Grab our RSS Feed
Say Hello to the Chevy Cruze
July 8th, 2008 | Posted in: Brand, Efficiency
Recently we heard that GM was going to build a Chevy Cobalt replacement gasoline-powered car that reached 40 mpg. We have seen spy shots of the car (above) and have been told it will use a new turbocharged 1.4L engine and will begin being built in Spring 2009. It is a global compact Delta car, as is the Volt, and will be sold worldwide.
One thing we didn’t know about the car is it’s name. Now we do. The car will debut at the Paris Auto Show in early October. Its electric sister, the Chevy Volt will be there too.
Source (GM ) via (Autobloggreen )
Popularity: 6%
Related posts:
- GM Releases Pictures of the Chevy Cruze and Invests $500 Million to Build it in Ohio
- Chevy Cruze Pictures Surface on the Internet
- Chevy Cruze Versus Honda Insight
- Official (Sort Of): Production Chevy Volt Will be Revealed at the GM Centennial this Month
- Production Chevy Volt to be Revealed in Less Than 5 Months
(4 votes, average: 5 out of 5) 
Loading ...
Posted by: Lyle
125 Responses to “Say Hello to the Chevy Cruze”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- GM’s CEO Arrives to Capitol Hill in Chevy Volt Prototype, Senate Hearings Underway
- GM CEO Will Drive Volt Mule Inside Washington DC Today, UAW Agrees to Drop Job Bank
- GM: Out of Time, Out of Money, Out of Options
- GM Submits Long-Term Viability Plan to Congress: $18 Billion Needed
- Detroit 3 Viability Plans Go To Congress Today: GM’s CEO Will Drive to DC in Hybrid Malibu
- GM-Volt Exclusive: Bob Lutz Details Volt Mule Energy Use in Highway Driving
- GM’s Canceled LA Auto Show Conference: Was it Going to be the Volt Battery Contract Announcement?
- Flextreme Concept Wins Prestigious Design Award, Still Not Production Intent
- What Would Happen to the Chevy Volt if GM Failed?
- GM Viability Proposal Leak: CEO Likely to Work for $1 and Brands Likely to be Shed
Designed and Developed by Twenty Six Media
July 8th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Looks like we are on a roll.
Take Care
Arch
July 8th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Interesting…
July 8th, 2008 at 11:27 am
It would be interesting to see how similar these vehicles end up looking.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Is that the car in the pic?
Looks kinda like a mazda3…
July 8th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Can we extrapolate that the cost of the Volt is based on this car plus the Electrics & Generator…hmmmm
July 8th, 2008 at 11:47 am
That is NOT the Beat sized vehicle I’ve been expecting too see.
Also, if it’s even close to being Cobalt sized, a 1.4L engine, even turbocharged, is going to be woefully inadequate.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Just to be clear, are we sure that the “Cruze”, which is first to be sold in Europe, is the actual Chevy “Compact” that was in the spy pictures such as above? Or is the car above, to be sold under a different name in the U.S.? I guess what confuses me is that the car is to be sold in Europe first, however the car in the spy photos I presume was photographed in the U.S. Wouldn’t it make sense that if the car in the picture is being tested in the U.S. proving grounds, that it would be sold here?
Just get it to the U.S. sooner rather than later!
July 8th, 2008 at 11:52 am
With 40 mpg I am ready for it now. When can we expect to see them in the showroom? Today is not soon enough.
Go GM and Go, Go, Go Volt.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Not really related to this topic, but thought I’d post this here because a few people would like it:
http://www.comics.com/wash/opus/archive/images/opus2008070149716.jpg
Gotta love Opus.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:54 am
A 1.4L engine is fine with me. Just show me the gas mileage. Whatever it takes. I have heard that this car will have an available 6 speed automatic. If so, I could even live without the turbo. Make the 2.2L, or whatever, available as an option for those who want more power. I couldn’t care less at this point.
40 mpg combined? SOLD!
July 8th, 2008 at 11:54 am
As for as the size of the engine is concerned, it needs to be just big enough to allow the car to move through traffic good. I am not looking for a sports car that will do 0 to 60 in 4 seconds. I want a good looking economy car that will be dependable and get great gas mileage.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:55 am
#10 noel park
I agree totally.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
#9 canehdian:
Oh I think it’s right on topic. Thank you for it. I hope that we all get there, sooner rather than later.
#12 N Riley:
Well you beat me to it again. I was just about to start typing “I agree totally” in response to your #8 when this appeared.
As Lucky Jack Aubery was so fond of saying:
“There is not a moment to be lost.”
July 8th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Wait until you’ve had a car that can barely get out of it’s own way.
A 2.0L non-turbo engine is just barely adequate for an intermediate sized car (speaking from expereince). So, I figure, the 1.4L turbo engine will be the same way.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I wonder if it will have “Cruze Control”….
July 8th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I’ll take it too, if it comes with the a standard shift.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Is that an “Intermediate?” Looks more like my SL2.
5-speed manual: 32 mpg on my commute, 3/4 city, 1/4 highway (if I turn the engine off only at lights which hold longer than 1 min, “picking low fruit” to save the starter and battery).
It will more than get out of it’s own way, too (No turbo / less than 2 Liter).
July 8th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
40 mpg on the new grading scale is pretty impressive. Don’t expect that to be combined, but only highway. I just don’t see a full ICE being good enough in the city without some of the hybrid tricks.
Glad to see GM making cars like this.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
#14 Michael J. Walsh:
I already have one, a 2000 S-10 ,2.2L, 5 speed. If I have a passenger, OR turn the AC on, I have to drop down another gear to pull the last hill before the house. But my last truck was a Suburban, and I smile when I go to the gas station. It doesn’t bother me a bit.
My wife’s car is a 1995 Impala SS. Surprisingly fast, comfortable, and in really good shape. No doubt she could drive it for another 13 years. Last night it cost $100 to fill it up with gas. 1.4L please, sooner rather than later.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Considering the 2L Cobalt SS turbo makes 260HP, seems like this 1.4L should be able to make 180HP. That’s plenty for a car that size IMHO. Also, one nice thing about a turbo is that when you’re not using the turbo, you pretty much get the mileage of a normally aspirated engine. But when you need the power, it’s there. The main downside of a turbo is the requirement for premium gas, but as gas gets more and more expensive, the extra 20 cents/gal for premium (in the USA at least) seems less and less significant.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I just wonder if there is a market for a car such as this?
July 8th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Here’s a question. Maybe someone here could help me answer it.
Let’s say the Volt and other E-REVs catch on big time, and everyone is driving them.
At 40 miles AER, how much oil would the U.S. save?
We know that around 80% of us drive less than 40 miles per day, but there’s also a small percentage us drive more - way more. In addition, cars that currently only drive short daily trips of a few miles wouldn’t save much oil by going electric. And then there are truck drivers and other oil consumers that would not see a benefit from E-REVs.
So what percentage of oil use could we convert to electricity if all passenger vehicles were 40 mile E-REVs?
Would it be around 25%? 50%? 75%?
July 8th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
For those wanting a quick car like my wife this car will not cut it. For those of us that really don’t care if it takes and extra 6 seconds to get up to highway speed we will love it. Life is short but I can afford to give up 6 seconds every now and then. I usually speed up slowly anyway to conserve gas when I am driving my wifes car.
I use to own a 2.0 and a 2.2 liter toyota pickup. I never thought of it as a slow vehicle and I even pulled a 21 foot cuddy cabin boat with it for short distance (10 miles).
July 8th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I’m coming off a 2.0L Ford Contour into a 2.3L Ford Focus sedan. I’ll never have an underpowered car again, regardless of the fuel savings.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
On the topic of increased fuel efficiency of ICE cars ….
I wonder if GM has considered capturing braking energy in a flywheel, as is being done in this Formula-1 race car:
http://www.wired.com/cars/coolwheels/news/2007/11/formula_one
Seems like a brilliantly simple idea that would be cheap to implement, providing greatly improved in-town mileage while we wait for electric cars and batteries to come down in price.
From that article…
“Kinetic-energy recovery systems, which make their F1 debut in 2009, are one area where F1 is already advancing green car technology.
“These systems use a flywheel in the transmission to capture the energy generated during braking and store it for use during acceleration. It improves the current technology used in hybrid cars, which rely on heavy batteries to store recovered energy. “
July 8th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
#20 Paul-R says: “The main downside of a turbo is the requirement for premium gas, but as gas gets more and more expensive, the extra 20 cents/gal for premium (in the USA at least) seems less and less significant.”
————————————————————————————–
I agree. As gas prices rise, higher octane gas will become more popular.
As an example, when we were in Europe in the 90s, gas was already $4/gallon, and gas staions there only offered premium gas - 95 octane or above.
Perhaps if America raised raised minimum octane standards, some of those gas station pumps could be freed up to offer E85.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I am sorry, but I see no problem with a 2.4L 4 cylinder engine. I drove the 2008 Malibu with a EPA estimated MPG 22 city, 32 highway with the ECOTEC 2.4L engine and automatic transmission. it was good from start to finish. Good, smooth take-off, good power and acceleration. I have no problems with that at all.
The 1.4L Turbo should be ok, but an optional larger engine will be available to those who want it. Or think they need it.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
#15 says: I wonder if it will have “Cruze Control”….
Duh, that’s the steering wheel!! hahahaha
July 8th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I bet that the Cruze is very similar in size, shape, and wheel placement to the Volt. Just looking at that photo and the 1/3 scale camo unit it certainly looks like they are based on the same platform. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Volt gets the same (or similar) wheels that are on the camouflaged Cruze.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Here are some interesting facts. In the U.S.:
1) About 2/3 of all oil use is for transportation.
2) Gasoline, in turn, accounts for about 2/3 of the total oil used for transportation.
See here for details:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/demand_text.htm#U.S.%20Consumption%20by%20sector
This means that only 44% of U.S. oil consumption is in the form of gas engine cars. What percentage of this would be converted to electricity if everyone drove a 40 mile E-REV?
July 8th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
#22 Dave G.
Actually, there’s a STRONG demand for large commercial trucks to be PHEV’s. It’s just that nobody has designed an affordable one, or designed one at all yet. It would save the entire commercial transportation industry billions by not having to fill up their trucks for $600 every few days….
alot of owner / operator truckers are going out of business because of gas prices. I’m sure if someone designed a semi truck engine that was a hybrid they’d save companies and drivers tons of money.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Dudes! You’re all saying that “a 2.2L” this and “a 2.4L” that are just fine, and I agree completely. It’s just that there is a world of difference in that small amount of extra displacement between those and a 2.0L, at least when it comes to acceleration. Even the guy who says he has a 2.0L and 2.2L Toyota has to admit that.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
#32 not all engines are measured JUST by their displacement. The 287 horse Mitsubishi evo has a 2.0L in it! I used to read tuner magazines before i read motor trend and it kind of let me in on that it’s more what you do with your displacement than how much there is total. Honda had/has a 1000HP racing engine, and it’s a 4 cylinder!
1.4L Turbo doesn’t bother me. Technology is perfectly capable of making it have enough power to drive normally.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Interesting video of oil man T. Boone Pickens talking about how world oil has peaked and how he’s putting his money on wind.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/07/08/pickens.plan/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
July 8th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Some work has been done on recapturing lost braking energy by mechanical means, usually by compressing a gas on decellaration, and using that energy in accellaration. Fedex famously planned to install such a system in it’s delivery vans before getting cold feet (don’t know current status). Note that in direct mechanical regeneration there are no losses incurred converting from mechanical to electrical energy, and back again. The problem is that the system adds a lot of complexity and weight, and tends to take up a lot of space; making it mostly a high-cost, commercial-only application for urban delivery and support vehicles that stop and start frequently.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
#31 Mike D says: “Actually, there’s a STRONG demand for large commercial trucks to be PHEV’s. It’s just that nobody has designed an affordable one, or designed one at all yet…
———————————————————————————–
That’s becuase the battery technology for long range commercial trucks doesn’t exist. With current technology, it would be way too expensive and heavy.
For long-haul trucks, bio-diesel from algae is a lot more viable. See this video for details:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ToojK_MJd0
If I drove a truck, I would be screaming about algae.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Consider that many cars today with 4-cylinder engines and decent performance are 16 valve, overhead-cam engines: which started out as “performance-only” enhancements for muscle cars.
Now it appears that another famous, formerly performance-only option, turbocharging, is set to become the latest way to get more from less, including fuel.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
#33 Mike D:
Absolutely right.
Yeah, back in the days of the 1500cc turbo F1 cars they made 1200+ hp in qualifying trim. Then they would dial them back to about 1000 for the race! Of course they ran about 60 pounds of boost, and they were good for about 10 qualifying laps at 1200 HP!
I think that Chevy has made over 1000 out of a 2.2 Ecotec turbo in a drag car.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I’ve become a believer in algae-to-biodiesel, mostly thanks to your links here in the past, Dave G, and think it holds much promise for not only over-the-road trucking but jet fuel.
Unfortunately, it’s going to take a long time to ramp such a new technology up to appreciable levels, once it’s final form (still under research) is established. No one should hold their breath waiting for 200 acres of greenhouses to be built surrounding every coal-fired plant in the country, for example.
As is the case with Wind Energy, the units can only be built and installed at a relatively modest rate, even with more-than-adequate investment, and other support.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
#14 Michael J. Walsh “Wait until you’ve had a car that can barely get out of it’s own way.”
I’ve had several such cars. One was a GM. It had 68hp, new from the factory and I’m sure it lost power over time. I got along fine with it. 99% of the driving experience is the driver.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
#21 Schmeltz “I just wonder if there is a market for a car such as this?”
Apparently there is because someone’s buying Yarises and Fits.
What I wonder is whether or not anyone will trust GM to make a car such as this.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
#18 Clark:
I hear you, but I can dream, can’t I? I have said many times that, if GM builds a car with mileage equal to a Yaris (39 hwy/33 city, if memory serves), I will buy one to bridge over to the Volt. So maybe I’ll have to put my money where my mouth is.
On the other hand, if it really has a 6 speed automatic, and if they used their “soft hybrid” system on it, and if they control the weight and optimize the aero, I am betting they could actually do it. How about a special high mileage option?
N Riley recently said on another thread that, if you need a new car, to buy a current Chevy and not wait for the Volt, which will not arrive in any quantity for several (3?, 4?, 5?) years. Then trade up to a Volt when it is finally available. I agree. Maybe this is it.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
By the way GM. Make a Cruze hybrid. If it gets 40 MPG without hybrid….it’d get 50 or 55 in the city with it.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
GM and Ford already make powerful engines getting 35+ mpg - they just don’t sell them in the US. Take a look at their worldwide sites.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Dagwood55, why do you mention the Yaris but not the Aveo? They’re practically twins, except the Aveo is slightly better looking.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Mike D #43 said:
“Make a Cruze hybrid.”
Couldn’t agree more.
Dagwood55 #41: I was making a joke when I questioned if there was a market for a car like the Cruze.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Where’s Statik? He’s supposed to be saying something negative about GM’s stock price by now.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
If you click on the Autobloggreen link at the bottom of the article you get a pretty good look at the front. Looks quite a bit like the peek Bob Boniface revealed as the final version of the Volt. The front on the picture a the top of this page actually looks a little bit like the dreaded Aztek. Again, I’ll say that the Volt is going to be a very nice looking vehicle. Why can’t it be revealed in the US?
July 8th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
#45 Paul-R:
Because the Yaris gets segment leading mileage, which the Aveo most decidedly does not. If the Aveo got the same mileage as the Yaris, I would be driving one. I am a strong Chevy supporter, even to the extent of buying a Daewoo in these troubled times. But I am not spending my money for a non-competitive product.
That’s why I have repeatedly challenged GM to raise their game with the Aveo, most recently on another thread here, yesterday if memory serves.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I like the look of the Cruze… Put on the right rims and grill and it can “look” very sporty!
July 8th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
looks an awful lot like an Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme….which is good, I loved that car.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Daveo:
…as a matter of fact, this very same 1.4 liter turbo is a new GM “world” engine, and they seem to be determined to spread it around just as widely as possible: including, most likely, the engine (regular-aspirated version) running the Volt’s generator.
I’m looking forward to seeing the Saturn version of the Cruze (if they don’t ax Saturn; and no, they didn’t ax me about axing Saturn
).
July 8th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
“Cruze”??? How about resurrecting some of the grand historic Chevy names, if it is really going to be a good car, and worthy of same. While some of them, Impala and Nova come to mind, have been somewhat devalued by being used on blah cars in recent years, the Malibu seems to be making something of a comeback.
Bel Air, Biscayne, Del Rey, Chevelle, 210, 150 - all resonate back to the glory days of the 50s and the 60s. Master DeLuxe, come to that. If it really was a world class car, I would be proud to drive a 2009 or 2010 Biscayne, for example.
These names have a heritage that Toyota, Honda, et al, cannot hope to match in our lifetimes. As long as they are not dishonored by being stuck on second rate cars, GM would seem to have a priceless resource here.
There are thusands of proud owners of stunningly preserved and restored examples of the above who would love nothing better than to see their babies in a commercial or a magazine ad linking their heritage to that of the reborn technological leader - General Motors.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
#53
All those cars you named were way bigger than the Cruze. How about the “Chevy Nova?” (just kidding….)
July 8th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Noel:
I think the problem with said “heritage” is that they were ALL gas suckers.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
This is a great idea that I hope to see more of.
Regarding MPG estimates from outside the US, keep in mind that the US gallon is smaller than what much of the rest of the world uses so the MPG figures may not be comparable. Vehicles rated in Miles Per Imperial Gallon will have ratings 20% higher than those rated in Miles Per US Gallon.
That, and the cycles used to calculate the MPG are most probably different.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
noel park:
Impala? Nova? Bel Air? Ewwww, no thank you. Old names from the dusty past is no way to set a new direction.
BTW: “Nova” in spanish means “no go.”
July 8th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
40 mpg is what the national average should be today if the EPA had any balls whatsoever. so this is good, if not long overdue.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
We all know what opinions are often compared to…..and now I will share mine:
The Chevy Cruze is not nearly as good looking as the Penelope version.
Although, the pic looks like it may have stolen one of her red carpet dresses.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
#49 noel park
Again, I must say I totally agree. I do not want to spend my hard earned money on an under performing vehicle. Not even GM’s vehicle. There is no good reason today why GM cannot produce a high mileage car that would be competitive with any other car manufacturer’s vehicle. They have got to start doing it. I think the 2008 Malibu is the start of that trend. I hope it continues with the 2009 Malibu and Impala and with the new Cruze.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
#47 Gary
“Where’s Statik? He’s supposed to be saying something negative about GM’s stock price by now”
No can do today, market had a nice rally into the close. Oil is off 9 bucks in a couple days, and GM is up 37 cents today.
Side note: I think the specs are already out on the new 1.4L aren’t they…for some reason 140HP sticks in my head.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
#53 Noel park
I find myself agreeing with you once again. Maybe you should just add my name to your ID for your comments.
I wish GM would use a historic name for the Cruze. What kind of name is that, anyway? Come on, GM. Get with the program. We are giving you a broad hint here. Listen up, Rick and company.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Jackson, 57
Old joke but that is no va, not nova.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I wonder why rollout is in Europe is set so far ahead of NA, for spring of 09. I guess their Delta platform line is ready to go? Strike while the iron is hot?
Lordstown, as I recall, can’t be operational until early 2010, so we won’t be ‘Cruzing’ until the summer of 2010
Side note: What was wrong with Cobalt? I thought it was a ok name. Nothing wrong with Cruze either I suppose…just seems like a waste of brand equity.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
#39 Jackson,
Yes, algae will take a while to ramp up, but I don’t think there’s any part of the technology that’s weak, so there’s probably not much more research needed, just normal development issues to deal with.
With world oil peaking, I think there will be a big push for alternative energy with a lot of new players. Alternative energy will start becoming a reality at a much faster pace.
For example, T. Boone Pickens made his billions on oil, but now he says oil has peaked, and he just put $2 billion into wind. He’s putting up wind turbines pretty fast…
July 8th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Well, GM could call the new car “Statik” because that is what you get before the electricity (Volt) strikes you. How about that, Statik? Naming it after you works, right?
July 8th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
61 Statik:
Thanks for being in a great, uplifting, and positive mood today!
July 8th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
All of the alternative energy methods seems to take up a lot of land. If T. Boone Pickens’ wind farm will only serve 1.5 million or so homes, then every large city would require one or two of these large wind farms. You are talking about requiring half of the available country side to be outfitted with wind turbines to supply electricity. The better choice would be to use the desert southwest to generate solar energy to electricity. I read somewhere that just a small part of New Mexico’s desert could supply most of the needs of the country. Am I off track here in my thinking?
July 8th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
No, you’re spot on, N Riley.
The problem with much alternate energy is that you have to install equipment where the energy is, and get it where it’s needed (almost always very far away from there). This is where a government-funded, transcontinental superconducting power line project would be really useful without getting the government directly into the energy business (analogous to the Interstate Hwy system and it’s corresponding economic benefits).
I believe the quote about Solar energy is based on a thermal conversion technology, and yes, I recall hearing something like that too. Again, the problem is that there aren’t many cities out on the windswept plains, or the deserts of the Southwest; and a lot of power gets lost on expensive high-tension lines.
It’s an attractive notion to realize that when it’s after dark in NYC, there’s sunlight still falling in NM.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Funny how that “small part of New Mexico desert” keeps getting referenced ….
I didnt hear or read about it with solar but I have heard it being talked about with the algae-biodeisel idea….that’s where I’ve heard it before.
DaveG is all over it, among many other great ideas (see his link on #36) which I have seen a while ago….LOVE the algae-to-jet-fuel idea (closed circuit version)
July 8th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I drive a 1.5L Toyoto right now that is MORE than adequate.
Just look at displacement and auto sizes in Europe for example.
We here in North America have got to realize that it is 100% selfish to want a HUGE 8 seater SUV to go get groceries.
Gimmie a break.
The arguments :
1.) But I LIKE big cars!
- WHO CARES.
2.) I feel SAFE in big cars!
- If everyone wasn’t driving one - you wouldn’t have to worry about a 8000lb YUKON EXPIDITION EXTENDED CAB 14 seater rear ending you. These useless vehicles wouldn’t exist
3.) I like 300hp!
- So do I! But in the end - WHO CARES? Make it a hobby - not your daily driver.
4.) I can’t merge on the highway with a dinky car!
- Sure you can. I do it every day. With my 1.5L Ter-kelle. I make it each and every time - and that’s WITH the fatties on the road still.
We really need a mental shift to small cars.
Cars are transportation. They get you from A to B.
Sure - I love cars - I have owned many - but the time has come to act for the sake of the environment and the stability of your very own country!!
For the love of god - if having your 8 seater Extended Expidition Yukon Denali with 400hp worth having your country cruble at it’s very foundation - mobility!?
Wake up. Cheap gas is gone.
It was fun. It’s time to move on.
Peace.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
#70 Murray
It may have been desert land in Arizona or Nevada. I can’t remember for sure, but it was in the southwest. That where we have the most sunshine along with Texas which is a vast area in itself.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Here it comes,
Here comes GM’s Volt
It’s electric for real.
It’s electric and it’s gonna be burning allot less fuel.
It has a plug so you can charge it if you want.
It won’t need any gas, and that I’m sure you’ll flaunt.
And when the distance gets greater
And you, think there’s no juice left.
You bet the ICE will turn on
It will see you through.
Go GM Volt, Go GM Volt, Go GM Volt GO!!!
July 8th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Michael J. Walsh@#^
“That is NOT the Beat sized vehicle I’ve been expecting too see.
Also, if it’s even close to being Cobalt sized, a 1.4L engine, even turbocharged, is going to be woefully inadequate.”
****************************
Another expert who don’t even know the HP or anything much about the car. Can’t you wait and see before being negative.?
July 8th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Lyle,
Could you get someone to sing post #73 and play it on the home page? I’ll crank those computer speakers up!
July 8th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I just bought an ‘08 Cobalt two months ago. The power is decent and it’s not even turbocharged. Give me the same engine with a turbocharger and I’d be really happy!! I only paid $9,600 out the door, so I can’t complain. It’s my commuter (when I’m not on my motorcycle) so it does what I need it to do.
July 8th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Well you simply cannot get everything: powerful engine, excellent acceleration, bunch of features *AND* excellent fuel efficiency. You have to compromise some place. There are plenty of models having lots of power and features doing 20 mpg. If that rocks your boat then don’t look at this car.
Expectations in Europe are different due to much higher fuel prices. They have 1.3L engines standard in many cars, not just small ones. At the same time they drive shorter distances so top speed is not a big deal.
I have a 1995 Civic CX, 1.5L I4 about 100 hp
Therefore, you can expect this one to be around 120 hp (better tek) and with turbo even more. Clearly acceleration is still going to be weaker than 150-200hp engines that seem to be standard these days. However, due to higher prices the average speed will drop and aggressive driving will become less common. So for the future world when people drive slower and are more relaxed this car will be the norm.
I don’t have a tach, so cannot tell how hard my engine works except by sound. At 50-60 mph it doesn’t break a sweat (mostly driving alone though). Thereafter it starts to spin faster, work harder.
So trying to guess here, this car will do just fine at lower speed up to 60mph, using turbo as needed to get more power. For a relaxed driver turbo should work sparingly and car will work just fine.
The only request I have is to include a simple start/stop system when idle at traffic lights. Even if it is activated by a simple switch that keeps computer and all the systems powered, just kills ICE temporarily. That could save still more fuel.
Again, if low fuel consumption is not a priority then don’t look at this car. For the rest of us, it is about time :):):)
P.S.: My Civic does 40-60mpg, *BUT* has a lot of plastic - very light and less safe than modern cars, so not a fair comparison.
July 8th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I think GM could get considerably more mileage out of their cars by changing the transmission…
By the time I get to 80km/h, my car is in 4th gear. (2200ish rpm)
By the time I get to 100km/h (60mph) it’s @ 3000rpm
Any faster and its only going to climb more.
Using a 6 speed automatic would probably make it easier on the engine and use less gas, correct?
Also, the aveo sucks. I’m sorry, but for the one less mile per gallon fuel economy my sunfire can accelrate much faster, and has more power.
(how does that work, anyway? How could GM screw it up so much that reducing engine size from 2.4L to 1.6L and giving it a more aerodynamic shape only gave them 1 more mpg?)
July 8th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Don’t forget the TEMPEST if you want a great retro name. I think wind and solar are both great. There is a new solar energy plant outside Boulder City NV which can supply power for 120,000 homes. TED
July 8th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
noel park
#18 Clark:
“I hear you, but I can dream, can’t I? I have said many times that, if GM builds a car with mileage equal to a Yaris (39 hwy/33 city, if memory serves), I will buy one to bridge over to the Volt. So maybe I’ll have to put my money where my mouth is.”
*******************************************
Not only can GM match the Yaris in MPG, it does it with a compact “Cobalt XFE” as compared to the sub compact Yaris. You have to know that the Yaris is no longer 39 MPG with the new 2008 EPA ratings. It is now rated 36 MPG on the highway.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm
http://forums.motortrend.com/70/6689790/the-general-forum/no-more-excuses-chevy-cobalt-gets-better-fuel-econ/index.html
July 8th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Dave G @ #30
I’m thinking you know the asnwers to your question but I’ll bite.
Assuming that 50% (DOE says 45% but it’s low for reasons beyond what we’re doing here) of our oil is used for transportation and that 80% of all vehicles go less than 40 miles/day, then if all vehicles could go 40 miles on battery power the demand would be cut by 40%.
If the remaining vehicles doubled their mileage, either by going some part of the mileage on battery power or by using a more effecient battery/engine serial hybrid power system, that would cut demand by another 5%. (Keep in mind you get twice as much benefit going from 10 mpg to 20 mpg as you do going from 20 mpg to 40 mpg).
So overall demand would be cut by 45%.
The savings would be far more. Far far more. And it wouldn’t take that long to start. Why? Two reasons. First, because demand and supply are fairly inelastic in the short run, small drops in demand will lead to relatively large price drops, just as small increases in demand are now leading to relatively large price increases.
Second is that longer term demand destruction will lead to much greater supply. The primary driver of the current price run-up is flat supply. Why is supply flat? Simple. Oil producers can either leave their oil in the ground or sell it. If the expectation is that the price of oil is rapidly going up, then they have every incentive to leave it in the ground. Better to hoard than sell.
The day oil producers are convinced US demand for oil is going to drop significatly over the long run then the equation changes and they will start releasing supply because selling it today will bring in more than selling it next year. The hoarding will turn to panic selling, and prices will drop rapidly as more supply comes on the market.
So oil demand destruction fueled by technology saves on two fronts. It cuts the amount of oil we need to buy, and it cuts the price we have to buy it at.
(As a complete aside, if you compare that double savings to the non-existent benefits of adding insignificant amounts of oil from domestic production — which will not affect either demand or price — the moronic nature of the “drill here drill now” campaign becomes obvious.)
July 8th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
noel park
#45 Paul-R:
“Because the Yaris gets segment leading mileage, which the Aveo most decidedly does not. If the Aveo got the same mileage as the Yaris, I would be driving one.”
************************************
As strange as it may seem, the Cobalt XFE which is a bigger car than the Yaris and the Aveo, gets the same highway mpg as the Yaris.
http://forums.motortrend.com/70/6689790/the-general-forum/no-more-excuses-chevy-cobalt-gets-better-fuel-econ/index.html
July 8th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
In europe many countries charge tax on a car by the size of the engine - hefty taxes - so automakers have found ways to eek out ever last horsepower for a given displacement.
As far as Hybrids for delivery trucks, CNN posted an article on their site a day or two ago that featured a Dodge Sprinter plug in electric panel van.
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/autos/0806/gallery.plugins/7.html
The article mentions the Volt and Vue as well.
July 8th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Dave G@#34
Yup, T. Boone is putting his money on wind. Not such a bad bet given that wind is cost competitive with coal.
The missing link in his ads proclaiming that we have to replace oil with wind created electricity: we use oil for vehicles and we use use electricity for just about everything but vehicles. Hard to see how one would be a substitute for the other.
He needs the Volt to make this missing link in his argument work. Maybe he’ll buy GM to supply it!
The other thing he’s putting his money on are the Democrats. Last election cycle he bankrolled the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry. This cycle he’s made clear he’s not supporting any conservative political operations. Think he’s blowing with the political winds? Think he might be angling for some incentives from the feds?
July 8th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Statik #64
Tah’ daaaahhhhhhh….I actually agree with all three parts of your post.
Wahduhhyaah think….all the planets lined up or what? Gotta’ be a first! I’ve said it before, YOU’RE not always wrong!
Part 3….I’m thinking GM wants to put a new face on a very efficient car, and just maybe they think good or bad that the name Cobalt has been somewhat tarnished by association with the era of Hummer, Suburban, and Tahoe. Just a guess.
July 8th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
#25 Paul
The knock on flywheels is that they would improve city driving at the expense of highway efficiency b/c they are heavy. New materials like carbon-fibre composites can allow them to be lighter, but then they have to spin and much higher rpms (potential energy of a spinning disc is proportional to its mass * velocity (rpm)). This causes cost and safety concerns. Regenative breaking can be accomplished with battery electric hybridization, and hydraulics. flywheels might work on communter trains with ‘local’ stops. large trucks tend to do a lot of highway mileage.
July 8th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I think the 1.4L will be fine for a Cobalt-sized car, my Passat has a 1.8L turbo engine, and it accelerates plenty fast. And I also have heard 140hp, which again, will be plenty. If they can make this a global car, and a global engine, they should be able to make some serious cost savings. And based on GM’s recent models, it is going to be a class leader. I can’t wait. I hope it is built in Lordstown in spring 2009.
July 8th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Canehdian # 77
“(how does that work, anyway? How could GM screw it up so much that reducing engine size from 2.4L to 1.6L and giving it a more aerodynamic shape only gave them 1 more mpg?)”
*** *** ***
The simple answer is that the 1.6 must work harder. I don’t have the figures you reference, but I’m assuming you’re talking about highway mileage. If so, this is the same reason my 3.4 V-6 gets better highway mileage than the same model car with a 2.4 I-4.
July 8th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Wow, somebody that actually knows what they are talking about. See Governor Richardson on Plug in and electric cars. Wish all candidates would be this open about it. I have already sent emails to my congressman and senator for my area. (must see video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv6j9Y5yFpk
I want my volt now!
July 8th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
GM… if they wanted to …. could give us cars with the Delta platform that would give 80 + MPG….. Today…. If they wanted to….
My 07 MAXX… with about $ 800 in mods is getting over 30 MPG (Candian — City) and over 40 MPG (Canadian) on the highway right now… more than pays for itself in gas savings @ todays gas prices.
Couple that with a 6 speed auto and I could probably get 20 % better milage…
Come on GM…. you are in $$$$$ Trouble now… get the SUPER milage cars out there NOW and you won’t be in trouble any more..
and they do not have to be small boxes either.
Ray
July 8th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Unless I missed it, I haven’t seen any reference as to whether or not the new 1.4T will be E85 capable. Again, I can’t see reason why it shouldn’t be at the modest cost per vehicle, or why GM shouldn’t E85 blanket cover their new lineup. Makes total sense moving forward!
July 8th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
News Flash
Not sure if this is factual, but this article claims that the Volt could hit showroom floors by September of next year in North America!
http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-to-launch-volt-ahead-of-schedule-in-2009.html
July 8th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
So they’re thinking, according to leftlane, of releasing the Volt in 2009, and according to Car and Driver, the Cruze won’t come out in the US until mid-2010, a year after Europe gets it. Those timelines make no sense. I really wish the Cruze and Beat could come out in spring 2009.
July 8th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
I hope we can get it next year.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Statik and Dan are right. The 1.4L turbo is a 140hp engine.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/28/general-motors-to-introduce-smaller-1-4l-turbo-on-us-small-cars/
July 8th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
To those who seem disenchanted with the Chevy Aveo (relative to Yaris/Fit)…
Just wondering if you were looking at the recently redesigned 2009 model? The 2009 reviews I’ve seen have been pretty positive, noting that its mileage and interior quality have been improved, making it a better match for the Yaris/Fit.
As Joe mentioned, the larger Cobalt is another great alternative, although (understandably) the cost is higher.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Will future Chevy marketing look this way ?
Come into the dealer to see the Volt.
Oops, Volt too expensive, buy the (relatively) inexpensive Cruze.
It’s worked before, with the Corvette.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Grizzly #84 and Statik #64,
As GM moves toward a “lithium power” marketing plan they may be thinking of distancing themselves from “cobalt”, as in lithium + cobalt = thermal runaway. Maybe they’ll have a “ferrous” model out next?
July 8th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Great mileage. Maybe that’ll be my first car out of law school.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Re #96, I like this Volt/Cruze marketing plan because it does all the following–
1 Takes advantage of the Volt sizzle.
2 Gives dealers a less expensive car to sell that (presumably) has similar size and nice (if not quite as nice) appointments. While it is not “no gas”, it just takes “very tiny sips” of gas, much better than most people’s current car.
3 Allows GM to keep Volt prices high as long as battery prices are high, and at the same time keeps the Volt as an active and profitable model, even if at relatively low volume
Simple as 1-2-3. And somehow I doubt I’m the only person to think of this plan
July 8th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
I wish the bowtie would just slap an E-FLEX powertrain in the Cobalt or Cruze and sell it for under $25k.
Somewhat ironic, you may have a choice between the Cobalt or the “Cruze”.
Don’t think I’ve ever seen an instance were Gen 1 competes against it’s Gen 2 replacement…
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080602/FREE/516060181/1023/rss01&rssfeed=rss01&no_cj_c=1
July 8th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
#79 & #81 Joe:
Cobalt xfe 25 city - 36 highway - 29 combined
Yaris 29 city - 36 highway - 32 combined
Stick vs. stick
Pretty impressive for the Cobalt, I must admit. Alas, my wife will not drive a stick any more. I don’t have time tonight, but I will go back in the AM and compare auto vs. auto.
Thanks. It gives me a lot of hope for the Cruze
July 8th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
I really don’t know what the big deal about 40 mpg is. I have a 99 Cavalier 5 speed and I get consistanly between 33 to 35 mpg. By now that same engine they should have been able to improve to get at least 45 mpg. Where and what have you been doing Chevy for the last 9 years.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
One important question no one is asking: will the Cruze generate any profits for GM? GM is notorious for losing money selling small cars.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
#104 hung
For the first time since anyone knows when, the most important thing WRT GM’s going concern is liquidity and long term viability. This means that if GM has to sell a small car for peanuts, it’ll do so so long as development costs (unlike that of hybrids
) aren’t significant. This will ensure cash flow at minimal cost.
The important thing here is that no car company on earth has a better LT strategy than GM. It’s just a matter of getting there. The fact that the Cruize will be here next year signifies that most of the work has already been done at min cost. This IS important.
E-flex will dominate, it’s just a matter of time. Time must be bought at minimal cost, and the cruze and it’s siblings will do just that, as well as offer a very efficient car at minimal cost.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
I agree with many of the posts. The Volt could turn out to be nothing more than a halo car.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Hi Terryk,
Even if the Volt is just a halo car (something I still doubt) that is still a very valuable thing to have. Case in point … here in the midwest, Toyota (and I’m not making this up) actually pitches fuel efficiency as one of the reasons to buy their Tundra (13 MPG city). The ad goes something like “and you don’t need to worry about fuel costs, because the Tundra is made by Toyota, creators of the incredibly fuel efficient Prius”. Yes, I’m serious.
I assume people are falling for this, else Toyota wouldn’t keep running the ads. That’s the power of a halo car.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
#DA, thanks for the reply.
I understand the physics of flywheels (I have two engineering degrees), so I view the problems you mentioned as simple engineering issues that need resolution. And if those issues were already resolved today, I think a flywheel energy-store could be manufactured more cheaply than a battery-based one. I’m thinking of a relatively small motor/generator/flywheel combo that wouldn’t impact overall weight much.
The only reason I can think that this direction is not (apparently) being pursued (and I hope I’m right), is that by the time they perfected the design and manufacture, the motor/generator/battery approach (which fits the electric car model better) will be just as cheap to make.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Is this the same 1.4L engine that is to be used just to power the generator on the Volt?
July 9th, 2008 at 12:37 am
The Volt may be a halo car…but E-FLEX will change the very definition of “car”.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:31 am
I think the Cruze will be a big hit! It’s sleek, fuel efficient, and a good Civic/Corolla/etc. fighter. If they add in that start/stop feature on the engine, thatd be great. Hope they have an SS version!
#107, lol that should be illegal what Toyota’s doing.
July 9th, 2008 at 4:13 am
Coming from Europe (and eagerly waiting for a plug-in as we’re around $9 per gallon and I have 50 miles daily commute), I’m a little confused about the gas milages you get. We’ve got two cars: One A180CDI (Daimler), one BMW 530d.
From the onboard displays, I average around 52-53 mpg (Imperial) on the Benz (110HP), this translates into roughly 43 mpg (US). My daily commute is around 50% highway (slow driving, around 65-70mpg), 50% city.
The 530d (3.0L, 6cyl, 230HP) averages 30mpg (US). On the highway I get close to 40 mpg at the slower speeds (65mph). At cruise speeds of 90-100mph it’s still average around 30mpg. City driving ends up with 21-24 mpg (depending on traffic). Mind you, this is a pre-EfficientDynamics model.
Granted, both are Diesel-engines ….
Celestar
July 9th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Celestar,
You answered your own question. I think diesel generally gets 10% to 20% better efficiency. So if you had gasoline engines instead then your numbers would be lower, below 40 mpg.
The other difference is that US cars tend to be loaded with features that use some of engine power, lowering mpg yet more. Power steering for instance takes away 1-2 mpg. We use AC a lot, so there goes another 5 mpg. etc.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:00 am
“Also, if it’s even close to being Cobalt sized, a 1.4L engine, even turbocharged, is going to be woefully inadequate.”
Actually I was thinking that a 1.4L engine alone without the turbocharger would be plenty powerful enough, if not moreso. Maybe the person who thinks it’s not powerful enough needs to stop eating so much, or something.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
What is this doing on the volt site?? THis is a typical economy carwhich has been around for over half a decade. This car isnt any better than a typical honda civic or toyota corolla…GM needs to stop wasting resources on this old junk and develope new technology.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
THOM, I think this sentence from Lyle’s article explains why he posted it:
“It is a global compact Delta car, as is the Volt, and will be sold worldwide.”
I would think a second vehicle sharing the same chassis should help distribute some of the Volt R&D costs. Plus it’s Lyle’s site, so he’s free to post whatever he wants. Realistically, GM cannot just “stop wasting resources on this old junk” because the old junk still generates nearly all their income. I agree they need to “develop new technology” …. that’s the Volt.
July 9th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
City Highway Combined
Cobalt xfe 25 36 29
Cobalt auto 22 31 26
Yaris stick 29 36 32
Yaris auto 29(!) 35 31
2009 Aveo 5 25 34 28
(only one rating listed -
stick same as auto?
I assume that some of the same tricks which improved the Cobalt stick would work on the auto. Low rolling resistance tires, fiddling with the engine management programs, higher final drive ratio (just a guess on my part). So how about an xfe auto?
Also, maybe the Cobalt guys could go to Korea and hold a seminar on how to do the same thing with the Aveo. It must weigh 4-500# less, so what’s the problem?
Thanks again Joe for the thought provoking and educational links. I am really encouraged by them.
July 9th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Sorry about the numbers all jammed together. I had them spread out across the page, but somehow they ended up like this.
July 9th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
When you click edit it comes up the way I originally typed it, but when you come back it looks like this?????????? Sorry.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Re #58
Your point would make more sense if you even knew a little of what you spoke about, but you don’t. NHTSA administers CAFE not EPA. EPA puts the ever-changing stickers on the windows. Those are NOT used to meet the mileage standards. The CAFE method that is unchanged does,so that a cosntant baseline exists to show how far we have come.
As for example the VW bug used the same CAFE measuring methods to achieve all of 16 mpg back in the 1970s.
Do you have any idea what the presently achieved CAFE is?
It almost 32 mpg in the most recent year. http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/excel/table_04_23.xls
I wouldn’t doubt that for the 2008 model year, autos will achieve 35 mpg CAFE. Obviously trucks won’t.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
#68
Your comment is only slightly off. If you used Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico you could generate about one third of the present US electricity. Of course that would involve killing about a million species and frying every plant and and animal into extinction, in the three States and probably the surrounding ones as well.
Solar is dangerously polluting when used on a large scale. It alters the ratio of sun energy absorbed to reflected; scientifically called the Albedo, and heats the Earth.
Are we not supposed to be fighting global warming?
It is very inefficient; throwing away about 90% of the newly absorbed heat. This waste heat will just be thermal pollution. It woud raise the average temperature to 150 degrees or more in those States, killing millions of plants and animals and driving many into extinction.
Just imagine trying to get an Environmental Impact Statement approval.”… We will drive about a million species into extinction. We wil turn the aree of three states into the the surface of a Mars, devoid of life….”
Oh I forgot when the the EPA recently imposed a moratoria on applications until some proposals obtained a required EIS.
The howling objections of the eco-wackos were such that Environmental Impact Statements don’t need approval any more, despite what the Law says, for the first time sine 1970!
I predict the eco-wackos will rue the day they did that. What goes around, comes around.
I, a true environmentalist, would never let any big project go without an EIS. Even as I agree some EIS procedures have been used to delay and stall some projects. That is what an EIS was meant to do, raise issues, within reasonable limits.
July 9th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
T Boone Pickens is blowing smoke. There is a major problem with wind power that is only now becoming evident in Europe and has already happened in Texas.
Instantaneous variable generation as the wind changes, creates oscillations in the Grid, that EEs have not been used to addressing, on that scale. With relatively stable generation, they can handle instantaneously chanting small consumption demands that statistically represents only a small oscillation in the grid. But when variable power generations large amounts from a wind farm declines because the wind effects all the same mills, the power oscillations are large enough to destabilize the grid. This creates grid wide blackouts. Such have occurred in Europe in the Netherlands and Britain and Texas.
So wind and solar obstructed by clouds are both limited tot less than 20% of the Grid or even significant subsets of it.
Windmills have a life expectancy much shorter than other generation. Most windmills are worn out in only nine years, the variable stresses in bearings, rotors and exposure to the elements result in only 9 year lifetimes per the UK power utility experience that manages 2000 windmills.
They have an up time of only 24.1%. That is in contrast to Nuclear and Coal plants that achieve over 90% up time generating power. So wind is available much less than other generation. They must be shut down when wind is less than 8 mph and over 33 mph, for example ands seldom run at rated nameplate power.
Experience with Wind is revealing that our ancestors were not dopes when they abandoned it as a source of electric generation in the early electric years. And no it wasn’t a Conspiracy for you left-wing Kos kids.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:36 am
At #14 and #6
“Wait until you’ve had a car that can barely get out of it’s own way.
A 2.0L non-turbo engine is just barely adequate for an intermediate sized car (speaking from expereince). So, I figure, the 1.4L turbo engine will be the same way.”
Are you kidding, my Scion XB has a small 1.5L engine with 93HP to the wheels and it is more than adequate for anyhtiing that most people would ever need. I regularly get 36MPG and have gotten 41 when hypermiling. I have never had any problems pulling out into traffic or getting out of the way of an approching vehicle.
July 14th, 2008 at 10:22 am
I have a Skoda Fabia 2.0L Turbo Diesel that easily does 46 mpg (US) combined and 0-60 in 10 seconds. I can get 54 mpg (US) out of it if I am carefull.
40 mpg is not that good…..
(Look at the Skoda Octavia 2.0L TD as well.)
With fuel prices going up I certainly wouldn’t look at anything in the UK with less than 41 mpg (US) combined. At least people in the USA are now thinking about fuel running out and the resulting crash in the world economy. The third world are still using horses and carts and still make a living. Looks like they will be sitting pretty whilst we think about which end of a horse to feed the hay in
Also, Biofuel is not the answer, unless you want to run your car whilst millions starve to death.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:07 am
While everyone here is excited about the serial hybrid technology (and should be) with the upcoming Volt, there is another technology at work here. The new direct injected gasoline turbo engines are a generation ahead of everything else. Look at the Solstice Turbo (or Cobalt SS). 260 hp from a 2.0L four and gets considerably better mileage than the non-turbo Ecotec (which is still a great engine). Simple scaling gets a 1.4L four at 180+ hp which would be more than enough to get you down the road with a smile (and a full wallet!). Gee, you could even lop one cylinder off and get an engine that sounds a lot like what is proposed for the Volt, except tuned for slow, constant speed operation to be used as an efficient generator. Ford is going the same direction, but is behind. Toyota has nothing to compete. Maybe they can start buying engines from GM instead of Yamaha.