HAZ-Matt

GM Powertrain is entering into a deal with Astroglide for this reason.

ImportedRoomate

Acura is included in Honda's average. They have the TL and RL. Trucks aren't included in the 35.5 avg.

Nissan/Infiniti is at 34mpg and they have their G cars and the GTR. They also have a good selection of trucks and SUVs.

This data is from Dec 2010 where GM was at 31.3mpg and Ford at 31.1mpg. I'm sure that after this year, there will be many more manufacturers over the 35.5mpg requirement.

TOO Z MAXX

Is that some new kind of penetrating oil. Lol

ImportedRoomate

The astroglide warming formulation will help with cold starts.

STOCK1SC

Just convert everything to Direct Injection and instant mpg gain right there.

Z28x

GM has 40mpg Sonics, a 2mpg boost in 1.4L Cruze, the base LaCrosse now gets 36mpg, and around 1,000 a month Volts with 93mpg ratings are being sold. GM should have no problem meeting that CAFE target.

This is a plan I like. I would gladly pay what ever small amount of money to have the DI engine over the non-DI.

Evilfrog

Obviously it wasn't done properly if that decision lead to a significant decrease in the life of the engine.

Anyway, my point was that just because they tried it before and it didn't work, doesn't mean if they try it again with a different approach that it won't be successful.

BigBlueCruiser

Direct Injection has a problem with intake valve deposit build up leading to significant HP loss after only a moderate amount of miles.

I wouldn't buy a DI car until they figure that one out.

guionM

Yep.

Keep in mind that those are EPA ratings for the public.

The rating on those cars for CAFE numbers is higher.

Jim, you need to go back and look at some of my past posts on this subject, and if you don't believe me look up CAFE and how it's measured.

In short, cars today ALREADY average about 35 mpg CAFE. And in case you didn't notice, they don't look like a bunch of Smart cars and aren't underpowered.

The way the EPA measures fuel economy for CAFE is more generous than how they measure vehicles for the window sticker (which became more conservative in 2005 due to complaints from the public for being overly optimistic).

Also, CAFE is based on the average mileage of what a car maker actually sells. If GM sells a gazillion Cruzes and 4 cylinder Malibus, then they can also sell a few 556hp Cadillac CTSv's and ZL1 Camaros.

Also, each car has a standard based on it's "footprint" (wheelbase and track... the width between the tires).

Car makers are having no trouble at all reaching fuel economy goals for most of this decade thanks to $3.75 to $4 per gallon gasoline. If gas ever gets to $5 per gallon, even the 2020 standard will be relatively attainable.

The big issue with the new standards is that trucks and SUVs are being rolled into the overall CAFE numbers (up till recently, they had their own standards). That's the part of the law I disagree with. The standards are supposed to be reviewed later this decade. The Feds delayed pollution standards no fewer than twice in the late 70s and early 80s safety standards at least once, and have even repealed certain standards (ie: 5 mph bumpers dropped to 2.5 and liberalizing headlight standards) all due to manufacturer input, so I'd expect the wisdom to continue.... especially if the alternative is losing jobs.

There's V6 Hondas and Hyundais that outrun 60s era muscle cars, and 4 cylinder "economy cars" that will run with performance cars of just 10 (let alone 15) years ago. These cars aren't exactly feather weights either. There's room for weight loss, and with less weight, there's no need for the same amount of power to do the same performance. Even without weight loss, with the output numbers of small engines climbing well into V8 territory, there should be no worry about anything being "grossly underpowered".

STOCK1SC

Chevy has been putting out ecotec 2.0 turbos with DI and no issues I have found, I own one.

97QuasarBlue3.8

...Are you talking specifically abot GM engines, or any DI engine? They've been in cars for a number of years now with no issues. It's a potential problem, but as far as I know, most manufacturers have curbed that issue.

It's penetrating, alright. My vote goes for j-lube. Probably the slickest substance I've ever dealt with. Holy cripes.

HAZ-Matt

It is sort of every engine. I think it was most notable on VW engines though. The issue being that in a port injection engine you have the injectors washing off crap from the PCV and EGR that gets put into the intake. GM claims the way they limit the problem is with their intake valve and injector pulse timing... The idea being that the problems arise mainly from early gen DI motors that spray fuel at times that causes it to reach parts of the cylinder where it doesn't fully combust, leading to oil dilution and volatilization... which leads to more oil going through the PCV. Or so I have read on the internetz.

AudiVW supposedly patented a catalytic coating for intake valves that would solve this problem back in 2002... but I guess it didn't pan out.

A port and direct injection motor like Toyota makes shouldn't have a problem.

STOCK1SC

I know Porsche had issues and probably VW as well since they own Porsche but Chevy hasn't had any issues with the 2.0 turbo ecotec that I have heard. I've seen pics of the Coyote engine where they already have it set up ready for DI, I guess they were just waiting for Chevy to up the LS3 and then unleash a DI 5.0 which would be a nasty little motor!

HAZ-Matt

I have heard indirect rumblings about Ecotecs, but not seen any direct evidence. More or less the same is true about the 3.6L. Very rare if any.

But yes, the Germans seem to have had the most trouble, specifically Audi-VW. Although Porsche is now owned by them, I don't know how inter-related the engines are yet. I have heard conflicting things as to whether Porsche's even have this issue... I think I have heard it occurring in the Coxster but not so much the 911. I don't really know what is true. BMW also hasn't been without issue, allegedly.