100HP in a 3000lb car with 1000lbs of passengers and cargo is 40lb/HP. That's no worse than a modern heavy-duty pickup truck towing a 7000lb trailer, and yet somehow most people don't see things this way.

People should really drive the Autobahn to get an impression of how fast and slow cars can mix. If you think semi-trucks are slow here, you haven't seen nothin' - imagine 250HP trying to pull 30 tons through the Alps.

 

People get out of the way of a merging Pickup truck towing 7000lbs. People dont have any issue cutting off a cobalt or not letting it merge.


160 hp with the 5 speed will do just fine in the Cobalt.

Doing much better than this guy

 

Please inform my fellow drivers that they should be doing this (and I'm towing a 7500lb trailer with only 255 HP!).

I wonder how many cars go to the junkyard having never seen WOT more than, say, a half-dozen times? People drive around not just with more horsepower than they need, but more than they ever use.

 

Its like I tell my wife when she tries to change lanes in the Tahoe... "people get out of the way of the big red truck."

 

the 205hp V6 is more than adequate in my wife's 04 impala (over 2 tons when we are both in it), but that engine has a very nice torque curve.

The main benefit to turbocharging small engines is that midrange torque under load is greatly increased. In low-load conditions, they act like the small engines they are.

It acts like a large engine when needed, but sips fuel when power isn't needed.

 

Didn't SSbaby educate us that turbocharging smaller engines makes for worse fuel economy than just keeping displacement up?

I'm starting to dig the smaller displacement stuff. It's nice to see them being given real attention.

1.8l, 200hp with a fat midrange torque curve would probably be an outstanding replacement for most of the garden-variety V6s these days.

 

90/92 What the **** is GM smoking?

 

38.5 mpg combined, what other GM car can do that and not be an expensive hybrid. The countries were that engine is sold gas costs $8 a gallon.

 

Good move. And you know That GM's turbo motors are gonna put Ford's to shame.

Anyways - I've got a Cobalt (base)...it is DEFINITELY not underpowered. I get into trouble quite a bit with it () so I don't know what you're talking about. And I drove a base Aveo for a test-drive - it also was NOT underpowered, a little more docile than the Cobalt? Yes.

People need to wake up to the reality that those are not sports cars (unless you opt for that version). They are cheap, compact, economy cars. You want power? Buy a Camaro, or a Mustang (well...maybe ), or a G8, etc....not a base Cobalt. Complaining about that fact is rather silly if you ask me.

 

I want a Cobalt size car with the Camaro's drivetrain

 

my 113 whp beretta moves just fine so why are people complaining about sub 140 flywheel hp engines in sub 3,000 lb cars? I would drive a 140 hp turbo aveo if it had a 6 speed manual option. would probably be a nice little car.

 

I think that's the point.
The more power on tap means the less effort to get moving, and usually means better gas milage.
And without know the torque numbers, only half the story is getting told.
It sure is good to have the power there whenever you get into a pinch too.
I remember renting a "LeMans" econo box back in the '90's when I flew out to Portland on buisness.
Talk about a "white knucle" affair, 5 or 6 lanes of terror passing me on both sides.
It took me like a couple of MILES to get up to speed!..

 

No - the more power on hand, the more people feel all warm and fuzzy about not having to use WOT, and they think they're doing the engine a favor.

Running an engine at around 75-80% of max power is where they're most efficient, which is why any number of vehicles (lawn mowers, farm tractors, generators, trucks, ships) try to run near WOT. Passenger cars and light trucks are abnormal in the sizing of their engines vs. the requirements of the task.

 

Comparing two engines-

1. a 1.8l turbo setup with, say 215hp/220tq

or

2. a 3.0 V6 with cylinder deactivation, that's probably 230hp/220tq

Which overall package would be lighter, which one would get better economy? Assume same size vehicle.

 

The I4

[QUOTE=Todd80Z28;5145035which one would get better economy? Assume same size vehicle.[/QUOTE]

No way of knowing with Info provided.