dwightlooi

Edmunds is so wrong on so many things... (1) The Cruze WILL feature a 6A as the default transmission. What is in question is whether a manual will be offered at all. (2) The currently test car is a 6A. (3) It is incorrect to assume that higher mileage numbers come from a manual car. In general, higher highway economy numbers stem from the total gearing of the top gear and frequently the latest automatics beats manuals in this regard. Case and point is the new 2008 Acura TSX. The 5-spd automatic is 30mph hwy, 6-spd manual is 28 mpg. Why? Because the top gear is taller on the auto and the lockup torque converter means no converter slippage during low load freeway cruising. (4) The Cruze won't make it as a 2009, but there are good reasons to believe that it'll make it as a 2010. Now the conjecture... (1) I believe that this car will come standard with the 1.4 DI Turbo as stated, but an SS version will probably feature the 2.0 DI Turbo LNF. Not a bad combo although I have doubts as the whether a 1.4 turbo is the right way to go vs a DI 1.8 of similar output and efficiency. (2) The handling, if properly tuned, will be as good as a Cobalt SS Turbo -- which is perfect for a FWD sporty compact.

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.

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.

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"!

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?

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".

I see. Thanks for the clarification on the numbers. But let's look at the above... Notice that in two cars weighing in the same ballpark and two engines both making 138hp, the 1.4 liter Turbo (in the Golf) is just a tad over 1 mpg more efficient than the 1.8 liter NA (in the Astra). Now, let's say the turbo and it's intercooler adds about $1000 to the vehicle. That $1000 can easily go into Direct Injection on the 1.8 liter which would have yielded probably more than 1.3mpg on the freeway if not anything from the 10% increase in static compression ratio alone.

I don't know where you get the numbers from, perhaps it's the European cycle which I am not familiar with. The Rabbit (Golf) GTi 197hp 2.0T FSI is EPA rated at 21City/31Hwy here (w/DSG gearbox) on Premium 91 Octane. The Honda Accord EX 190hp 2.4 is rated at 21City/31Hwy here (w/5-spd Auto) on 87 Octane. ... back to GM's offerings, let's look at the 260hp 2.0 DI-Turbo (LNF) in the Cobalt SS/Solstice GXP/HHR SS/Sky/etc and a 3.6 liter V6 of similar output. The 260hp 2.0 liter DI/VVT-Turbo in the Solstice GXP (5A) is rated at 19City/26Hwy on premium. The 252hp 3.6 liter VVT in the Malibu LTZ is listed at 17City/26Hwy. FWD is lower loss and the 6A helps, but this is also a heavier car, the engine is missing direct injection and this is a Regular fuel engine. The same (or similar rather) 2.0 liter LNF engine in the FWD Cobalt SS is 22/30 on a 5M (the only tranny available). But how much of that is from the 500 lbs weight advantage, the Manual transmission, and not to mention Direct Injection and the smaller drag from the smaller car? Could be most, if not all of it! And we are talking about a 2.0 vs a 3.6 liter here; a whopping 80% increase in displacement! In short I am not convinced that going lower displacement yields substantial, if any, economy gains. Basically, for a given horsepower rating, vehicular weight and technological content the fuel economy you can expect is pretty much the same regardless of displacement. Hence, the won't it be better to spend the money expended on the turbocharger and its supporting accessories on additional technological content with a larger displacement powerplant of the same output?

The problem is that I am not convinced that a 1.4 liter turbo is more economical than say a 1.8 NA with the same hp output. My point was that engine displacement is pretty low in the order of factors which lead to high consumption figures. Weight is the #1 factor. This is especially true when you are reducing displacement by adding forced induction which introduces lower compression ratios, sub-optimum intakes and high back pressure exhausts -- all of which saps cruise economy when boost is NOT being made. The question is whether the same amount of money spent on the turbocharger, its plumbing and intercooler is better spent on other technological content that improves economy, increases performance or enhances vehicle maintanability, or all of the above. Case and point... The 20v 1.8 liter turbo engine used in the previous generation VW Passat/Jetta/Golf/Audi A4, etc was no more economical than 150~180hp class 2.3~2.5 liter 4-cylinder engines deployed by other makes in vehicles of the same weight. The 30v 2.7 liter turbo making 250hp was no more economical than 3.5~3.6 liter V6es from Nissan, Honda and, yes, GM making the same output. The 286 hp 2.0 liter turbo in the Lancer Evolution is demonstrably less economical (owing for the most parts to ridiculously low gearing) than large V6es making again the same approximate output in other cars. When I say ECONOMICAL I mean BOTH in terms of engine cost and in terms of fuel consumption.

GM is making a habit of choosing rather lame names... Cobalt was... well... a bland, uninteresting metal. Cruze is... jeez... immediately brings to mind an aging pretty boy actor smittened by the Scientology Scam and... well... "Curse"!!! Other rather lame choices include "Lucrene" which is a the brand name for Safeway's Milk line and "Lacrosse" which is a niche Sport most people don't know head or tails about.

--- Yes, the "Clinque Soapbox" B6 Audi A4/S4 is the most elegant Audi past and present. It is the last of the clean, uncluttered Audi before Walter De Silva screwed the stylings up with the Darth Vader Grille, Knight's Shield steering wheel hubs, miss aligned HVAC vents and multi-colored displays. Unfortunately, the 170hp 20v 1.8T and 220hp 30v 3.0 V6 engines were rather underpowered for a heavy car (3600 lbs for the V6) like the A4 and performance was one full step behind Bimmer 3-series of the same period in the same price catergory. If you want 330 performance you'll need to pony up for the nose heavy 340hp V8 S4. This generation also saw the peak in perceived interior quality for Audis -- assembly lines so tight you can't stick a hair through, not one undamped switch or button, ot one exposed molding line, not one glossy piece of plastic, not one piece of fake trim and not one non-soft touch surface. The current generation actually took half a step backwards in cabin finishings. You can splurge on a $100K M-B S-class and not find a better finished interior. I truly believe that GM should buy a few dozen of these cars used and force their interior engineers to drive them to ingrain a high level of quality standards into their heads. The Malibu is a great leap forward, but it can be better... much, much, better.

The interior looks tacky with the grey switch gear and all -- a little cheap looking and a little reminescent of $50 boomboxes. I think the G8 interior looks much better... 3700 lbs + LS3 turns me on though, although I think the G8 is a much better looking car (especially if they can get rid of those Pontiac nostrils and make it more like a Commodore VE.

No, I am saying:- (1) Integrate the alternator into the flywheel and get rid of the accessory belt drive. (2) A 1.8 liter with 140 hp can be just as efficient even without HCCI, just as light and just as compact as a 1.4 liter Turbo making 140hp* *Because the 1.4T carries additional plumbing, the Intercooler, the Turbo itself and other "stuff" associated with turbocharging. The reason -- displacement really doesn't matter that much when it comes to economy. Also, the turbo exhaust and intake manifolds are inefficient at cruise or light loads. Remember 140hp is nothing from a turbo, we should be able to get 180~190hp out of a 1.4 liter Turbo in the same state of tune as the 2.0 liter LNF. The problem is that this is a economy car and it precludes the use of premium gas which puts a cap on how liberal we can be with boost.

GM's new Family Zero engines will span 1.0 to 1.4L with some members including the 1.4 also spawning a turbocharged variant. The family Zero powerplants were designed specifically for economy and will be deployed in vehicles for markets within and without the USA. The question is... are they the right answer to the challenge of developing the optimum compact car power plant? In my opinion, no. I think GM is chasing the wrong ball -- that of minimizing displacement. I am assuming that the goal is to make the most economical 140hp power plant to power whatever Civic/Corolla challenger GM has in the works. I do not believe that going to 1.4 liters and bolting on a turbo will improve economy over a 1.8 liter class engine of the same output. The reasons are:- Displacement is not the biggest determinant of fuel consumption. Using a turbocharger is detrimental to cruising economy because it precludes resonance intake tuning and a low exhaust port pressure. Using a turbocharger diverts the engine budget away from more useful technologies. Using a turocharger adds weight beyond that which can be saved by going from 1.8 to 1.4 liters. Displacement Displacement is really LOW on the scale of factors that contribute to fuel economy or the lack thereof. Just look at the Nissan 350Z and the Corvette for instance. The 6.2 liter LS3 puts out more power and twist and comes in at 16/26 MPG. The 3.5 liter VQ35 in the 350Z comes in at 20/27 MPG. The Corvette is a 3200 lbs car the 350Z is a 3350 lbs vehicle. As you can see, practically halving the displacement doesn't buy you much economy. Saving a couple of hundred pounds and having a tall cruising gear probably does more. It takes fuel to make power and it the relative economy advantage of trying to generate the same power from smaller displacement comes from the marginally lower parasitic loss of slightly smaller slugs and tappets, which isn't much. Better results can sometimes be had with a larger displacement but using technologies that enhances combustion efficiency such as HCCI or bearing drag reduction. The disadvantages of a Turbo The Turbocharger is great for squeezing a heck of a lot of power from a small swept volume. But it does carry a significant set of penalties. For one, a turbo works only when the engine is being asked to carry a significant load. In short, it works great under full throttle and when you are accelerating with determination. It practically does nothing when cruising on the highway for instance where the manifold pressure is mostly in vacuum. Also, many of the tricks we have learned over the years such as intake resonance tuning and managing exhaust pulses so back pressure is low and an exhaust pulse from one cylinder does not reflect back onto another when its exhaust valve opens are no longer applicable when you drop a turbocharger's exhaust collector and intake plenum into the mix. Also, when you go from say a 1.8 liter engine to a 1.4 liter engine then bolt on a turbo, you add the weight of the turbo, its plumbing and the intercooler which pretty much negates any weight and/or packaging savings you gained from going to a smaller displacement. Finally, a turbo is no free -- they are about $500~600 a pop plus additional incidentals like the pipings, the bypass system, the boost control solenoids and the rather expensive intercooler for about $1000 extra. This is $1000 that can no longer be spent on other technologies such as a mild hybrid system. What I think is a better formula Displacement: Stick to a 1.8~2.1 liter Aspiration: Stick to NA New features and technologies:- HCCI Flywheel integrated alternator/starter + 36V electricals Complete elimination of the belted accesory drive HCCI Using Direct Injection, Dual continuous VVT and 2-stage VVL to implement HCCI allows for a notable jump in combustion efficiency benefiting both city and cruise efficiency. A 1.8 liter HCCI power plant should have no problems matching or exceeding the output of a 140hp . It will also match or exceed the economy gains of a 1.4 turbo. Flywheel integrated alternator/starter. The Belt Alternator Starter and 36V electricals used in the GM "mild hybrids" may not win any tree hugger awards, but it is the only hybrid system that makes economical sense even with $5 a gallon gasoline. Everything else requires the owner to fork over thousands of dollars which will not be recouped for 7 to 13 years. But we should go one step further and integrate it into the flywheel. In essence the flywheel will carry a set of permanent magnets, and it will be surrounded by a series of coils setup to turn the flywheel into an alternator/motor. A similar device is already in use by Honda in the Civic Hybrids and is about 1" thick. The device makes 5~20hp and is sufficient to crank the engine or even provide minimal power assist. More importantly, it eliminates one of the most common failure modes of an internal combustion engine -- a failed starter kick mechanism. Most of the time when starter needs replacement it is because the spindle is no longer able to kick out and engage the flex plate or ring gear -- the slamming and springing back over the years have worn out the device. A flywheel integrated alternator/motor has no kick mechanism eliminating this common failure mode, it has no brush contacts, no impact drive, no springs. Elimination of the belt drive. Getting rid of the belt allows the engine to basically have no scheduled component replacement for 200~300K miles. Basically, it'll make the dream of a car which you can drive with no scheduled maintenance except for a once a year or two oil change (every 12,500~25,000 miles*). The accessory belt and stuff mounted on it accounts for the majority of non-catastrophic engine failures and work. The belted acceosry drive also forces the location of many accessories to the front of the engine and forces the engine to drive them constantly even when they are not needed. Think about it, the waterpump, the A/C compressor, the Power steering Pump, the alternator. With the alternator already relocated to where the flywheel used to be we can get rid of evertyhing else by making the car more "electric". The power steering system can be electric -- that is already the case on many cars. The A/C compressor can also be electric. The water pump can be driven via the timing chain (ala the GM 2.3 liter Quad-4 of yore). Aside from eliminating belt accessory parasitic drag and scheduled belt replacement, getting rid of the accessory belt drive also frees up the electrically driven A/C Compressor, power steering system and water pump to be located with a lot more freedom. The AC system can be in the trunk for instance in some applications or on the inside of the engine compartment divider wall. The water pump can be on the output side of the engine along with relocated timing chains (ala the Audi 4.2 liter V8s in the B5/B6 S4s for instance where the timing chain is moved to the rear of the engine to shorten the powerplant. * Yes, 12.500~25,000 mile, 1~2 year oil change intervals can be reliable and healthy for the engine if a good synthetic oil (ala Mobil 1 Extended Performance) is used along with a failsafe bypass filtration and electronic oil quality monitoring. From a marketing standpoint this combination is also more attractive... I mean what's more a more interesting sell? A new 1.4 liter Direct Injection Turbo? Or A new 1.8 liter HCCI engine with diesel like economy and sporty performance, which requires no maintenance for 200,000 miles?

Nice looking car. I actually don't mind the fake window completing the Audi like roof like. I do find the grille to the be disproportionately large and gapping though and large ostentatious grilles have never been my favorite. In fact, I find the new post Walter De Silva Audis and the big mouth Chrysler 300s to be the cars with the ugliest front treatments. My favorite car designs did not have a grille at all. The Corvette, the NSX, 1993 Civic and the Mazda Lantis for instance... I just hope that the power train gets a much needed refresh. Best case, I'll like to see a an LNF derived 2.0 liter HCCI engine mated with a 6A with the mild hybrid BAS and 36V being standard. Just give the driver a switch to turn economy mode on or off, so those who don't want the engine to automatically shut off at the light don't have to live with it. Worst case, still want to see the 6A mated to the 1.8 liter 2HO engine from the Astra. If it comes out with the 2.2 Ecotec and a 4A I'll be really disappointed. The Cobalt doesn't have to be cheap -- $17~23K is a good price range -- think last generation Jetta. El Cheapo Econobox shoppers can always be sold an Aveo. But it better be good. Good enough to put the General back on the map as a purveyor of vehicles that lead the pack in technological and qualitative appeal, not also rans which sell for a grand or two less than the competition while being built in a high cost country and bleeding red ink. As good or almost as good is not enough, this car better be distinctively better than the Civic and the Corolla. It is going to take at least one vehicular generation to change the mids of the buying public. With each generation being about 5 years, the General is fast running out of time. Regaining the qualitative and technological initiative cannot wait will the 2016 model year.

Certainly looks Photoshopped and a rather crude attempt at that. Nonetheless the roof line looks attractive and if the actual Cobalt shares that with whatever this car is, then I am a happy camper. I doubt the 1.4 turbo will be the powerplant of choice. The added cost of the turbocharger, intercooler assembly and additional maintenance intervals isn't worth the fuel savings over say a 1.8 liter engine of the same 140hp rating. If you ask me, I'll like to see a non-turbocharged 2.0 LNF derivative with around 170 hp as the base engine with the 2.0 liter turbo in the SS. Using the same engine with or without forced induction saves on parts inventory and supply chain costs. A 2.0 liter DI DVVT powerplant should be plenty efficient enough and still give the Cobalt a modest power advantage over the competition. It wouldn't be a step backwards from the 148 hp 2.2 in performance and the fuel consumption figures wouldn't be more than 1 MPG off that of the Civic or Corolla -- if that. The excellent 6T40 and 6T70 6-speed autos ought to be standard equipment. It'll buy the vehicle more efficiency gains than going to a smaller displacement and adding forced induction while sticking to an outmoded 4-speed auto. If Chevy wants to make a big splash with the greenies, make the BAS and the mild hybrid system standard on all Cobalts -- it is basically a fancy alternator and a 36V battery which doesn't cost much. Contrary to popular believes engine displacement is not the biggest determinant of fuel consumption -- not even close. Weight is the leading cause, and things like gearing and drive train parasitic loss all account for more than displacement. Think about it for a second... The Honda Accord with a 3.5 liter 268hp V6 does 19 City / 28 Hwy MPG. A Corvette with a whopping 6.2 liters of LS3 power does a not too shabby 16 City / 26 Hwy! Why? Because the Corvette is a 3250 lbs car... very modest around the belly by today's standards.

The point is that GM should perhaps simply build the cars that the Market demands and completely ignore CAFE. This is so firstly because market forces should determine what gets produced, how much gets produced and how much they are sold for not the environmental conscience of a politicians and green lobby groups. More practically, this is so because the the stipulated CAFE penalties is inconsequential to the buying decision when passed on to the consumer. There will always be a demand for RWD performance cars and SUVs even if they are not as strong as before. They type of buyer who has the mindset to buy a Hummer or a V8 Pontiac G8 is not doing it for the fuel economy or the lack thereof. The buyer of 4-cylinder Malibus and Cobalts are a different story. There will always be signifcant chunks of the market falling into both segments. IMHO, the manufacturer should simply decide on the ratio of the kind of vehicles to build based on market demand and let CAFE compliance or the lack thereof fall where it may.

They won't. Not this late into the model's life cycle anyway. Remember... the Cobalt was introduced in 2004 making it 4.5 years old and already overdue for replacement. In about a year and 3 months (~Aug 2009) you'll get the all new 2010 Cobalt with a new platform (Delta II), new everything inside and out. It's not worth the effort to redo the interior just to sell it for a year. This wasn't even a face lift, its an engine option substitution on the 2.0 S/C engine that was being retired with some suspension and brake improvements thrown in. Looks like that... maybe...

I don't think so. The pushrod configuration's biggest advantage is the elimination of the fat and heavy DOHC heads. The width issue is made doubly worse with V type engines because you have two of them adding to the width equation. A push rod V6 or V8 may be lighter, shorter and narrower than a DOHC V6 or V8, it does not make a 3 liter class 60 degree engine the size of a 1.4 liter inline four. If a car is packaged tightly around a 1.4 liter I4, it probably has no room for a 60 degree or 90 degree V6 of the 3.0 liter class even if it is slightly narrower and lighter than a DOHC one. If you really want to squeeze in maximum displacement into the smallest space a 10.6 or 15 degree Inline-Vee 6 is probably the most compact. The configuration is very much like bullets staggered in a double column magazine. You can have these as a 2-valve or even 4-valve engine. In fact with the four valve engine there are only two camshafts and one cylinder head, yet it has dual independent VVT because one cam operates the intakes on both banks and the other operates the exhaust of both banks. You may be able to stuff a 2.0~2.4 liter VR6 engine into the volume of a 1.4 DOHC turbo, this should be good for about 170~190 hp naturally aspirated or about 240 to 300hp turbocharged. The convenient thing is that, unlike traditional V-type engines, the VR-type engines have all the exhaust ports on one side and all the intake ports on the other -- just like an inline engine. Because of that, it is really convenient to turbo charge. You can simply use a single turbo on the exhaust side, and route the compressed charge through a front mount intercooler to the intake side. There is no need for an expensive and messy twin turbo arrangement, or some fancy exhaust ducting to bring the exhaust gases of both banks to the same side. See the illustration. A 15 degree 24-valve 250hp VR6 is in the current Volkswagen Rabbit (Golf) R32 and Audi TT 3.2. A 3.6 liter 10.6 degree 24-valve VR6 is in the Passat 3.6. The first VR6 engine -- a 172hp 2-valve 2.8 liter unit -- was first introduced in 1993 in the Mk3 Volkswagen GTi VR6.

I disagree based on two arguments. (1) When is the last time you know anyone who bought or didn't buy a new car over <= $297 dollars? Compare that to the instances of someone you know who didn't buy a car over the fact that it didn't have the performance, the engine choice, the quality, size, configuration or the styling that he/she is looking for? If it is all about $297 all the customers who bought V6 Malibus would have bought 4-cylinder Malibus, and all the Suburban buyers would have bought a somewhat cheaper Honda Pilot. In other words, the desirability of certain drive trains, vehicular design (which using smaller platforms or lighter materials may impact) and configuration (RWD vvs FWD for instance) overwhelmingly outweigh $297. $1 billion is not a lot of money when divided by 3.8 million vehicles. (2) On top of market desirability concerns of making design and specification decisions to meet CAFE regulations, one has to weigh the cost of additional content to meet it. What if the marginal cost of additional technology content needed to meet CAFE exceeds $297 (which it might)? Even if it doesn't it will surely eat into the $297. Say you end up spending $180 more per car on injector, sensor and bearings to reduce consumption to meet CAFE. So you really avoided not $297 but $117 per car by meeting it. The Federal Government makes the LAW, but corporations do not have to be supportive of it or be co-operative with it. LAWs define behavioral standards and penalties for non-compliance. In this case, the penalties may not warrant compliance. For instance, if the law says that parking on the street carries a $10 fine with no provisions for towing your car and no incremental penalty hikes for repeated offenses. If parking garages in the vicinity are $25 per hour, if may make a lot of sense to simply defy the lawful recommendations and accept the fine. I believe in the engineers too. But I believe that corporations should spend their efforts at delivering what the market demands, not what the Federal government desires. It is not like the penalty for ignoring CAFE mandates is a suspension of GM's business license and lethal injection for Rick Wagoner! It's just a small fine per vehicle. GM should figure out whether the market wants to shoulder the fine or accept the types of cars and trucks which CAFE will like to have GM sell -- which may or may not be what the market wants!

What this car -- and the 2010 Cobalt -- needs is the 6T40 and 6T70 6-speed automatic transmissions for the 2.2/2.4 and the Turbo 2.0 respectively. Drag racers will find that it is faster than the current stick shift, everyone else will love the fact that they won't have to love to row a stick and work the clutch. The autos also have better ratio spreads meaning a lower top gear cruise rpm for a given 1st gear ratio. Short of a dual clutch AMGB these are peerless transverse transmissions (none of the Aisin or ZF 7 or 8 speed units are transverse). A summary of the specs that matter with the two and that of the current 5 speed manual (for comparison) are listed below:- Hydramatic 6T40 Layout: Transverse, FWD Maximum Input Torque: 177 lb-ft (240 Nm) Maximum Input Speed: 7000 rpm (1~4), 6778 (5th), 5800 (6th) Torque Converter Diameter: 236mm (nominal) Maximum Vehicle Gross weight: 4250 lbs Ratio Spread: 6.11 Hydramatic 6T70 Layout: Transverse, FWD Maximum Input Torque: 280 lb-ft (379 Nm) Maximum Input Speed: 7000 rpm (1~4), 6250 (5th), 5550 (6th) Torque Converter Diameter: 246mm (nominal) Maximum Vehicle Gross weight: 6400 lbs Ratio Spread: 6.04 GME F35 Layout: Transverse, FWD Maximum Input Torque: 260 lb-ft (Nm) Maximum Input Speed: Unlimited Clutch Diameter: 225 mm (nominal) Maximum Vehicle Gross weight: 5066 lbs Ratio Spread: 4.82

Really, we need to ask this question -- why should GM obey the polticians' views and comply with CAFE standards? (1) GM and other car manufacturers should decide -- first and foremost -- what kind of cars they build by what the market demands. CAFE is not a ban, CAFE is a penalty law for not falling in line with the opinions of the political leadership. (2) What CAFE say is [if the average fuel economy of a manufacturer's annual fleet of car and/or truck production falls below the defined standard, the manufacturer must pay a penalty, currently $5.50 USD per 0.1 mpg under the standard, multiplied by the manufacturer's total production for the U.S. domestic market]. This should be weighed as a cost not as a mandate of Heaven or something. (3) GM's CAFE current score is 29.6 MPG for passenger cars. Say it completely ignores the new CAFE standard and is still at 29.6 in 2020 (which I doubt will be the case, CAFE or no CAFE revision). It'll miss the target by 5.4 MPG. That's a penalty of $297 per vehicle. It's hardly astronomical if GM is indeed producing cars which consumers want to buy. GM can simply put on the window sticker a defiant statement $297 has been added to the price of this vehicle by your elected representatives in Washington DC, if you are not pleased with this you may want to consider unelecting them with your vote in the upcoming election. I seriously doubt $297 will make or break a buying decision. Forcing a 4-potter on a V8 shopper, forcing a hybrid on somebody who will rather pay $4000 less for a conventional drivetrain or forcing a FWD sedan on someone who is looking for a RWD ride flying red, white and blue on the other hand WILL break a buying decision. The other option is to simply spin off certain high performance, market desired, models into a separate corporate umbrella. Split GM into two corporations -- call it defiantly General Motors CAFE and General Motors Performance corporations if you want. GM shares are split, GM becomes two legally separate corporations. One making econocars in compliance with CAFE and does not pay fines, the other in proud defiance making nothing but gas guzzling Corvettes, Sport Sedans and SUVs paying CAFE fines with no remorse. Really the two companies can still share platforms, technologies and even supply chains -- just like Toyota and GM can if they completely trust each other. The CEO of GM can even be the CEO of both -- just like the CEO of GM can also be the CEO of Apple Computer if the boards of directors so decide.

In short, because it is the smallest, lightest way to get 300 hp. This allows the vehicles that accommodate it to have smaller engine bay volumes and hence be lighter and smaller. It also allows for better weight distribution -- especially with transverse FWD applications. It will also post somewhat better fuel economy numbers when driven gently. In a 3200 lbs vehicle, you can expect ~ 25/31MPG from a 2.1 liter I4T engine vs about 17/27 with a 5.3 liter LS4 with AFM. Lastly, there is a whole class of younger buyers who dig the turbo whistle and not the V8 rumble.

This proposed 2.1 liter Ecotec Adv can replace the 2.0 liter, 2.2 liter and 2.4 liter Ecotecs. The engine is available in naturally aspirated form (with HCCI) and turbocharged form (without HCCI). The HCCI engine serves as the base engine for the RWD Pontiac Solstice, new RWD Pontiac G6, the Saturn Sky, the new RWD Holden Torana, the FWD Chevy Malibu and FWD Chevy Cobalt. The turbocharged engine is available as an option on the Solstice, G6, Sky, Torana and the Cobalt. The Malibu receives a 300 hp HCCI 3.6 liter V6 option. Gear changing is accomplished by either the 6L50, 6T40 or 6T70 6-speed automatic transmissions. There is no manual gear boxes offered even on the RWD roadsters while GM works on bringing its 6-speed dual clutch gearbox to market in subsequent model years. New technology introduced include: Advanced geometry silicon impregnated cast pistons 2-stage Variable Valve Lift Cylinder Pressure Sensors Spark gap ionization based knock sensing Homogeneous Charge compression ignition (LNX only; up to 55 mph at light loads) Ball-bearing cartridge dual scroll turbocharger (LNY only) Metal matrix catalyst Reduced Friction roller chain cam and balance shaft drive Semi-permanent mold 356 AL cast aluminum block and heads Sodium filled Iconel exhaust vavles Forged crankshaft and connecting rods Direct Gasoline Injection Coil-on-spark direct ignition Dual Continuously Variable Cam Phasing Roller cam followers Variable pressure fuel rail 50~150 psi

I am not sure if it'll be cheaper than a diesel engine. You have to answer this question... What's cheaper? A stronger block and a stouter set of rods or an array of cam switching hardware and in-cylinder pressure sensors? I am not sure I can answer that question. HCCI will improve on the efficiency of gasoline engines without sacrificing performance, civility and image. HCCI however is not a diesel and will not get to be as efficient as a diesel. The reasons are three fold:- (1) The Calorific Value of each drop of diesel fuel is higher than that of each drop of gasoline. (2) Diesels still operate at a higher compression ratio than HCCI meaning better combustion and thermal efficiency -- ~ 16:1 for turbodiesels and up to 22:1 on NA diesels. (3) Lastly, and most importantly, one of the biggest difference between a diesel and a gasoline engine is that the diesel engine DOES NOT have a throttle body or plate. In essence it is running at wide open throttle all the time -- include at light load freeway cruise -- whereas gasoline engines choke the engine's airflow with a throttle plate to control power output at all times except when you put the pedal to the floor. A car spends 99.9% of the time off WOT, meaning 99.9% of the time the gasoline engine is working against the pumping resistance of a partially closed throttle plate choking it of airflow. A diesel engine does not do that. Instead, it always allow as much air as the engine will ingest into the cylinders. It controls power simply by injecting more or less fuel. At part throttle it simply runs lean. This is also part of the source of the diesel engine's emission woes, but it makes it a more fuel efficient engine operating concept. The HCCI engine cannot get rid of all the traditional air metering gear because it cannot run in HCCI mode except at light loads and over a subset of its entire operating speed range.