Except that its not going to be presented as a sports car but an economical alternative to gasoline engines.

 

Does it matter how it is presented if it drives better?

 

What's your point? It's not a sports car, and at 50mpg (we'll see what it actually gets rated at), why wouldn't you push it as an economical alternative?

 

Are we going to see a Cruze SS, or is future CAFE going to kill that too?

 

Since when do diesels drive better? Even with 100 extra ft/lbs of torque this car isn't going to be leaps and bounds faster or drive better than its gasoline counterpart. This type of car isn't going to be remotely thought about as sporty.

You can but if you are pushing it as an economical alternative then shouldn't it be more economical? The cost of entry and lifetime of ownership are going to be higher than the gasoline car if its only 8 mpg better. Now if the cost of entry is really close and its mileage can overcome the price gap between diesel and gas then it will indeed be an economical alternative. Until then you will pay more for a car that in the long run will do less from an economical standpoint.

I wasn't the one trying to push it off as sporty. It needs to be an economical alternative. I actually like this car. I think its different (for at least the NA market) and will draw in some of the diehard "TDI" crowds but it won't be a game changer. Not at 50 mpg.

 

It will be nicer to drive with the extra torque. No it won't be a racecar, but it will be better than the gas engine and get better mileage.

 

The Jetta TDI was never very sporty, nor were the previous Golf variants here in the US. But..there's now a whole world out there dedicated to TDI racing, and for a while, VW sponsored its own TDI cup series. It was a fun watch when it first started.

I think the car is a game changer in a sense, because you really can't get a "european" diesel (small displacement, manual gearbox) in anything American, certainly not in a small/mid car. On the upside, most diesel motors are tough as nails. I think this will be really good for the GM NA brand.

 

No arguments there. You shouldn't have that "can I get up to speed in time" feeling with this car versus the gas car. My only worry is if enough people are going to go into a dealership see the two cars and be willing to pay more, both up front and at the pump, for what equates to a minor increase in mileage.

Of course all of this will be moot if it delivers 60 or better mpg's like some of the Euro diesels do. In the end I hope it does and they sell like hot cakes.

 

I wonder if the diesel 2.0L would be too small for the Equinox. I'm guessing no since it has the torque of a V6.

CAFE isn't going to kill it, but he fact that the Buick Verano has the ~260hp turbo I4 probably will. It gives people another reason to move up to a Buick. Also, a lot of people around here say the turbo 2.0L won't fit in a Cruze.

 

Thats funny, you kind of read my mind. I was thinking last night that the Buick motor would be perfect for a Cruze SS.

 

There's also the Colorado. It would probably be too underpowered for American tastes though. If you're going to pay a premium for the engine and fuel, people here are going to expect a certain level of power to go with it. That's why in the up-level diesels available in BMW and Mercedes, we usually get the top diesel they sell in Europe.

 

I still want to see a diesel Malibu.

 

To me...that's more appealing. Large enough to fit the family, while be economical with plenty of torque.

 

X2

If offered, I'd make a diesel Malibu my daily driver.

 

Where will the engine be built and by who? When was the last time GM built a small diesel engine like this? Longevity of a first gen motor would be a concern for me. Could this be transplanted into a volt in the future?