Tell you what... you enjoy your car. It's yours, be proud of it. I'm friggin tickled you bought a GM product instead of an imported pile of poo!
Even cooler, both GM and Ford are offering the kind of cars I am talking about in other markets - they just haven't introduced them here (for reasons I can't explain). So at least we are supporting the same "cause" with both our positions - and that's a good thing IMO.

Now, I refuse to get sucked into a technical squabble about "amount of boost" and "55mph=44mpg" and such. You claim these new cars are getting great numbers, then you come back and say they have only been out for 1 month... well, OK.

IMO, you are stuck staring at a single tree (albeit a pretty one because I am all for us getting more economy here in domestic products) when I am trying to show you the forrest behind your tree.

Today you must "baby" your way to 44mpg... instantaneously.
I pounded my way at 145mph for sustained runs of several minutes each time on the Autobahn, and squealing tires on German back roads to achieve 41mpg for the entire tank... 2 years ago.

THAT is my point WRT to the modern car-diesels versus our best attempts at better economy here in the USA.

Diesel has 129,800 BTU/gallon, gasoline has 112,000 BTU/gallon.
Diesel has more energy per gallon than gas does - period.
Hence, it CAN do more work per gallon - period.
How that work is converted into moving us is wide open.

Worse yet, this thread is about a FULL SIZED TRUCK, making it an even better application for a diesel IMO - all averages included.

Seems the conversation has dwindled down to just you and I anyways, and I am I'm not the type to argue at length over subjective material.
We disagree. That's it, and I'm outta here.

 

I don't "baby" my way to 44mpg instantaneously. I drive 55mph with traffic and that is what I get. I still don't understand how someone who has never driven one of these is telling me what I must do, when I drive the thing 80 miles a day.

The LNF has been in the Sky Redline and Solstice GXP going on their 3rd model year.

The Cobalt SS and HR SS with the LNF were only released about 4 weeks ago.

You are not trying to "show you the forrest behind your tree." You are trying to tell me what kind of bark my tree has on it when you don't even know what it is.

 

who the hell is getting 44mpg in their car? I call major bull****.....

Unless its a hybrid or diesel...

 

Posting DIC mileage at 55mpg is useless. I can get the same 50mpg readout on my Rainier. The DIC is inaccurate, even the average mpg is inaccurate. This is well known and my two GM vehicles with DIC both lie. My wife just finished a 340 mile tank, average indicated 28.4, actual was 26.7. Solistice and Sky owners are reporting about 31 mpg on all highway trips last time I checked. Maybe a FWD car could top 32-33. This pales to diesel mileage as we all know.

The government has regulated us out of lighter more fuel efficient vehicles.

The government has regulated us out of cheap diesel power.

Lets try to get back on topic, why a TI-4? I have two guesses, there is a (small) market for them, think auto parts trucks and glass repair guys. For sitting in urban traffic a small 4 cyl uses very little gas. But I cant see the advantage of a I-4 over the 3.5 V-6 in initial cost. The 3.5 is allready in 4600lb crossovers, 6 speeds and healthy ratios keep those competive in performance.

My only guess is that there could be an E-85 twist. I think we're overdue for E-85 in a forced induction package. 104 octane vs 87 ocane is a big difference. A 10% increase in power is very feasible. Which would be great in a mustang but F-150? It seems a 2.4 tuned for truck use would make the same output of a 3.5L but add in some 104 octane for the occasional heavy load?

I've said before the current flex fuel motors are a joke. No engine running on 87 is going to be efficient with 104 octane, even adjusting the timing isn't enough. A mechanical change like a higher CR or in this case boost can take full advantage of all that octane and mitigate some of the losses cause by the BTU per gallon issue. What if you could fill this I-4 up with E-85 and only lose 15% mpg, FI maybe the only way E-85 ever becomes cost viable.