I think they're banking on the fact that Ford has had so much success with its Ecoboost V6 that a turbo 4 replacing the 6 will be similar.

In reality, it all looks win-win on paper. It may just be an emotional reaction but I'd have no problem with a turbo 4 over a NA V6 but I can't yet do the turbo 6 over the NA V8.

 

I had a 2009 Malibu LT as a company car and loved it. It was quiet and was VERY easy to modulate between the gas pedal and brake in traffic. Even though it was a 4 cyl it felt like it had adequate power. It looked classy/elegant for a very reasonable price, about $22.5k (3yrs ago). With this new one, I'm just not feeling it as much. Much has been said of the lack of rear leg room and the camaroesque tail lamps, which I don't like. I know the tall hood is for pedestrian safety for other countries, but it kinda hurts it in the looks department. I still think it's nice, but not as nice as the previous Malibu was for it's time. Maybe driving one will make me like it more.

 

Sure, I'll argue it isn't.

It's the BUYERS who are affecting decisions.

When the day comes that just 2-5% of Camaro buyers choose V8s, you can throw the red light on and call battle stations because GM will have just 2 choices to make it cost effective to keep offering it:

1. Charging through the nose (as in ZL1 prices), or...
2. drop it completely.

If the public still demanded V6 engines in midsized cars, we'd have direct injected, small displacement, V6s in them because there'd be money to be made in selling (or upselling) them.

That's not the case. Like mentioned, economy, value, and cost of operation and maintenance it what matters most to those buyers.

 

To a large degree it's not about "real world" mileage. It's about hitting mileage targets while giving buyers the performance they demand. Real world mileage is almost certainly not going to be less than the engine it's replacing, but it is reasonable to think that if you're moving a certain amount of air through an engine, you should use similar amounts of fuel.

The upside is that turbocharged (and supercharged) engines that replace bigger power plants will give you you more control over your mileage. Stay off the boost, and you will 100% certainly get better fuel economy. Drive it like you stole it, and you're not going to see any improvement.

 

Not clinically delusional... just simply knows how CAFE works and where we are today in relation to it, where some others might not.

First, there are 4 separate CAFE standards each year based on the vehicle's footprint (2 for cars and 2 for trucks). Footprint is based on the wheelbase times the distance between the treads. The newer, wider Impala and Malibu end up in a new class where the fuel economy bar is lower than if they remained narrow.

Here's an footprint irony: A car like the Dodge Challenger might be able to keep it's Hemi V8 because of it's width and wheelbase... but say, a Camaro based on an Alpha might not because of the shorter wheelbase and narrower width of Alpha. But it could easily use a turbo V6, even it it made the same power as long as it got the better fuel economy in EPA tests.

Second, everyone who's hitting the panic button over this decades fuel economy are almost to a person going off of the EPA window sticker. CAFE isn't based on that. A vehicle that has a 27 mpg EPA sticker is rated at 36 mpg for CAFE. A 41 mpg car for CAFE will show 31 mpg on the window. 54 mpg will equal a window sticker rating mpg in the high 30s....yes, the numbers are stacked in the car maker's favor.

Third, High fuel prices are moving buyers to small cars causing automakers to hit CAFE goals ahead of schedule. Last year using the "combined window sticker" estimate, cars averaged about 23 mpg last year. In CAFE language, that's 33 mpg.

Forth, there's plenty of exemptions, loopholes, and a lot of just downright fantasy math that (again) plays to carmakers advantages.

Big trucks are exempt from CAFE (ie: anything heavier duty than an F150 2wd). Each electric or Hybrid sold counts as a multiple in your favor in estimating a company's CAFE. From 2016 to 2020, larger footprint trucks (ie: F150s) fall under convorted math in which they increase their CAFE economy through a change in calculations without actually increasing actual fuel economy a single mpg.

But the biggest of all is that the whole CAFE thing gets revisited in 2016/2017. There, one can expect that if technology and consumer choice (ie: fuel prices aren't astronomically high enough to drive people to smaller cars) prove to make the 55 mpg goal impossible, all new creative math will again show up to make both sides happy (less politically risky than cutting the goal). After looking into it, IMHO (and that of some others) that 55 CAFE mpg in 2025 is likely to turn out being what 45 CAFE mpg looks today.


Yep, it's all a confusing numbers game that's more policy than actuality, designed to squash a series of Federal lawsuits where each state would have the freedom to set it's own "carbon standards" with either restrictions or taxes, quiet the eco crowd, and throw a bone to those who think hybrids and electrics are the wave of the future, while at the same time keeping the US auto industry profitable

And again, it's the high volume, bread and butter sedans that are going to have to carry most of the brunt. ZL1s, GT500s, CTSvs, and the like will be balenced by hybrids and electrics. But it's going to be those 4 cylinder Malibus, Fusions, and Darts that's going to keep V8s in affordable Camaros, Mustangs, and Challengers as long as we buy enough to make them profitable.

Finally, for the record, the new base Dodge Dart rates 40 CAFE mpg, vs the 35 it has to carry by 2017.

Things aren't nearly as bad as you might think.

 

Not the whole equation, but there is no way it is not in there to some extent.