.

Contrary to how you make it there is much more to this game than just engineering numbers. The fact is GM and most other companies can not and will not sell a large displacement engine in many markets. While we may enjoy it here GM has to play the game globally with many of the smaller engines and to do so they will have to do it with smaller engines with power adders.

If you care about displacement taxes, 4.0 is too big anyway. In anycase, it didn't matter to Mercedes with its 5.5 then 6.3 power plants of the same period. In Europe, where displacement taxes are prevalent, if you care about these things you won't be in the market for an M3 or a C63.

And, no, manufacturers are not all going the small and forcefed route. Only the misguided ones do that and then if they are smart quickly reverse course.

So nearly everyone in the auto industry is wrong and you are correct? Who can debate with a mind like that LOL!

When you are willing to include all factors and not just cherry pick what you need to support your hypnosis we then we can have a realistic debate.

What gets lost with the Turbo engine while it may have the ability to get better MPG it also has the ability to get poorer MPG too.

The engine is very efficient if drive properly but if driven hard it will drop the MPG fast just like a V8 and in many cases the extremes are even greater with the 4.

Actually, the reverse is true...

When pushed (WOT) the efficiency of any engine delivering the same horsepower output is roughly the same. It takes X amount of fuel to be burned in Y amount of air to produce Z amount of power. It is when the engine is operating at low loads that differences are at their greatest. When cruising down the freeway at a steady 65 mph the engine only needs to produce 30~40 hp. The throttle plate is used to intentionally choke the engine such that no matter how well it breathes when unleashes it is always operating and a very low aspirational efficiency at cruise. Basically, the motor is sucking vacuum -- air at lower psi than atmospheric pressure.

A smaller engine has the benefit of operating at a higher load and larger throttle opening than a bigger engine. A 1.0 engine capable of 70 hp may be operating with the throttle half open whereas a 6.0 liter engine may only be operating with a throttle that is 5~6% open. This has a direct effect on effective compression ratio because a nearly closed throttle makes the engine suck a higher degree of vacuum which means less molecues per unit piston displacement and less effective compression. This is the primary benefit of a small displacement engine and the primary benefit of say cylinder deactivation -- to allow the engine to operate with less vacuum. Compression is essential to good combustion efficiency and energy extraction from fuel.

All less being equal, a 1.0 liter engine will be more efficient than a 2.0 liter predominantly because of this. The problem is that all else being equal a 1.0 liter engine also produces about half as much maximum power as a 2.0 liter. If you can accept this that's all well and good. And the 1.0 liter engine will be more efficient. However, if the objective is to produce the same approximate performance and power. Say 150 hp. A 1.0 liter engine is not going to give you that unless you do one of two things... you can rev the crap out of it or you can turbocharged the hell out of it.

Now here it becomes interesting...

High RPM

• 75 lb-ft @ 10,500 rpm = 150 hp
• You'll still be driving around with 75 lb-ft and probably peaking rather high in the rev range
• To make the car tractable you need to lower your gearing
• Lowering gearing directly impacts fuel economy negatively

Turbocharge it

• 1.0 liter w/ 22~25 psi of boost = 150 hp
• 22~25 psi of boost requires ~8:1 compression
• At cruise, when boost is off, you are now running the engine at about 3~3.5 points lower compression
• This negatively impacts fuel economy

At the end of the day, the market is littered with examples of engine which adopted either approach but fail to match or exceed the fuel economy ratings of larger displacement engines of comparable output. BMW M3's 4.0 V8 vs GM's 6.2 liter V8 is one example of high revving, small displacement engine grossly under performing a larger displacement engine with low specific output. The Cruze's 1.4T vs Focus's 20 or Civic's 1.8 is an example of high consumption and costs from a lower displacement engine relying on turbocharging compared to larger engines of the same power class.

At the end of the day the market is 180 degrees in opposition to you as there is more to it than just numbers.

Again you bring up the 4.0 BMW but you also have to use the understanding they need the 4.0 Liters in many markets to beat the tax issues.

Contrary to how you make it there is much more to this game than just engineering numbers. The fact is GM and most other companies can not and will not sell a large displacement engine in many markets. While we may enjoy it here GM has to play the game globally with many of the smaller engines and to do so they will have to do it with smaller engines with power adders.

If you care about displacement taxes, 4.0 is too big anyway. In anycase, it didn't matter to Mercedes with its 5.5 then 6.3 power plants of the same period. In Europe, where displacement taxes are prevalent, if you care about these things you won't be in the market for an M3 or a C63.

And, no, manufacturers are not all going the small and forcefed route. Only the misguided ones do that and then if they are smart quickly reverse course.

Misguided - GM, Ford, Chrysler, BMW, Mercedes, Kia, Hyundai, Audi, VW, Volvo, Porsche

Not Misguided - Honda, Toyota, Jaguar/Land Rover

Not sure which way they're going - Nissan

has any of the misguided ones reversed course? Not that I've seen.

As Paul Harvey says "and here's the rest of the story,"

Here is an example of what automakers are up against globally. This is what they also have to balance when building engines. This example is only from the largest auto market in the world right now and is having a greater effect on the auto MFG's all the time.

In China they tried to steer people to smaller engines for better economy and less emissions by cutting the sales tax in half from 10% to 5%. that did not work. So they looked to taxing displacement just as several other markets to like in Europe, Japan etc. Here are the numbers the buyers in China see as of Jan 1 2012.

1.0-1.6 Liters 300-540 Yaun or $46-$82 dollars US. This was a drop of $18 dollars over what they had been paying.

1.6 - 2.0 360-540 Yaun or $55-$100 dollars US. This was a drop of approx. $46 over what they were paying.

China now has 87% of the cars on the road at 2.0 or less. Now you can still buy a larger displacement vehicle but that will be subjected to a tax of a max of 5,400 Yuan or $821 dollars US. While that may not seem like much we also have to consider the pay scales in China are no where near what the average American makes. Also the price of a car in China alone is something more are able to afford but there are still millions unable to afford a car as of yet. These taxes are a make or break for what the average Chinese buyer can afford.

Now looking at GM we have vehicles like the Regal, Malibu, Lacrosse, Verano, Cruze and more GM vehicles that are playing a major roll in this growing market. Their hand is forced not only by physics but by government regulations. This is the reason we have seen GM consider a 2.0 Turbo XTS for the Chinese market.

With GM going global with most of their cars we will see more and more where we will have the same engines as other lands. We also will see more of the tricks they use to power up these smaller engines. Sure there are good and bad points to these and any engine package but the key is profit here. Paying attention and selling cars globally is the key to the future and anyone who is not doing so will get left behind and fade away.

I do not see misguided I just see MFG's in a box and having to play the cards they are dealt.

If it was so easy to meet all these needs and others with just a large displacement V8, V6 or 4 they would be doing it.

When looking at issues as this you must factor in all the issues and facts not just what you want to use to make your point.