Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

Report: GM Midsize Sedans to Become "4-cylinder Only"

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 4, 2010 | 08:33 AM
  #31  
JakeRobb's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
Originally Posted by MustangEater82
when it got power, it felt like too much.


I'm just saying.
Old Sep 4, 2010 | 01:09 PM
  #32  
guionM's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Originally Posted by JakeRobb
I really wish the industry would find a way to get past the public's focus on peak horsepower and max RPM the primary measures of engine performance. It's all well and good that they're going to continue having a ~250hp version (matching the 3.6L currently available in the Malibu), but what matters to me is that they have the same low- and mid-rpm grunt (or better ).
EXACTLY!

I didn't put much stock in V6s until I drove a Thunderbird SC. The Ford Fusion I drove changed my opinion of 4 cylinder midsized cars. The new Mustang V6 at 305 horsepower with the manual (the automatic is notably slower) has acceleration that is much closer to LS1 than LT1.

Performance feel is no longer only about the number of cylinders. If there was a way to get a hamster running on a wheel to generate the same "umph" in accelerating as a V6 or V8 then unless you pop the hood, you wouldn't notice the difference.
Old Sep 4, 2010 | 09:13 PM
  #33  
teal98's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Originally Posted by guionM
Performance feel is no longer only about the number of cylinders. If there was a way to get a hamster running on a wheel to generate the same "umph" in accelerating as a V6 or V8 then unless you pop the hood, you wouldn't notice the difference.
Only if you could get the hamster to put out V8 or V6 noises, both of which sound quite different from each other.
Old Sep 5, 2010 | 12:48 AM
  #34  
Geoff Chadwick's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,154
From: All around
Originally Posted by guionM
Doubtful it's enough to fill the difference plus add another $1000 on top of it. Besides, if it wasn't cost efficient, no one would be doing it for a car with the volume of a midsize car...
Well, we know there's the added plastic intercooler piping, intercooler , and turbo (just the big stuff). But full system DOHC V6 versus DOHC turbo I4 they are close in final price - but the warranty costs per vehicle are a lot higher as well and that is the deal breaker. I've heard estimates that as many as 1 in 25 LNFs see warranty work covering the turbocharger. While the engine has some great stats, GM killed the thing for a reason.

Originally Posted by teal98
Not designing the car to accept a V6 made the I4 Hyundai Sonata about 100 pounds lighter than it would have been, according to what I've read. The next Malibu needs to drop at least 300 pounds from the current one.
Hopefully GM can do the same. Only time will tell - but 300lb would be a dang good start.

Originally Posted by guionM
I didn't put much stock in V6s until I drove a Thunderbird SC
Performance factoid:

The SC 3.8L W-body could hammer out 0-60 in 6.6 seconds. That's decently brisk for a comfy FWD sport sedan of the 90s. The Turbo Cobalt could rocket 0-60 in 5.5 seconds. That's pretty darn fast considering a 2002 Camaro SS also was listed as 0-60 in 5.5 seconds!!!

GM needs to get some sport into the lineup of the Malibu - because there are some people that are still buying the LTZ V6 and like a little oomph. Sticking the 250hp turbo from the Regal GS would fit the bill (though with FWD and not AWD) - but will GM do it? Time will tell.
Old Sep 5, 2010 | 06:02 PM
  #35  
guionM's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Originally Posted by Geoff Chadwick
Well, we know there's the added plastic intercooler piping, intercooler , and turbo (just the big stuff). But full system DOHC V6 versus DOHC turbo I4 they are close in final price - but the warranty costs per vehicle are a lot higher as well and that is the deal breaker. I've heard estimates that as many as 1 in 25 LNFs see warranty work covering the turbocharger. While the engine has some great stats, GM killed the thing for a reason.


Hopefully GM can do the same. Only time will tell - but 300lb would be a dang good start.


Performance factoid:

The SC 3.8L W-body could hammer out 0-60 in 6.6 seconds. That's decently brisk for a comfy FWD sport sedan of the 90s. The Turbo Cobalt could rocket 0-60 in 5.5 seconds. That's pretty darn fast considering a 2002 Camaro SS also was listed as 0-60 in 5.5 seconds!!!
Although the 0-60 Camaro SS times I see are around the 5.1 to 5.2 range (but who's counting ) the Cobalt turbo SS is quicker around a course than a Camaro SS..... but don't tell any Camaro SS owners (they still think their 2002 SS had more power that run of the mill Z28s and B4Cs).... we'll keep those factoids to ourselves.
Old Sep 5, 2010 | 11:36 PM
  #36  
teal98's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Originally Posted by guionM
Although the 0-60 Camaro SS times I see are around the 5.1 to 5.2 range (but who's counting ) the Cobalt turbo SS is quicker around a course than a Camaro SS..... but don't tell any Camaro SS owners (they still think their 2002 SS had more power that run of the mill Z28s and B4Cs).... we'll keep those factoids to ourselves.
As long as my 2002 Z28 is faster than that pesky Cobalt SS...
Old Sep 6, 2010 | 03:06 PM
  #37  
guionM's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Originally Posted by teal98
As long as my 2002 Z28 is faster than that pesky Cobalt SS...
Yea. I don't think Cobalt SSs run 160.
Old Sep 6, 2010 | 04:28 PM
  #38  
AdioSS's Avatar
West South Central Moderator
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,371
From: Kilgore TX 75662
I would also be willing to bet that the 0-60 times of each of these cars were limited by their tires....
Old Sep 6, 2010 | 04:32 PM
  #39  
Eric77TA's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,958
From: Kansas City, MO
Originally Posted by guionM
Yea. I don't think Cobalt SSs run 160.

Pretty darn close...Car and Driver got an as-tested 156:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test

But Chevrolet's published number was 160.
Old Sep 6, 2010 | 05:24 PM
  #40  
teal98's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Originally Posted by Eric77TA
Pretty darn close...Car and Driver got an as-tested 156:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test

But Chevrolet's published number was 160.
Grrr

Old Sep 7, 2010 | 06:06 AM
  #41  
5thgen69camaro's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,802
From: Annapolis MD
Originally Posted by WhiteHawk
If he federal government had any *****, they would hike up gas prices and try to affect the demand side of the equation. Instead they blame the auto companies and keep trying to affect the supply side. So GM is stuck in the middle trying to meet government requirements and still please their customers who don't want a gutless family hauler.

So basically, if you voted for Obama, no bitching about this. Tell him to grow some ***** and fix the problem, not punish the entire industry.

-Geoff
Originally Posted by WhiteHawk
If he federal government had any *****, they would hike up gas prices and try to affect the demand side of the equation. Instead they blame the auto companies and keep trying to affect the supply side. So GM is stuck in the middle trying to meet government requirements and still please their customers who don't want a gutless family hauler.

So basically, if you voted for Obama, no bitching about this. Tell him to grow some ***** and fix the problem, not punish the entire industry.

-Geoff
Why because you believe alternative energy and 4 cylinder vehicles arent priced competitively enough for people to choose it on their own without being priced gouged out of the market via taxes? You think its a good idea to force people to pay more for fuel especially in a tough economy? Some of whom are barely getting by as it is? That is unless they can afford the over pricing.

Lobby away! Knock yourself out!

I DARE you

BTW Im betting that 11 second Z28 and Silverado do not have 4 cylinder engines.
Old Sep 7, 2010 | 06:32 AM
  #42  
Z28x's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by 5thgen69camaro
Why because you believe alternative energy and 4 cylinder vehicles arent priced competitively enough for people to choose it on their own without being priced gouged out of the market via taxes? You think its a good idea to force people to pay more for fuel especially in a tough economy? Some of whom are barely getting by as it is? That is unless they can afford the over pricing.

Lobby away! Knock yourself out!

I DARE you

BTW Im betting that 11 second Z28 and Silverado do not have 4 cylinder engines.
Actually our gasoline is subsidized. If we took all the tax breaks and subsidies away from oil companies, stopped fighting trillion dollar wars for oil, actually had enough tax on gas to pay for infrastructure like roads and bridges, we would probably be paying closer to $5 a gallon.

It also doesn't matter what the price of gasoline is, you will always have people living beyond their means.
Old Sep 7, 2010 | 06:50 AM
  #43  
WhiteHawk's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 943
Originally Posted by 5thgen69camaro
Why because you believe alternative energy and 4 cylinder vehicles arent priced competitively enough for people to choose it on their own without being priced gouged out of the market via taxes? You think its a good idea to force people to pay more for fuel especially in a tough economy? Some of whom are barely getting by as it is? That is unless they can afford the over pricing.

Lobby away! Knock yourself out!

I DARE you

BTW Im betting that 11 second Z28 and Silverado do not have 4 cylinder engines.
I am not really sure what you are saying in your post. My point is that the market should decide the cars the big 3 build, not the government mandated mileage standards.

-Geoff
Old Sep 7, 2010 | 06:53 AM
  #44  
WhiteHawk's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 943
Originally Posted by Z28x
Actually our gasoline is subsidized. If we took all the tax breaks and subsidies away from oil companies, stopped fighting trillion dollar wars for oil, actually had enough tax on gas to pay for infrastructure like roads and bridges, we would probably be paying closer to $5 a gallon.

It also doesn't matter what the price of gasoline is, you will always have people living beyond their means.
That is my point. If gas was $6 per gallon, this thread wouldn't even exist. At $6, the market would tell GM what to build, and it would be all 4 cylinders and more Aveo's! No CAFE needed!

-Geoff
Old Sep 7, 2010 | 07:03 AM
  #45  
5thgen69camaro's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,802
From: Annapolis MD
Originally Posted by WhiteHawk
I am not really sure what you are saying in your post. My point is that the market should decide the cars the big 3 build, not the government mandated mileage standards.

-Geoff
This

Originally Posted by WhiteHawk
If he federal government had any *****, they would hike up gas prices and try to affect the demand side of the equation.
if you're artificially hiking up gas prices then youre trying not to let the market decide anything. Youre manipulating it to TRY to get a desired result.

Originally Posted by WhiteHawk
That is my point. If gas was $6 per gallon, this thread wouldn't even exist. At $6, the market would tell GM what to build, and it would be all 4 cylinders and more Aveo's! No CAFE needed!

-Geoff
I cant tell if youre being sarcastic or serious. Again your Z28 and Silverado is no Aveo. By youre own standards your camaro would be a 4 cylinder Aveo if it had been successful years ago. Same with that Silverado in your Sig line.

Last edited by 5thgen69camaro; Sep 7, 2010 at 07:09 AM.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:00 PM.