Eric77TA: Very practical & well reasoned. I couldn't agree more.

While 300hp family-transporting sedans are fun, how many of those people are enthusiasts - and how many bought the 'up-level' trim and got that 300hp V6 standard? I really don't have any problem with 220-240hp in a sedan. About 7 years ago, I owned a 200hp Stratus w/2.7l. It wasn't world-beating, but it was snappy - and fun-enough to drive on an everyday basis. Actually, I'd even take less than 200hp in a well-handling, lighter (non-bloated) sedan. With the direction of sedans in recent years, something like that is harder-and-harder to come-by.

 

With new CAFE, I think we are going to see decreasing horsepower in vehicles. I think this is going to be like the original cafe at first. I think we all remember the "muscle cars" of the earlier 80's.

1982 Camaro Z28
HP
165 @ 4200
Torque
240 @ 2400

The other option, which will likely happen, will be to make smaller vehicles. When is the last time you heard of a new model of a vehicle getting smaller. This could happen in the next few years as well, but it will be interesting to see the first manufacture do this.

 

Agreed completely. Folks seem to think that we're entitled to 200HP "economy" cars and 300HP family sedans. Sadly, that's at odds with reality.

 

Look at their curb weights compared to the new ones though.

 

Merging on a freeway with more than 2 people in the car. The 5 speed isnt as bad as the auto.If someone takes the wife and kid out shopping and fills up the truck with crap from walmart the car is going to feel it.

~130ish HP is alright. But 100 is not going to cut it when you are trying to get onto a freeway where everyone is doing 70 and you have a short ramp.

 

I know that the technology in the engines won't be exactly the same, but if the LNF is getting 260hp out of a 2.0L turbo, then isn't it reasonable to think that a economy tuned 1.4L turbo should make around 140hp? If everything else was the same as the LNF, I'd expect around 180hp, but I'm sure it will be designed to spool even lower in the rpm range for added torque and economy. For a daily driver/econobox I'd think that providing adequate low end torque from a 1.4L motor will be more of a challenge than peak HP...

 

What if everyone else is also driving 100hp compact cars?

 

Bingo.

The 73 civic for example weighed 1500 lbs, had a 50 hp engine (by '78 was up to 60hp!) and got 40 mpg.

The current on weighs 2600 lbs (73% increase!), has a 140 hp engine and gets 25/36 mpg.

 

I was referring to "the base ones are already under powered" rather than the capabilities of a theoretical 100 hp future Cobalt. Short of drag racing, there's nothing I've yet experienced that my 145 horse 2.2 can't handle in a daily driving environment. I'm not clear on how the base Cobalt 145 is underpowered but 130ish is alright?

The 2.2 merges just fine and in traffic, most people pay so little attention when they're driving that I'm gone before they even put their foot on the accelerator anyway. Most of the time, I'm the fastest guy on the road going the speed limit! So, more power would help at the strip, but would be wasted when the guy in front of me is going 5 miles under the limit anyway.

I had a 55 horsepower 1994 Metro for 4 years. Before that I had a 1989 Plymouth Sundance with 93 horsepower. Before that I had a 1986 VW GTI with 102 horsepower. I know the meaning of onramp fear and the Cobalt is not it.

 

This is finally a good step in the right direction for GM.

 

The 73 was also 3 feet shorter than the current one. Shrinking the Civic 3 feet would probably drop a couple hundred pounds, but it still wouldn't shed the weight of the roof reinforcement to meet rollover standards, crumple zones and door beams to meet crash standards, dash and side curtain airbags, power windows and locks, multi-CD with nav, carpet, sound deadening, etc., etc. that have become either mandated or expected since then.

Look at the 1 series - it's 9.5 inches shorter than a 3 series, but only 150 pounds lighter. It's very hard to shed pounds nowadays.

 

That is interesting. I see the current Civic as an accomplishment.

78' Civic 25lbs per 1 hp/ 40 mpg on the highway (old method of testing)
08' Civic 18.57lbs per 1 hp/ 36 mpg highway (modern method of testing)

So the modern Civic gets roughly the same gas mileage, while being 1000 pounds heavier and has better performance while being safer.

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't the earliest Civic's have 650 (750?)cc motorcycle engines (up-level was 900cc, I believe) mated with a 5-speed transmission. My girlfriend had one - I swear a skateboard has a better suspension. Damn thing drove like a lumber wagon. My kidneys still hurt from that ride.. Oh yeah: don't even apply light pressure when washing/waxing. That car had the thinest sheet metal made to man. It was like 3-ply aluminum foil (well, maybe 2 1/2)..

 

"UPDATE: AutoblogGreen drove an Astra equipped with a prototype of this new 1.4 Turbo last August. It will generate 140 horsepower. You can read their impressions of the engine and how it fared in an Astra 5-door here. "

Yes, would help any 1.6L Aveo, a slight reduction in displacement, perhaps AFM and a "VTEC E" VVT system will help loads when cruising.

Man, I seem to repeat the same thing over and over again for the Aveo, small engine, AFM, VVT, but with that much power on tap, it could reduce regular use and get better mileage, hopefully.

HEY GM! Put it in the Aveo!!!!

 

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08...ra-1-4l-turbo/
+1

Hmmm, I might even take a Malibu with the 1.4L turbo 4/A6 combination.