I think you mean transaxle gearing...

I had thought this car came in around the 3300-3400 lbs range if Im not mistaken?
I would venture that the 2.4SIDI motor would pull down well over 30mpg highway.
In a 4000+ Nox/Terrain, it pulls down 32mpg. I would say at least 32mpg, and as high as 35. Remember that GM will probably want to have a class leader here, so I belive that 34mpg is the highest non-hybrid?

The 2.0T is the LNF thats in the HHR SS Auto models. I wish they pulled more power, its not like the trans cannot take it. I guess they wanted to leave some room for the V6, but I still dont see any reason not to offer a 240hp version of teh 2.0T and a 280hp 3.6 for the GS, especially if the GS gets AWD...
Overall, great looking car for GM's best brand right now.

 

The regal needs ATLEAST a 34mpg rating with a 4cyl. If its less I will be highly disapointed.

 

154 pounds, 2.6", and 0.8" to be exact (I just checked). I'm surprised it's bigger though... didn't look like it in pics, and while I know the LaCrosse is bigger than the Aura, I figured the next step down in size would be below the Aura/Malibu. I still don't think that's significant enough to justify a 10% drop in fuel economy vs the Aura, especially when it has DI and Aura doesn't, which by some estimates is worth an additional 10% in fuel economy... meaning in theory without DI it'd be nearly 20% below the Aura in economy.

Let's hope GM got these numbers wrong.

At, say, 23 city 34 highway this thing could make a huge splash. At 20/30 and worst in class power (for the 20/30 engine) it'll end up missing a lot of sales, I fear.

 

I dunno, 20/30 is still higher then a lot of other cars in its class.
I think the Mazda 6 gets 20/29? Not sure on the Altima, but I think its 30-31?
Even with the weight, I still dont see that dropping that far. Again, Nox still weighs more then both the Aura and Regal, and pulls down 32.

 

That looks like a Hyundai Azera. The new Lacrosse looks really good, but that design just looks uninspired and dated. The lines and proportions seem off.

 

GMC Terrain 2WD 2.4L is 3798lbs. is shaped like a brick and gets 32mpg. I wouldn't worry too much about the EPA number coming in higher on the Regal.

Not sure how the Turbo engine is different than the LNF. Obviously it is tuned for MPG and not HP, but did you guys see the torque #? 258!! This car has more torque than the 3.6L V6 Malibu/Aura

 

They both have 10 spoke wheels and similar proportions, but other than that, I don't think they will be mistaken for one another. Especially from the rear.

The Opel Insignia just won European Car of the Year for 2009. I think Regal could be a solid contender. I'd be interested in one if they offered a manual with the turbo and even more so if they offered the full 260 horse LNF and a manual.

 

I hope Epsilon II is a better platform for sporty driving characteristics. I know my Aura doesn't exactly have a sport-tuned suspension by design but the chassis itself is just downright cheap and flimsy feeling compared to cars like the 1-series and TSX.

 

Whoops, yeah, I talk about classics or trucks 95% of the time.

 

I agree with you, I would think it needed to be better than what is being estimated. I hope GM is playing a game again and the numbers turn out much better.

 

This makes me sad.

 

How so? It is only 3-4 months after the car comes out.

 

The LNF gets 29mpg high way in the HHR SS @260hp with a 5spd, So I dunno what is up.

Maybe the tune is due to the transmission on this thing? Lack of a posi? No HD differential?

I guess more details will come soon enough.

 

Yeah but the 2.4L in that car is 30mpg while in the Malibu it is 33mpg. 1mpg difference in the HHR.

Torque on the LNF and the Regal 2.0L are about the same. 260 vs. 258.

 

It's not the delay, it's that the high-performance version of the Regal is only getting 220hp. Check my sig.