Kyle,

How many miles are you up to on the Saturn? I'm just wondering if that has or will improve over time. My Ranger seemed to improve quite a bit over time as it 'broke in.'

 

Only 450 miles right now.

Yes I'm hoping that as the car breaks in, transmission adjusts to my driving style, and plus that magical 1/20th of a mpg I'll gain by switching to synthetic... that maybe I'll be able to get numbers closer to my Audi in the city and highway. I haven't tested highway mileage at all but if the DIC is to be believed from my short 4-5 mile cruises at 55, it looks like it'll do pretty well. It claims an average of 47 mpg at a steady 55 cruise with no A/C on compared to my 335i which claims 37. My 335i's info center mileage has proven to be very accurate... always +/- 0.5. I've actually heard many GM info centers (on the Malibu and Aura especially) are if anything pessimistic. Though my first 26 mpg measurement wasn't based on the DIC, it was based on actual fuel consumption vs mileage.

 

Every time I hear Ford touting their leading edge "EcoBoost" technology, I think, "Gee, why can't GM do something like that?" Oh, wait, they've had the same thing (LNF) on the market how many years now? Unfortunately, they have not (as yet) spread it around to their bread-and-butter (Malibu anyone?) vehicles.

 

That's in a '09 Cobalt SS sedan w/ the 260HP turbo LNF.


The sticker says 30 hwy, so that's dam close !

Only down side to the 4 (vs. the LS1 I am used to , A4 ) is the lack of low end torque. Gotta learn to keep it buzzed up a little bit.

Still fun to drive - just a different 'style' , if that makes sense.

Britt

 

colbalt weights 1000lbs less then the buick they are talking about.


the old one got the same 25mpg combined most colbalt forum owners report.

I think the bottom line is turbo 4's are great cafe cars because in a controlled enviornment they can get 30mpg.
In real life they have even less power off the line then a higher compression 4 so people always step on the gas harder to get the thing to spool and actually move.


Sure DI will help, but I still think it's going to come down to HP vs MPG for the 4 cylinders when trying to move a 3900lb buick. Pick ONE.

If they can get both more power to them, just not believing it yet.

Personally most grey haired old people drive buicks 45mph on a good day.
I think all buicks should come standard with a blower and a 4xx cubic inch motor and an electonic thottle that can't go under 50% above 40mph so maybe they can go the speed limit

 

Perhaps, but the choice between I4 and V6 is more than dollars and cents. A V6 is a much smoother, usually more responsive, and satisfying engine. I would argue that most people purchasing a luxury marque (except maybe Becky and her BMW) are willing to pay more to get something better (the whole idea of luxury items) so the slight extra cost of a V6 would be worth it to them.

 

Oh, and how do these writers get published that don't seem to know a whole lot about the auto industry, or are too lazy to research anything beyond what the automakers spoon feed them? A couple of times he refers to direct injection as being "torque-pumping", but DI generally increases HP more than torque (e.g. the HFV6 increased HP 15% but torque only 8%). And as noted above, he talks about Ford's future DI turbo-4 making 115 HP/litre, as if that's some amazing accomplishment we can look forward to in the future ... when of course the LNF was doing 130 HP/litre two years ago.

 

I guess this is where we don't see eye to eye. In my personal driving experience I have consistently exceeded the EPA's mileage ratings by a FAR greater percentage on my two turbo/DI cars than I have ever managed on the numerous N/A cars I've owned. In my experience it almost seems like modern day turbo cars actually get a bad rap by EPA rating methods because it seems to me they do better with aggressive driving than N/A cars do. I personally tend to drive most of my cars fairly aggressively off the line, but after I get up to speed I'm very steady on the throttle, use cruise control a LOT even in the city, and am very good about predictive driving... minimizing the use of my brakes by predicting red lights and coasting until they turn green, etc. That particular style of driving has benefited me more with turbo vehicles than with non turbo vehicles.

 

I'd take a DI 2.4L+6 speed Pontiac G8 over the 3.6L Malibu LTZ.

A lot of non-performance enthusiasts would rather spend the money on more features instead of a bigger engine.

 

'92 L98 5.7L V8 - 245hp
vs.
'09 LNF 2.0L Turbo4 - 260hp...

Don't even bother comparing MPG. With mild tuning and a bigger turbo 300+hp is very capable from the LNF. Amazing how perspective changes in less than 20-years.

 

LNF also seems to be tuned for performance. Fords DI turbo 2.0L is said to be rated at 230HP and I assumed tuned to maximize MPG.

 

Who did Susan Docherty blow to get her job?

 

 

Personally - I wouldn't doubt that days of the classic pushrod V6s & V8s are nearly over with.

The wave of the future seems to be multivalve engines with advanced technolgies like Active Fuel Managment, Displacement on Demand & VVT. Inaddition to turbos & superchargers to maximize Hp while maintaining and maximizing fuel economy.

That said - I wouldn't be surprised if GM had a smaller Multivalve V8 for the 2015 Camaro SS & Corvette. And it also wouldn't surprise me if most of it's car models had a Ecotec I4 with VVT(either N/A or with Force Induction) for the base models by that time.

 

Pushrod V6s will die before pushrod V8s.