Is a 1.4L Turbo the right answer?

[Guest aatbloke]

Your math doesn't seem to add up...

Price of gas: $9/gal

Annual mileage: 13500 miles

1.8 liter NA (138hp) Avg mpg: 44.8

1.4 liter Turbo (120hp) mpg: 38.6

Fuel savings: 13500/38.6 - 13500/44.8 = 349.7 - 301.3 = 48.4 gallons

Fuel Bill savings: 9 x 48.4 = $435.6

Hence, even with a 6.2 mpg difference, you are looking at a $435 savings per annum. I don't know how you are getting $900 on a 4.5mpg difference.

BTW, it looks like you British folks are buying into the Global Warming scam even more than the environmental lemmings here in the USA. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing wrong with our climate, nothing unusual with the changes observed in the past century and ZERO evidence that androgeneous CO2 has any tangible effect on the global climate cycles. We are smack right in the middle of historical norms and we are actually running cooler climates than in the 1200s or 5000BC which are way before industrialization. In fact over the past year we have seen so much cooling that it wiped out 15 years worth of so called "warming". In short there is no such thing as "Global Warming".

My apologies, I'd made an error with the forex rate I used. I used 15,000 miles per annum at the current unleaded price of roughly US$2.45/litre or US$10.78/imperial gallon - the 120bhp Golf would set you back the equivalent of US$3,603 average. The 123bhp Focus would set you back US$3,997, while the 138bhp Astra would set you back US$4,200 per annum. So, roughly $600 in savings for just 18 extra bhp, and the Golf 1.4 which offers the same power will still yield annual savings. But with the additional road tax savings of US$130 and insurance savings as a result, you'd practically end up with savings in the region of that US$900 per annum. Over four years you'd be looking at $3,600 in savings for the 120bhp Golf compared to the 138bhp Astra, for vehicles of a similar asking price and the Golf will retain more value after that period of time. The Astra's a fine car, but won't catch up with the Golf in this regard until the new 1400cc turbo appears in the forthcoming sixth-generation car next year.

I'm proud that the UK - and Europe - takes carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles seriously. As a country, the UK had exceeded its 2012 Kyoto accord goal by 2006. I feel better as a result for the future of my family, even though there's a long way to go. The 2009 Euro V emissions will radically reduce further the NOx and particulates emissions limits from the 2003 Euro IV standard. Consequently, European manufacturers (along with the Japanese) are at the forefront of small engine technology, and consumers have a whole raft of small, economical petrol and diesel engines to choose from - as they are the consequence of public demand en masse. Having seen myself the glacial retreat in Switzerland over the past 25 years, there's enough evidence for me to feast my own eyes upon.

I appreciate that some countries in the world will hold on to their large, uneconomical, high-emissions engine love affairs for as long as they can economically do so. That's their prerogative. But ultimately, they'll be the ones who lose out not only the most, but also the most radically, from economic to cultural change. For my money though, if you want to reduce your reliance on Middle Eastern oil, you buy the most economical vehicle available to you.

Edited July 29, 2008 by aatbloke

[dwightlooi]

My apologies, I'd made an error with the forex rate I used. I used 15,000 miles per annum at the current unleaded price of roughly US$2.45/litre or US$10.78/imperial gallon - the 120bhp Golf would set you back the equivalent of US$3,603 average. The 123bhp Focus would set you back US$3,997, while the 138bhp Astra would set you back US$4,200 per annum. So, roughly $600 in savings for just 18 extra bhp, and the Golf 1.4 which offers the same power will still yield annual savings. But with the additional road tax savings of US$130 and insurance savings as a result, you'd practically end up with savings in the region of that US$900 per annum. Over four years you'd be looking at $3,600 in savings for the 120bhp Golf compared to the 138bhp Astra, for vehicles of a similar asking price and the Golf will retain more value after that period of time. The Astra's a fine car, but won't catch up with the Golf in this regard until the new 1400cc turbo appears in the forthcoming sixth-generation car next year.

I'm proud that the UK - and Europe - takes carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles seriously. As a country, the UK had exceeded its 2012 Kyoto accord goal by 2006. I feel better as a result for the future of my family, even though there's a long way to go. The 2009 Euro V emissions will radically reduce further the NOx and particulates emissions limits from the 2003 Euro IV standard. Consequently, European manufacturers (along with the Japanese) are at the forefront of small engine technology, and consumers have a whole raft of small, economical petrol and diesel engines to choose from - as they are the consequence of public demand en masse. Having seen myself the glacial retreat in Switzerland over the past 25 years, there's enough evidence for me to feast my own eyes upon.

I appreciate that some countries in the world will hold on to their large, uneconomical, high-emissions engine love affairs for as long as they can economically do so. That's their prerogative. But ultimately, they'll be the ones who lose out not only the most, but also the most radically, from economic to cultural change. For my money though, if you want to reduce your reliance on Middle Eastern oil, you buy the most economical vehicle available to you.

What I believe is:-

(1) The Kyoto Accord is a total waste of time at addressing a problem (CO2 emissions) which has not been proven to be a problem; there is ZERO evidence that there is any abnormality in global temperatures and much less that androgeneous CO2 output has ANY a tangible cause of it. Global Warming, like creationism, is a hypothesis. The difference is that you cannot prove creationism to be utter BS whereas you can prove Global Warming to be utter rubbish.

(2) I am glad that the USA did not partake in that Accord because it hurts US national economic interests while giving massive concessions to rival economies in the developing world including China and India.

(3) I agree that reliance on Middle eastern and other foreign oil is detrimental to our national interests, which is why I support drilling offshore, inland and in the Arctic Wild Life reserves. I also support building new domestic refineries to further curtail supply problems on the processing side. In the long term I see the adoption of Nuclear Power on a grand scale as the only alternative to as Wind, Solar, and other feel good energy sources combined cannpt even supply 15% of our energy needs even with the utilization of as much land and capital as is possible, and the production of Ethanol is barely at a 1:1 energy yield vs energy input. I also see Electric distribution as the future means of energy distribution. Hydrogen IMHO is a waste of time. Hydrogen is not an energy source, you need to make it from electric power or cracking fossil fuel. And, why will you want to transport energy as an explosive high pressure, extremely low density gas or a near absolute zero liquid, only to require a fuel cell stack or internal combustion engine to turn it back into usable propulsion?

Edited July 29, 2008 by dwightlooi

[pow]

138bhp 1.4 litre turbo/49.8mpg highway/39.7mpg average/29.8mpg urban 169g-km CO2 (VW Golf 1285kg)

Yes, but also...

138bhp 1.8 litre NA/52.3mpg highway/44.1mpg average/34.3mpg urban 152g-km CO2 (Honda Civic 1251kg)

A Rabbit 1.4 TSI will likely yield ~25/34 mpg on the EPA cycles, or slightly worse than a 148 hp 2.2-liter Cobalt XFE. Gear ratios, final drive ratio, rolling resistance, aerodynamics, vehicle weight, and advanced technology (direct injection, variable valve timing, hybrid drive, etc.) have a greater effect on fuel consumption than engine size alone, especially when that downsized engine utilizes forced induction to compensate for the loss in power.

The 1.4 TSI engine makes sense in countries like Germany, which has a tax scale based on engine size, not fuel consumed/CO2 emitted. A small turbocharged engine may also have a performance improvement (greater low-end torque) and greater tuneability (aftermarket ECU) over a comparably powerful, larger-displacement engine. Smaller displacement four-cylinders can also be smoother, though practically all four-cylinders above 2.0 liters use balance shafts anyway.

Ultimately it's up to the final tuning of the powertrain and how the consumer uses the reduced-displacement-but-turbocharged engine. I know from experience that the smooth surge of turbo boost can be instantly addictive and gratifying... and destructive to the wallet. If the manufacturer can calibrate the drivetrain such that turbo spooling is minimized in NEDC or EPA test cycles - and still maintain decent drivability - then I suppose they can benefit from the higher mpg figures, lower tax brackets, and higher CAFE scores. Actual real-world effects on fuel consumption, on the other hand... that I doubt.

Edited July 29, 2008 by empowah

[Guest aatbloke]

What I believe is:-

(1) The Kyoto Accord is a total waste of time at addressing a problem (CO2 emissions) which has not been proven to be a problem; there is ZERO evidence that there is any abnormality in global temperatures and much less that androgeneous CO2 output has ANY a tangible cause of it. Global Warming, like creationism, is a hypothesis. The difference is that you cannot prove creationism to be utter BS whereas you can prove Global Warming to be utter rubbish.

(2) I am glad that the USA did not partake in that Accord because it hurts US national economic interests while giving massive concessions to rival economies in the developing world including China and India.

(3) I agree that reliance on Middle eastern and other foreign oil is detrimental to our national interests, which is why I support drilling offshore, inland and in the Arctic Wild Life reserves. I also support building new domestic refineries to further curtail supply problems on the processing side. In the long term I see the adoption of Nuclear Power on a grand scale as the only alternative to as Wind, Solar, and other feel good energy sources combined cannpt even supply 15% of our energy needs even with the utilization of as much land and capital as is possible, and the production of Ethanol is barely at a 1:1 energy yield vs energy input. I also see Electric distribution as the future means of energy distribution. Hydrogen IMHO is a waste of time. Hydrogen is not an energy source, you need to make it from electric power or cracking fossil fuel. And, why will you want to transport energy as an explosive high pressure, extremely low density gas or a near absolute zero liquid, only to require a fuel cell stack or internal combustion engine to turn it back into usable propulsion?

You and your country are entitled to that belief. I on the other hand am glad to be with the majority of the world's opinion in this instance.

[Guest aatbloke]

Yes, but also...

138bhp 1.8 litre NA/52.3mpg highway/44.1mpg average/34.3mpg urban 152g-km CO2 (Honda Civic 1251kg)

A Rabbit 1.4 TSI will likely yield ~25/34 mpg on the EPA cycles, or slightly worse than a 148 hp 2.2-liter Cobalt XFE. Gear ratios, final drive ratio, rolling resistance, aerodynamics, vehicle weight, and advanced technology (direct injection, variable valve timing, hybrid drive, etc.) have a greater effect on fuel consumption than engine size alone, especially when that downsized engine utilizes forced induction to compensate for the loss in power.

The 1.4 TSI engine makes sense in countries like Germany, which has a tax scale based on engine size, not fuel consumed/CO2 emitted. A small turbocharged engine may also have a performance improvement (greater low-end torque) and greater tuneability (aftermarket ECU) over a comparably powerful, larger-displacement engine. Smaller displacement four-cylinders can also be smoother, though practically all four-cylinders above 2.0 liters use balance shafts anyway.

Ultimately it's up to the final tuning of the powertrain and how the consumer uses the reduced-displacement-but-turbocharged engine. I know from experience that the smooth surge of turbo boost can be instantly addictive and gratifying... and destructive to the wallet. If the manufacturer can calibrate the drivetrain such that turbo spooling is minimized in NEDC or EPA test cycles - and still maintain decent drivability - then I suppose they can benefit from the higher mpg figures, lower tax brackets, and higher CAFE scores. Actual real-world effects on fuel consumption, on the other hand... that I doubt.

The Golf employs three 1.4 litre turbocharged petrol units, with differing gear ratios and tyre resistance and engine technologies resulting in three differing power ratings, levels of fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. The highway fuel economy for the 138bhp version ranks at 49.8mpg imperial, or roughly 42mpg US, dropping to 39.7mpg (34mpg US) on an extra-urban (i.e. mixed urban with some highway) cycle.

Practically all EU countries have switched their vehicle registration systems from an cylinder capacity based system to one based on CO2 emissions. Germany will be the last major European market to do so in 2010.

[pow]

The Golf employs three 1.4 litre turbocharged petrol units, with differing gear ratios and tyre resistance and engine technologies resulting in three differing power ratings, levels of fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. The highway fuel economy for the 138bhp version ranks at 49.8mpg imperial, or roughly 42mpg US, dropping to 39.7mpg (34mpg US) on an extra-urban (i.e. mixed urban with some highway) cycle.

I know... my point is that the 138 bhp 1.4 TSI Golf has higher fuel consumption (NEDC urban, extra-urban, and combined) than the larger displacement, naturally-aspirated 1.8L 138 bhp Civic (EU).

Given two engines of equal power (and two vehicles of similar weight), the smaller displacement turbo unit isn't necessarily the one with better fuel economy. The 138 bhp Golf 1.4 TSI may well get ~42mpg US extra-urban, ~34mpg US combined, and ~25mpg US urban, but in the US EPA consumer test cycles, that translates to ~25mpg US city and ~34mpg US highway, less than what the 1.8 liter Civic and Corolla (and 2.2 liter Cobalt XFE) get in the US.

[Guest aatbloke]

I know... my point is that the 138 bhp 1.4 TSI Golf has higher fuel consumption (NEDC urban, extra-urban, and combined) than the larger displacement, naturally-aspirated 1.8L 138 bhp Civic (EU).

Given two engines of equal power (and two vehicles of similar weight), the smaller displacement turbo unit isn't necessarily the one with better fuel economy. The 138 bhp Golf 1.4 TSI may well get ~42mpg US extra-urban, ~34mpg US combined, and ~25mpg US urban, but in the US EPA consumer test cycles, that translates to ~25mpg US city and ~34mpg US highway, less than what the 1.8 liter Civic and Corolla (and 2.2 liter Cobalt XFE) get in the US.

The Honda is the exception rather than the norm though. There are many factors which affect fuel economy, not necessarily displacement (Ford's 1.6 litre zetec was less fuel-efficient than the 1.8, for example) but in general, once you start getting down to anything less than 1500ccs in small cars, fuel efficiency tends to increase dramatically at the behest of power. This new wave of 1400cc turbocharged units offer phenomenal amounts of power for engines of this size, without a huge drop in fuel economy, but most importantly they offer this combination at lower emissions levels, an important factor in most European jurisdictions.

[dwightlooi]

You and your country are entitled to that belief. I on the other hand am glad to be with the majority of the world's opinion in this instance.

I think it is more than a matter of world opinion, it is a matter of facts and supporting evidence. You appear to be passionate about the issue, I think you will be doing yourself a disservice if you simply believe in global warming because Al Gore got the Nobel Prize for publicizing it and some majority or another also believes in it. I urge you to consider the following:-

Back in the Cretaceous when dinosaurs walked the earth, Global temperatures were about 18 degrees (F) warmer than it is today. Back when Imhotep built the Step Pyramid (~4700 years ago) global temperatures were about 3 degrees warmer than today. Back when Genghis Khan consolidated out the Mongol Empire, when the Norse explored Greenland and when armored Knights jousted in the name of chivalry in Europe (~800 years ago; circa 1200 AD) global temperatures were 3~8 degrees warmer than today. We know that from the extents of glaciation and from ice core samples from the period. The Earth had many warming and cooling cycles in between and thereafter. During the late-1800s to ~1940 we had a warming period, by 1940 however we saw a sharp downward trend in global temperatures which lasted till 1977 (a 1974 Time Magazine Article touted exactly that). Finally, the 1980s to present had been a MILD warming period (less than during the 1200s and way short of historical peaks during throughout the planet's history). There is no question whatsoever that androgynous CO2 output consistently increased between 1850 and 2008, there is also no question that Dinosaurs and Genghis Khan didn't drive SUVs. Shouldn't we therefore say that our current climate trend is smack right in the middle of historical fluctuations and that it should be seen as perfectly "normal". More importantly, we need to recognize that we have ZERO evidence, scientific or statistical, that androgynous CO2 output due to industrialization has had any tangible effect on global climate change cycles. We don't know when our warming trend will end with or without human intervention.

In fact, between Jan 2007 and Jan 2008 temperatures have plummeted enough to erase all the warming we saw in the previous 15 years. This has been collated to a subsiding of trend of increase solar flare activity in the past two decades. We don't know if this is temporary or the beginning of a global cooling period. And, we also can't conclude if the warming in the past three decades is not the result of man made CO2 but solar activity! But if I am to follow thinking of Global Warming blow hards, I guess I should be yelling about an impending Ice Age.

Having second thoughts about this whole "Global Warming" thing? You should. Of course, this won't stop the Nobel Committee from giving Al Gore the Peace Prize, but then again they gave it to a bona fide terrorist, corrupt hate monger and mass murder Yasir Arafat, so I guess they have very unique "standards"!

[Intrepidation]

pwnt

If anything resources of this global warming thing should be devoted towards things like rain forest conservation. I don't know the numbers but I know rain forests create a big junk of the world's oxygen. Cut them down and you loose that,combined with increased CO2 (which plants need and we can't breathe) and you've got a bit of a problem there.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Dodgefan

[Guest aatbloke]

I think it is more than a matter of world opinion, it is a matter of facts and supporting evidence. You appear to be passionate about the issue, I think you will be doing yourself a disservice if you simply believe in global warming because Al Gore got the Nobel Prize for publicizing it and some majority or another also believes in it.

I don't believe in global warming because of Al Gore's film. I do believe it from the effects I've personally seen in recent decades and the number of countries who ratified and adopted the measures outlined in the Kyoto Accord. There's a valid argument in stating that the current warming is due to natural geological cycles, but the argument is equally valid in that the levels of pollution from the rising number of motor vehicles is a contributing factor to the concentration of greenhouse gasses. I personally go with the latter, not simply because it's the view of the majority, but because so many countries are taking the issue seriously for the benefit of their own citizens and the world at large. That said, I'm glad to be on the side of the majority over this particular issue.

I understand that the United States refused to ratify the Kyoto Accord because it would have impinged on its own economic interests - but I'm also aware of the US scathing of France and Germany when those countries refused to wage war on Iraq - a move which would have impacted their own economic interests. What's good for the goose is always good for the gander.

I've always been an ardent car enthusiast since I was a toddler. However, I don't carry that enthusiasm at the behest of caring about the future of my family.

Having second thoughts about this whole "Global Warming" thing? You should.

Not at all, sorry!

Edited July 29, 2008 by aatbloke

[Intrepidation]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The car is a convienet scapegoat. What we really need to crack down on are factories that have little to no emmissions control, many of which are decades old, innefficient, and dump tons of C)2 and other gasses into the atmosphere daily.

I'm all for cars being more efficient, but it's only part the equation.

[Guest aatbloke]

I'm all for cars being more efficient, but it's only part the equation.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Trouble is, cars are an ever-growing part of the equation. The number of vehicles on Britain's roads has increased by 20% in just the past fifteen years. The measures adopted by the UK in its interpretation of the Kyoto Accord didn't just involve cars - it involved everything from power stations to law mowers.

Edited July 29, 2008 by aatbloke

[dwightlooi]

Not at all, sorry!

Well, you are most definitely entitled to your opinion. I just thought you should have looked at the facts if you have not already done so and not just the rhetoric of the biased media outlets and agenda driven academics. BTW, you mention that you have seen "effects" of the Kyoto accord which you believe to be beneficial. Care to share some of that?

Personally I believe that there is no evidence of global warming and that resources and regulations are better spent on controlling pollutants that are directly harmful to humans rather than carbon dioxide footprints -- pollutants like the oxides of nitrogen, heavy metals runoffs, carcinogenic gases, etc.

Back to the topic at hand...

The point I am trying to make is that a 1.8 liter NA four is just as fuel efficient as a 1.4 liter turbo four, and can achieve this with equal or less dollar input into the engine's construction.

The argument is that when you distill things to very fundamentals. It takes air and fuel to make a given amount of power, so all else being equal 140 hp costs a given amount of air and fuel. It really doesn't matter if you are inhaling the air naturally into bigger cylinders or force feeding smaller ones to a higher density. What is arguable is whether frictional drag and breathing efficiency is better with a 1.4 liter turbo at part load and at cruise. I don't think it is for three reasons. The number of moving parts contributing to frictional drag is about the same. The presence of a turbo implies an inefficient intake system without tuned length runners and resonance charging, and relatively high exhaust back pressures -- which hurts efficiency. What's more important is that the effective use of a turbocharger requires that the compression ratio be about 1 to 1.5 points lower than a comparable NA engine which hurts combustion efficiency when the engine is not making boost which is most of the time.

IMHO, the investment in an intercooled turbocharger assembly (about $1000~2000 hike in terms of the retail value of the car) for the purpose of reducing displacement for a given power rating, is better spent on technologies like Direct Injection, Beltless accessory drives, an additional speed or two for the automatic transmission, or HCCI.

[Guest aatbloke]

Well, you are most definitely entitled to your opinion. I just thought you should have looked at the facts if you have not already done so and not just the rhetoric of the biased media outlets and agenda driven academics. BTW, you mention that you have seen "effects" of the Kyoto accord which you believe to be beneficial. Care to share some of that?

Facts in your eyes most certainly! I said I've seen the effects of global warming over the past twenty-five years on various holidays to Switzerland. It's my opinion, but one I'm not attempting to shove down anyone's throat. If someone stood next to me on the Jungfrau and said it was due to Amy Winehouse's irresponsible lifestyle, they'd be equally entitled to that opinion but it wouldn't sway mine. As for the UK's response to Kyoto - road pricing, road tax and company car tax based on carbon dioxide emissions are several examples. London's congestion charge has seen a massive improvement in traffic levels (and traffic flow) in central London.

Personally I believe that there is no evidence of global warming and that resources and regulations are better spent on controlling pollutants that are directly harmful to humans rather than carbon dioxide footprints -- pollutants like the oxides of nitrogen, heavy metals runoffs, carcinogenic gases, etc.

And that's your prerogative to hold that opinion! The reduction in NOx emission limits has been greatly reduced by ongoing EU legislation over the past decade, particularly with regard to diesel engines.

Back to the topic at hand...

The point I am trying to make is that a 1.8 liter NA four is just as fuel efficient as a 1.4 liter turbo four, and can achieve this with equal or less dollar input into the engine's construction.

Within the raft of 1.4 to 1.8 litre petrol engines on sale here from various manufacturers, there are one or two cases where this is true. In most cases, it is not.

The argument is that when you distill things to very fundamentals. It takes air and fuel to make a given amount of power, so all else being equal 140 hp costs a given amount of air and fuel. It really doesn't matter if you are inhaling the air naturally into bigger cylinders or force feeding smaller ones to a higher density. What is arguable is whether frictional drag and breathing efficiency is better with a 1.4 liter turbo at part load and at cruise. I don't think it is for three reasons. The number of moving parts contributing to frictional drag is about the same. The presence of a turbo implies an inefficient intake system without tuned length runners and resonance charging, and relatively high exhaust back pressures -- which hurts efficiency. What's more important is that the effective use of a turbocharger requires that the compression ratio be about 1 to 1.5 points lower than a comparable NA engine which hurts combustion efficiency when the engine is not making boost which is most of the time.

IMHO, the investment in an intercooled turbocharger assembly (about $1000~2000 hike in terms of the retail value of the car) for the purpose of reducing displacement for a given power rating, is better spent on technologies like Direct Injection, Beltless accessory drives, an additional speed or two for the automatic transmission, or HCCI.

The United States works to a different set of regulatory systems than the EU, the various jurisdictions of which have a much larger company car market than the United States and have long registered vehicles by virtue of cylinder capacities which affect ownership costs. In most EU states, VED/RFL systems have changed over to CO2-based hierarchies in the past decade. Whether you agree with the fundamentals of such systems is irrelevant; they're in place and manufacturers are keen to offer vehicles which are attractive to customers and company car drivers alike. As such, there are a growing number of small-displacement turbocharged units now coming on board. As for science behind it, neither VW or GME are likely to have shirked on their homework. As for the increased retail cost, this is likely to be outweighed by the difference in residuals. For example, a 1.8 litre 4-cyl 3-series is often worth 15-20% more after three years than a 2.5 litre 6-cylinder model, which was more expensive to begin with. Same goes for cars such as Ford's Focus - it's (non-turbo) 1400cc models depreciate at a slower rate than more expensive 2.0 litre models, to the point where after three years they're worth pretty much the same. With 1.4 litre models offering both better fuel economy and better performance, such as the 120bhp Golf, then used values will be bolstered in a highly saturated market.

Edited July 29, 2008 by aatbloke

[pow]

Within the raft of 1.4 to 1.8 litre petrol engines on sale here from various manufacturers, there are one or two cases where this is true. In most cases, it is not.

The United States works to a different set of regulatory systems than the EU, the various jurisdictions of which have a much larger company car market than the United States and have long registered vehicles by virtue of cylinder capacities which affect ownership costs. In most EU states, VED/RFL systems have changed over to CO2-based hierarchies in the past decade. Whether you agree with the fundamentals of such systems is irrelevant; they're in place and manufacturers are keen to offer vehicles which are attractive to customers and company car drivers alike. As such, there are a growing number of small-displacement turbocharged units now coming on board. As for science behind it, neither VW or GME are likely to have shirked on their homework. As for the increased retail cost, this is likely to be outweighed by the difference in residuals. For example, a 1.8 litre 4-cyl 3-series is often worth 15-20% more after three years than a 2.5 litre 6-cylinder model, which was more expensive to begin with. Same goes for cars such as Ford's Focus - it's (non-turbo) 1400cc models depreciate at a slower rate than more expensive 2.0 litre models, to the point where after three years they're worth pretty much the same. With 1.4 litre models offering both better fuel economy and better performance, such as the 120bhp Golf, then used values will be bolstered in a highly saturated market.

I think what dwightlooi is suggesting is that while such an engine makes sense in the EU, that same solution might not work in the US, where fuel economy test procedures are different, where engine displacement taxes do not exist, and where company car drivers exist in far fewer numbers. Policies that have proven successful in the EU may not be as effective against the different conditions of the US car market.

Take for example the residuals on the aforementioned Ford Focus. In the US, gas prices are significantly lower than in the UK, so the 2.5mpg (US gallon, NEDC combined cycle) difference between the 1.4 liter (35.7mpg) and 2.0 liter (33.2mpg) Focus would have a negligible effect on residuals. At the current $4/US gal, the difference in annual fuel bills would be $100, and even if that doubles to $8/gal, it would still only be $200.

[79VetteZ06]

For the debate of engine displacement, I think both Dwightlooi and Aatbloke have valid points through their own perspectives. However through GM's perspective 1.4L makes sense here are the reasons why:

1. Cruize is a global car, and GM is looking to cut the costs down in every aspect possible while catering to different markets with one broadly designed and universally manufactured product.

2. If GM has already invested moolah in developement and manufacturing of 1.4T, it will not make sense to invest further on an alternate engine for a specific market unless it is absolutely needed. As a matter of fact additional 250,000 per annum in American sales (about same as the 'Balt) for this vehicle shall only bring the production and development cost of the 1.4T engine down.

3. Most of the world demands smaller engines because their taxation based on displacement, so US is in minority here for this particular vehicle.

4. While for end consumer the small differences in cost of ownership, fuel, and taxes for the N/A or Turbo engine will make a difference, we have to look through GM's perspective. Because it is the one who is staring down the barrel, and want to generate loads of cash at as less of an investment cost as possible.

Edited July 30, 2008 by 79VetteZ06

[Guest aatbloke]

I think what dwightlooi is suggesting is that while such an engine makes sense in the EU, that same solution might not work in the US, where fuel economy test procedures are different, where engine displacement taxes do not exist, and where company car drivers exist in far fewer numbers. Policies that have proven successful in the EU may not be as effective against the different conditions of the US car market.

That's exactly what I was getting at in my post.

[pow]

For the debate of engine displacement, I think both Dwightlooi and Aatbloke have valid points through their own perspectives. However through GM's perspective 1.4L makes sense here are the reasons why:

1. Cruize is a global car, and GM is looking to cut the costs down in every aspect possible while catering to different markets with one broadly designed and universally manufactured product.

2. If GM has already invested moolah in developement and manufacturing of 1.4T, it will not make sense to invest further on an alternate engine for a specific market unless it is absolutely needed. As a matter of fact additional 250,000 per annum in American sales (about same as the 'Balt) for this vehicle shall only bring the production and development cost of the 1.4T engine down.

3. Most of the world demands smaller engines because their taxation based on displacement, so US is in minority here for this particular vehicle.

4. While for end consumer the small differences in cost of ownership, fuel, and taxes for the N/A or Turbo engine will make a difference, we have to look through GM's perspective. Because it is the one who is staring down the barrel, and want to generate loads of cash at as less of an investment cost as possible.

Agreed. It seems like GM NA is pretty much relinquishing responsibility for the development of small to medium-sized passenger cars in the US. The Cruze is primarily a GM-DAT and GME effort, and the upcoming Malibu (Epica, Magnus, et al.) will likely be the same. It makes sense considering the declining influence of the US auto market, though hopefully the American shift to smaller vehicles will give US product planners and designers more of a say.

Personally I like the idea of global architectures and a big GM parts bin for local product teams to rummage around in to create unique regional vehicles. The Sequel's Hy-Wire "skateboard" chassis would be ideal for such applications. But I suppose the limited financial resources of GM and the timidness of current management will prevent us from seeing wild, wacky, and expressive American "Chevy" passenger cars in the near future.

Edited July 30, 2008 by empowah

[dwightlooi]

Facts in your eyes most certainly! I said I've seen the effects of global warming over the past twenty-five years on various holidays to Switzerland. It's my opinion, but one I'm not attempting to shove down anyone's throat. If someone stood next to me on the Jungfrau and said it was due to Amy Winehouse's irresponsible lifestyle, they'd be equally entitled to that opinion but it wouldn't sway mine. As for the UK's response to Kyoto - road pricing, road tax and company car tax based on carbon dioxide emissions are several examples.

Well... but that is like saying you had a hot summer so it's global warming. You would have seen a series of pretty cold winters between 1944 and 1977 when global temperatures were experiencing a three decade decline despite a constant increase in androgeneous CO2 output during the same period. It will be like saying an ice age is coming because of carbon emissions in 1975.

The fact of the matter is that neither the cooling was experienced during the 50s, 60s and 70s, and warming that was seen in the last couple of decades, are "abnormal" in the history of global climate fluctuations. And, neither is evidence that Carbon Emissions was the cause of that fluctuation or had a tangible effect on it.

FYI, the last 15 months saw a rapid cooling which was equivalent to all the warming between ~1991 and ~2006. You shouldn't be predicting an ice age based on that as much as you shouldn't be jumping on the global warming bandwagon because you have experienced a string of warm summers and mild winters. It is important to look at the climate we are experiencing in the broad historical context and ask ourselves if we are seeing any thing that is out of the norm.

[Guest aatbloke]

Well... but that is like saying you had a hot summer so it's global warming. You would have seen a series of pretty cold winters between 1944 and 1977 when global temperatures were experiencing a three decade decline despite a constant increase in androgeneous CO2 output during the same period. It will be like saying an ice age is coming because of carbon emissions in 1975.

The fact of the matter is that neither the cooling was experienced during the 50s, 60s and 70s, and warming that was seen in the last couple of decades, are "abnormal" in the history of global climate fluctuations. And, neither is evidence that Carbon Emissions was the cause of that fluctuation or had a tangible effect on it.

FYI, the last 15 months saw a rapid cooling which was equivalent to all the warming between ~1991 and ~2006. You shouldn't be predicting an ice age based on that as much as you shouldn't be jumping on the global warming bandwagon because you have experienced a string of warm summers and mild winters. It is important to look at the climate we are experiencing in the broad historical context and ask ourselves if we are seeing any thing that is out of the norm.

Like I said, you're more than entitled to your opinion. If you choose to deem them as concrete facts when there are as many scientists around the world who will provide what they deem as evidence to support global warming claims as there are to denounce them, then that's your call. But don't chastise me because I merely disagree with you.

I'm no scientist but I am aware that global warming caused by the greenhouse effect will itself cause rapid cooling - as the loss of ice around Greenland and northern Canada can ultimately prevent the motion of the Gulf Stream and rapidly plunge the northern hemisphere into colder climes.

This country, like many, ratified the Kyoto Accord and it's pretty much stuck to its guns in terms of what it believes to be the right way forward in combatting vehicle internal combustion engine emissions. There are other measures which are EU-mandated which it has also had to follow. I personally agree with the various measures taken and for whatever reason - from global warming to reducing all manner of harmful emissions to protect our health - it's a step in the right direction. Some measures aren't in the interests of this country economically, but others are. Given the chronic traffic congestion problem this country has faced with rapidly increasing levels of traffic in the past twenty years, it's a corrective move. There's a good deal more of that direction to take, but it's a concrete start. I'm personally grateful and pleased that they've made the moves they have.

Edited July 30, 2008 by aatbloke

[MyerShift]

I know, I was just highlighting that these new-generation 1.4 litre turbocharged petrol units do offer all-round fuel savings in addition to extra performance without paying the extra charged for diesel variants. I think VW will significantly realign their small-car line up in North America in the next few years.

Indeed. VW needs more fuel efficient petrol engines, and four cylinders in particular, in the U.S.

As for the Global Warming debate, I do believe that we need to do what we can to help save the environment, but more needs to be done to save the rainforests than to choke up and eliminate cars.

I also feel that the climate is cyclical, and as long as a change can be eased into something gradual enough, the planet will be able to cope.

However, I am sure the "end of the world" will be at man's own hands.

[loki]

However, I am sure the "end of the world" will be at man's own hands.

.....maybe, but the sooner ww3 starts and ends then we can finally have warp drive.... yes, star trek reference.

[RjION]

Is a 1.4L Turbo the right answer? I say no, no, no.

for most DI 2.2L VVT standard say in the Cruze

for me a DI 2.4L VVT optional say in the same Cruze

Edited January 24, 2010 by RjION

[dwightlooi]

Indeed. VW needs more fuel efficient petrol engines, and four cylinders in particular, in the U.S.

As for the Global Warming debate, I do believe that we need to do what we can to help save the environment, but more needs to be done to save the rainforests than to choke up and eliminate cars.

I also feel that the climate is cyclical, and as long as a change can be eased into something gradual enough, the planet will be able to cope.

However, I am sure the "end of the world" will be at man's own hands.

Actually, Global Warming is complete and utter rubbish. There is none whatsoever, period.

The evidence is overwhelming, but I will like to invite you to consider just five things -- five things which ought to get you started.

(1) There is nothing abnormal about today's climate. The average global temperatures today, and at any point in the last three decades, is cooler than in the medieval warming period (9th~13th century) when the Norse explored Greenland and Genhis Khan united Mongolia. It is also cooler than during the Cretaceous when dinosaurs walked the earth and dozens of different inter-glacial periods throughout the planet's history. That's all before industrialization. What we are experiencing today can only be described as smack in the middle of historical norms.

(2) In more recent times, global temperatures increased from the late-1800s to the late 1940s. From the late-1940s to the mid-1970s, global temperatures plummeted precipitously. Back then, the Al Gores of the world are yelling about the coming of an Ice Age. From the early 1980s through the turn of the millenium we saw again another mild warming spell. None of these collate in any shape or form with androgynous CO2 output or concentration which increased constantly from the 1800s to present day. Finally, from 2001 to present the planet has been cooling! Between the late 80s and today, there has been no net increase in average global temperatures. Please, do not simply believe me, check out NASA's satelite thermograph data yourself!

(3) Historically, from ice core samples, global temperatures have never, ever, increased following an increase in CO2 concentration. The reverse is however is true. An increase in global temperatures always lead to an increase in CO2 concentration due to an increase in biological activity. Doesn't that make it difficult to claim that increase in CO2 concentration causes the warming?

(4) The entire hypothesis behind CO2 causing Global Warming hinges on the claim that it is a green house gas and causes an accelerated greenhouse effect. If this is indeed happening, we must necessarily find hot spots in the upper atmosphere. Scientists know this and they have been launching balloons into the upper atmosphere for the last 30 years trying to find them. They didn't find an insufficient number of hot spots, or find in places they didn't expect. They didn't find any, period.

(5) If we remove the Earth's atmosphere and simply run the radiosity equation with the planet and the sun. We'll end up with a surface temperature only ~33 degrees cooler than in reality. What that means is that that the entire atmosphere is only responsible for 33 degrees of warming. Now, note that water vapor accounts for most of it. Water vapor is 4% of the atmosphere, CO2 is 0.038% (it was about 0.028% in pre-industrial times). Water vapor accounts for 90~95% of the heat trapping effects of our atmosphere. CO2, CFCs and other trace gases combined accounts for 5~10%. Now, the Global Warming Alarmists like Al Gore are trying to claim the global temperatures may rise by 6 degrees unless we curb carbon emissions. In short, they are trying to say that increasing CO2 beyond the tiny 0.01% we managed in the last 200 years, thereby causing an infintesimal increase in a group of gases that only accounts for 5~10% of the total heat trapping effect of our atmosphere is somehow capable of causing 1/6th of the total warming by the atmosphere? In otherwords, increasing the concentration of 1% of warming capacity will result in 20% increase in the warming effect. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that is total baloney.

Edited January 27, 2010 by dwightlooi

[SAmadei]

Actually, Global Warming is complete and utter rubbish. There is none whatsoever, period.

The evidence is overwhelming, but I will like to invite you to consider just five things -- five things which ought to get you started.

(1) There is nothing abnormal about today's climate. The average global temperatures today, and at any point in the last three decades, is cooler than in the medieval warming period (9th~13th century) when the Norse explored Greenland and Genhis Khan united Mongolia. It is also cooler than during the Cretaceous when dinosaurs walked the earth and dozens of different inter-glacial periods throughout the planet's history. That's all before industrialization. What we are experiencing today can only be described as smack in the middle of historical norms.

(2) In more recent times, global temperatures increased from the late-1800s to the late 1940s. From the late-1940s to the mid-1970s, global temperatures plummeted precipitously. Back then, the Al Gores of the world are yelling about the coming of an Ice Age. From the early 1980s through the turn of the millenium we saw again another mild warming spell. None of these collate in any shape or form with androgynous CO2 output or concentration which increased constantly from the 1800s to present day. Finally, from 2001 to present the planet has been cooling! Between the late 80s and today, there has been no net increase in average global temperatures. Please, do not simply believe me, check out NASA's satelite thermograph data yourself!

(3) Historically, from ice core samples, global temperatures have never, ever, increased following an increase in CO2 concentration. The reverse is however is true. An increase in global temperatures always lead to an increase in CO2 concentration due to an increase in biological activity. Doesn't that make it difficult to claim that increase in CO2 concentration causes the warming?

(4) The entire hypothesis behind CO2 causing Global Warming hinges on the claim that it is a green house gas and causes an accelerated greenhouse effect. If this is indeed happening, we must necessarily find hot spots in the upper atmosphere. Scientists know this and they have been launching balloons into the upper atmosphere for the last 30 years trying to find them. They didn't find an insufficient number of hot spots, or find in places they didn't expect. They didn't find any, period.

(5) If we remove the Earth's atmosphere and simply run the radiosity equation with the planet and the sun. We'll end up with a surface temperature only ~33 degrees cooler than in reality. What that means is that that the entire atmosphere is only responsible for 33 degrees of warming. Now, note that water vapor accounts for most of it. Water vapor is 4% of the atmosphere, CO2 is 0.038% (it was about 0.028% in pre-industrial times). Water vapor accounts for 90~95% of the heat trapping effects of our atmosphere. CO2, CFCs and other trace gases combined accounts for 5~10%. Now, the Global Warming Alarmists like Al Gore are trying to claim the global temperatures may rise by 6 degrees unless we curb carbon emissions. In short, they are trying to say that increasing CO2 beyond the tiny 0.01% we managed in the last 200 years, thereby causing an infintesimal increase in a group of gases that only accounts for 5~10% of the total heat trapping effect of our atmosphere is somehow capable of causing 1/6th of the total warming by the atmosphere? In otherwords, increasing the concentration of 1% of warming capacity will result in 20% increase in the warming effect. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that is total baloney.

This is the greatest comment on the subject I have ever read. Thank you. I have attempted for years to demonstrate this to people, but in a less concise version, and now I can just point them to this.