In chatting with Lieberman today, it became clear that GM has more engines than it really needs in its U.S. lineup. They also have too many brands, too many models, too many employees, too many factories, too many dealerships and too much debt. Those issues notwithstanding, engines are the order of the day. And I think GM could get by with only four engines. I just recently experienced the explosive 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder from the Pontiac Solstice GXP, Saturn Sky Redline, and Chevy Cobalt/HHR SS. The transversely or longitudinally-mounted mill makes 260 horsepower. It should be GM's base engine. Next up: GM's 3.6-liter direct injection V6, currently residing in the Cadillac CTS. It's smooth and has plenty of torque, but it could use more power– especially next to the 260hp turbo four. If they could push the V6 to 340 horses, they'd be all set (ahem, turbo). At the top of GM's automotive range: the 6.2-liter LS3 V8 that's presently in the Corvette. There's nothing to say about this engine except that it's perfect. Finally, GM probably needs a separate V8 for the trucks, even if the LS3 is a fairly close relative of current V8s in GM's truck stable. And that's it. Two-liter turbo four, 3.6-liter V6, 6.2-liter V8, and a truck V8. So I put it to you, TTAC's best and brightest: what does GM need to do on the engine front?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
These engine choices would be great if they met all the price points required for their intended models. If not, how about non-turbocharged versions for more basic applications?
a turbo will instantly add more than $1000 to the price–not good for budget cars with an I4.
also, i believe you’re thinking of the LS3. i drove the LS2 and fell in lust. gotta try the LS3
-1.6 liter four-cylinder
-2.0 liter four-cylinder (turbo and non-turbo versions)
-3.0+ liter six-cylinder
-small-block V-8
-larger V-8
-large diesel for trucks
Obviously, these can be tweaked for various specific purposes. Why they would need more, I don’t know.
i would add a smaller I4 with roughly 150hp.
@PCH101:
Why bother with the 1.6 liter 4? Just make a naturally aspirated 2.0 the base engine, no?
Why bother with the 1.6 liter 4? Just make a naturally aspirated 2.0 the base engine, no?
For a subcompact, and possibly a super-frugal compact.
That, and an engine of that size should be a world engine, if it built well enough. (For what it’s worth, the Aveo has a 1.6 liter engine.)
Of course, this presumes that GM builds a competitive subcompact for Americans, which doesn’t seem likely.
Aside: did anyone else catch this article at detnews.com about how the much maligned 3400 OHV engines made in Shanghai, China are then sent via Japan to pick up the adjoining transmissions, prior to delivery and final assembly in Ontario?
I think you’ve just about nailed it. With creative fuel mapping, you could have interesting combinations of power vs. mpg (malibu and cts both get the 3.6, but malibu gets less power, better mileage)
I just think you need to include a high efficiency, NA version of the 2.0L motor for base model Cobalts and Aveos and the like.
Reuse of engines = fiscal goodness. See: Nissan.
They are also going to need a more torque rich v6 for their small SUVs/Trucks. The 5 cyl is lame and should be put to rest.
Ford has suffered from having way too many engines(and vehicle platforms for that matter) for years. Just in V6, they have the 3.0ohv, two versions of the 3.0dohc(old gen), 3.5dohc(new gen), 3.7dohc(lincoln) 4.0sohc, 4.2ohv…. Apparently this will be ‘cleaned up’ pretty soon going all to the 3.5 duratec family with EcoBoost turbo/DI variations of the same motor. All of these engines means not enough money to spread around to get any one of them perfect(as with platforms). They are on the right path, but waiting for revolutionary products like the EccoBoost 3.5 TT DI motors is getting old. Ford talking about it for 5 years before releasing it may have something to do with it too like the Flex which has been shown production-ready on the Ford website for over a year now….By the time they blow the budget on a sturdy and overengineered platform(because many Americans don’t care about such things anyway), they come up short on the interior bits and final refinement.
The Japanese makes tend to make do with 3-4 motors for the entire line (with a few cylinder head options for each) and can get 20 models out of 5-6 core platforms. Even if the nuts-and-bolts of the major platforms of a Toyota seem skimpy and very rudimentary, they have the extra money and time to spend refining the platform and engines and turn a product that makes a profit. A Corolla is a quiet, well built vehicle with a smooth motor and tightly fit dash, and so nobody cares that the platform is no more modern then the Dodge Omni.
Justin: the photo caption says it all.
If you’re suggesting every Aveo and base Cobalt (for those looking for good mileage) come with only the 260hp EcoTec, what have you and Jonny been smoking?
What GM’s engine line-up is most missing is the highly fuel efficient small engines, to compete with the Fit, Yaris, Corolla, Civic, etc.
What they really need is a turbo 1.4 or 1.6, like VW’s TSFI. That’s the future.
Paul:
I was anticipating someone would say exactly what you’ve said. A few thoughts:
1. Maybe they do need a 2.0 naturally aspirated engine. I know the post says turbo, but perhaps the post should be expanded to say the 2.0 engine, with and without turbo – same for the 3.6 liter V6.
2. Maybe GM shouldn’t be selling the Aveo in the U.S.
3. The bigger picture is that maybe having the best standard power in most classes wouldn’t be the end of the world for GM. Even if 260 hp wouldn’t necessarily work in the everyday Aveo, the thought experiment is useful.
@kevinb120:
The Japanese makes tend to make do with 3-4 motors for the entire line (with a few cylinder head options for each)
So this isn’t entirely true. Look at Toyota, which also has too many damn engines. They’ve got a 1.5, 1.8, 2.4, 2.7, 3.5, 4.0 V6, 4.3 V8, 4.6, 4.7, and 5.7.
All this talk about bhp and nothing about mpg.
Justin, do you honestly believe that 260bhp should be a base engine?
Gas prices are going through the roof; people are losing their homes because they can’t afford to pay their mortgages and you think 260bhp ‘should be in practically every GM car as the base engine’.
Maybe, if I view the world through adolescent eyes I can agree with you…
Actually, looking into the future it’s hard not to believe they are going to need something very small, let’s say a 4 cylinder about a Litre displacement.
JB nailed it, GM has too many mills. However, I’ll wager the redundant engines in their lineup are made by old-guard union factories. It’s probably in their contract to keep those factories humming.
All GM really needs is the Ecotec family, the new 3.6L six, and one eight for their trucks.
Why do you think the Mustang is saddled with the Cologne SOHC 4.0L 6cyl, a design that dates back 40 yrs? The union bosses wanted to keep that factory running as demand for SUVs lapsed. Probably same deal for GM’s 3.8L six, a venerable but outdated design.
Justin: Maybe GM shouldn’t be selling the Aveo in the U.S.
Minor detail for you arm-chair captains of industry: and just how is GM going to meet the 35mpg CAFE rules? With 260hp Cobalts? They need to sell a lot more Aveos, but better ones, with a more efficient engine, smaller than the 2.0.
driving course: I would argue that outside of Chevy, should any GM brand offer anything less than 260 hp as a baseline?
Should Buicks have less power than that? Saabs? Hummers? Pontiacs?
Really?
You can call it adolescent, but I say that lowering sights creates Cimarrons.
@Paul Niedermeyer:
I think the Aveo does more damage to Chevrolet than it would cost in hypothetical cafe fines if they didn’t have it.
More importantly, saying “sell more Aveos, better Aveos, more efficient Aveos” is every bit as armchair quarterback.
Why not just build the Opel Corsa right here in the U.S. with a 1.6 liter engine? I’d add that to my list if the car was available for it.
Jonny: You can call it adolescent, but I say that lowering sights creates Cimarrons.
The Cimarron had 88hp. The ONLY 3-series of the same time sold in the US (318i) had 98hp. The Cimarron’s problems went beyond issues of horsepower in those (wonderful) times.
Justin:
So this isn’t entirely true. Look at Toyota, which also has too many damn engines. They’ve got a 1.5, 1.8, 2.4, 2.7, 3.5, 4.0 V6, 4.3 V8, 4.6, 4.7, and 5.7.
Yea, but most of those are pairs of the same core block/cylinder head setup, like the VQ series 3.5/3.7/4.0 V6’s of Nissan. The Ford stuff is mostly from entirely different engines they keep dragging along and never supplanting into new product releases.
The D35 was supposed to come out in 03-05 for the Five Hundred(which was also 2 years late) and could be the V6 now in the Explorer, Mustang, Fusion, F150, Escape, Ranger, that all have different V6’s(well Mustang/Explorer are the same) And not just have D35’s only in the Taurus/Edge. All the other’s are in the 200hp range regardless of how many cams or valves or displacement, and the D35 is in the modern 260+hp class. They need to quickly get in the mindset similar to Nissan and its VQ, which is the Japanese equivalent to the ‘Hemi’. With a great engine you can build an entire automotive line around it.
2.0T as the smallest, base engine? Earth to Justin, it’s 2008, and the gas is 3.55 for regular.
GM needs fuel efficiency. How about 1.4 TDI?
@Jonny Lieberman: should any GM brand offer anything less than 260 hp as a baseline?
Hell yes. 100 hp is more than most commuters can ever use in urban areas. What do you folks live next to, race tracks?
Does GM have more engine models in production than Toyota, Honda and Nissan combined? IMWTK.
@Kevinb120:
I agree – Ford really needs to get that 3.5 liter into all the bigger cars and SUVs. Not sure why the Mustang has the 4.0, but it’s a mistake.
@hwyhobo:
As the post says, the 2.0T should be base in “practically” everything.
In almost all GM cars, this engine would improve the current mileage. Consider the Malibu’s current 4-cylinder 22/30 rating. In the admittedly lighter but still RWD Solstice GXP, the 2.0T gets 21/29 mpg. If the 2.0T were tweaked for economy more than performance as it in the Solstice, it could easily beat the Malibu’s 4-banger.
The obvious rubs are the Cobalt and the Aveo, both of which are terrible sellers anyway that hurt GM’s image.
It’s unfortunate that the 270 HP Vortec I-6 is stuck in that lump of a Trailblazer. I haven’t had the pleasure of driving the new 3.6 DI V6 yet, but it’s hard to imagine it being torquier or smoother than the Vortec. I’d like to see it as the base engine in the Camaro (yeah, i know, it wouldn’t fit…..but it should, car should have a long enough engine compartment to stuff an I-6 to be a proper throwback to long hood short deck styling)
I would agree on the 2.0. The 2.5 Nissan uses with the CVT returns very good mileage in the Altima and Rogue. Ford’s got the same idea, 2.0 turbo DI in the works. Of course, B-class cars would use a smaller 4, but both GM and Ford already have motors available from Europe that would work(along with the cars themselves for that matter).
You’re right that GM doesn’t need so many engine families or even engine models. However those four aren’t enough.
There is no hope of making a competitive economy car with the turbo 2.0 because of the cost of manufacturing the turbo motor and the requirement of premium fuel. However the 1.8L Ecotec with the DI system would probably be great.
Likewise none of your four are appropriate for “budget” compact pickups, CUVs, or “work truck” fullsize pickups. I would keep the 210 hp, 2.8L V6 from the last-gen CTS for this purpose since it would suffice and from the same family as the 3.6L.
I think the 4.8L LS-based V8 would also be a great, both for trucks and vans, and also as a very smooth, inexpensive V8 to replace the Northstar in land yachts.
Finally I don’t see the Duramax diesel going anywhere.
Soooo…. can we all agree on four families?
Small 4 cylinder/Mid-sized V6/LSx/truck diesel?
Each of these would have varying displacements and inductions, so (for example) the four cylinder block could be a 1.6 in a trashcan or a blown 2.2 in a “sporty” car.
What you give up in maximum efficiency at any displacement you gain back in manufacturing simplicity and parts/logistic/development costs.
Work for everybody?
The Ford 3.5L V6 isn’t in any longitudinal RWD applications. It’s a transverse engine. That’s why it isn’t in the Mustang. Engineering isn’t as easy as saying poof it exists. The people who buy v6 Mustangs don’t care anyway.
If the 2.0L turbo were tuned for economy either everyone would complain that it was underpowered/noisy/whathaveyou or it would be horribly unreliable. I’m not a big fan of turbos anyway. Can anyone tell me a turbo gasoline engine that’s known for longevity or reliability? The junkyards are littered with blown up Eclipses and turbo Chrysler products.
Besides I think having a lot of different engines helps with service department revenue. I could be wrong.
GM should get rid of all the OHV V6s and DOHC V8s.
Whatever they do, MAKE SURE THAT THE VALVETRAIN GASKETS LEAK AFTER 24 MONTHS, cause I can not live without the smell of cooking oil in my Ecotec.
Whatever they do, MAKE SURE THAT THE VALVETRAIN GASKETS LEAK AFTER 24 MONTHS, cause I can not live without the smell of cooking oil in my Ecotec.
Personally, I prefer the intake gaskets in my wife’s 3.1 litre engine that were eaten away by the Dex Cool. The brown color that built up in the overflow bottle was especially pretty…as was the loss of green from the bank account…
how about an engine that competes with the toyota, something in the range of 40 mpg. and that lasts and has a resale value higher than 20 %
The Volt powertrain could change everything. Different size or performance level electric motors in everything. Or few motor sizes and various power level inverters. Having a range of electric motors isn’t as difficult or complex as having a range of different size gas engines.
I don’t dispute that the general has too many engine families, but have you guys heard of CAFE?
Based on GMs’ past record, how long you think, before those turbo engines hand grenade. Two years?
GM, at the rate things are going, won’t need any engines about 10 years from now.
Too many engines by all the manufacturers, gives a marketing advantage, creates brand identity.
Does it really cost more money?
Why make it easy to service and maintain a car?
Why make a family of generic inline motors, and generic V motors that would be too simple.
Detroit Diesel in its heyday of 2 cycle motors had engine families…you could get a 4-71, a 6-71, 6V-71, an 8V-71, a 12V-71…same pistons, same liners, same injectors with different volumes.
Is it in the manufacturer’s best interest to simplify engine line ups.
Is the customer looking for some new fangled feature under the hood, 2valves, 3 valves, 4 valves, 5 valves.
Up to only a few months ago the customer wanted power, and more power, in bigger, and heavier vehicles.
How many engines do they need? As many as they feel comfortable to get a market advantage, to get a price advantage.
turbo-diesel please..
I drove an Opel Corsa rental a few years ago in Europe. For commuting + occasional hwy it was more than adequate. They’ve already got a small petrol..and small car.
http://www.brownesautos.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=908991
BMW has pretty much been doing this so far (M and new X6 excluded). Same basic M54/N52/N54 block with combinations of variable intake, valvetronic, DI and turbo “add-ons” power the majority of their models Stateside from Z4 to X5. A V8 option for the top of the line X5, 5er,6er and 7er rounds it out.
Yes, an outlier V12 exists for the 760Li; but recall that substantially the same engine lies in the Roller.
Even the new M engines, V8 and V10, share the same part numbers for the pistons and rings; bore and stroke are the same; cranks and cylinder count vary… the main reason that Dinan was able to announce their M3 V8 stroker kit so quickly was that they carried over their V10 stroker kit’s development (and many parts like the pistons and conrods) over to the V8.
This way BMW can concentrate on optimizing its designs to the available engineering resources at hand. Admirably, as all would agree. A model for GM to emulate.
I like the Subaru approach… 2.5 liter H4, plenty of time and reason to focus on one motor and make it run nice and make it run forever. The WRX/Legacy GT/Forester XT/Outback XT all have a turbo 2.5, but I’ve been lead to understand that it’s a very different engine from the base 2.5. They’ve also got that 3.0 liter H6 you can drop in if you want to be fancy…
Of course, GM makes many more than just 5 models so it’s a harder proposition, but if Subaru can get away with basically offering 1 engine the big boys can probably figure out how to cut down some. I’d much rather have a choice between a few fantastically engineered motors than a long list of unproven ones.
Can anyone tell me a turbo gasoline engine that’s known for longevity or reliability?
North America:
1. Pre-GM Saab 4 cylinders for sure
2. Subaru post 80’s 4 cylinder 2.0-2.5 range, probably. Anecdotally, I’ve seen them used and abused and keep on ticking.
Also anecdotally, I know of two original owner early 1990’s 2.0 turbos, one in a Talon and the other an Eclipse. Both I think have had head gaskets go, but no turbo problems. That being said, these guys don’t floor them everywhere they go, and actually drive them slower than average. One of them has at least 200k on it, the other if I remember at least 150k. I agree with you a LOT of them are junked for whatever reasons. I don’t think you can flog them nearly as much as a Subaru.
Worst stock turbos: Twins in the 3000 GT SL VR4, IMO.
700 series Volvo turbo motors were durable too. Unfortunately, the wiring harnesses under the hood self-destructed. I had a 760 turbo with the usual 200K+ Volvo miles.
@Justin
“Why bother with the 1.6 liter 4? Just make a naturally aspirated 2.0 the base engine, no?”
Don’t we need something that gets good fuel economy? With today’s gas prices, thoughts of 2.0L base engines seem a bit frivolous.
Why not just build the Opel Corsa right here in the U.S. with a 1.6 liter engine? I’d add that to my list if the car was available for it.
I agree that the Aveo is rubbish, but I bet a Corsa would be much more expensive to make, even if made elsewhere.
The 1.6 versions of the Corsa are pretty much viewed as performance versions in Europe. You really have to pick a smaller engine to get really good efficiency.
That may matter less in the US, unless you guys get really high fuel prices there.
@Justin
As the post says, the 2.0T should be base in “practically” everything.
In almost all GM cars, this engine would improve the current mileage. Consider the Malibu’s current 4-cylinder 22/30 rating.
The only European marked car with the DI 2.0 Ecotec turbo is the Opel GT (which is a badge engineered Sky).
In every roadster comparison test, it gets beaten in fuel efficiency by cars like the BMW Z4 3.0si, the Mercedes SLK350, Boxster and others.
That just seems totally unimpressive to me.
Maybe they could make a version with lower boost, like the 170hp 2.0T in the European base Audi A6. I agree that such an engine would have the potential to get better mileage in a mid-size car like the Malibu. But from an European perspective, all the Bu needs is a 1.4 or 1.6 turbo.
The new 1.4T Passat seems to be the first gasser able to get some ground back from the diesels in Europe.
@Carzzi
BMW has pretty much been doing this so far
I’d like to add a few observations.
The I6 diesel lineup have been simplified at BMW They used to have a 2.5 and a 3.0, now they have three power levels of the 3.0. (different turbo systems, same base engine)
The same with the 4-cylinder diesels. 118d, 120d and 123d are all 2.0L, with the 123d being a sequential twin turbo.
The V8 diesel in the 745d is going to be replaced with a higher output version of the 3.0 twin turbo.
MINI’s 1.6 and 1.4 gassers are made in a joint venture with PSA, using a combination BMW and PSA technology. The diesel in the MINI Cooper D doesn’t have anything to do with BMW, it’s made by the Ford/PSA diesel collaboration.
@kazoomaloo
I like the Subaru approach… 2.5 liter H4, plenty of time and reason to focus on one motor
You realize they do have a 1.5 H4 base engine in other markets, as well as 2.0 NA and multiple versions of a 2.0 turbo for the JDM WRX and STI?
1. 1.5L – 2.0L modular (Same Block) I4, DI standard and turbo optional. 120HP/120LB_FT to 300HP/300LB-FT.
2. 2.5L – 3.0L modular (Same Block) V6, DI standard and turbo optional. 200HP/200LB-FT to 400HP/400LB-FT.
3. 4.5L V8 Turbo Diesel, Trucks and SUVs
4. 6.2L V8, (LS9 as well), 400-500+ HP, Trucks, SUVs, Muscle cars.
5. 8.0L Gas and Diesel for Large Commercial Vehicles.
GM needs only 5 engines to cover everything…Including EPA and fuel mileage laws. Just 2 engines (#1 and #2) would cover near 90% of their global passenger vehicles.
I think a case can be said for fewer engines, more turbo options…
Dear Mr. Justin GM has FAR more engines than those shown in that page: you’re leaving out among others… The engines from 1.0 to 2.4 SOCH that GM of Brazil install in their cars, and they are flex capable by the way. The Chevrolet Optra engines, that in some cases are assembled in Australia, those are also E-TEC or D-TEC engines. The 3 cylinder 12 valve Ecotec engines used in european Corsa. So yeah, they may have a lot of engines, but your oversimplification is simply not “reasonable” ;). PLEASE remember the world has other markets that need different engines than USA. And as manufacturer they have to be taken into account. Toyota also has a LOT of engines, although not as many as GM.
@mocktard
Here is their Euro lineup:
diesel:
1.5L I4 in 82hp (Micra), 86hp (Note), 103hp (Qashqai)
2.0L I4 in 150hp (Qashqai, X-Trail) or 173 hp (X-Trail)
2.5L I4 in 171hp (Pathfinder, Navara)
3.0L I4 in 160ho (Patrol)
gas:
1.2L I4 in 65 and 80hp (Micra)
1.4L I4 in 88hp (Micra, Note)
1.6L I4 in 110hp (Micra, Note, Tiida) or 114hp (Qashqai)
1.8L I4 in 126hp (Tiida)
2.0L I4 in 141hp (Qashqai), 140hp (X-Trail)
2.5L I4 in 169hp (X-Trail)
3.5L V6 in 313hp (350Z) or 234hp (Murano)
3.5L V6 turbo in 480hp (GT-R)
Side note: It seems that Nissan’s Euro lineup consists of subcompacts and SUVs only. There used to be popular mid-sizers and compacts as well as the Maxima, but they don’t exist anymore – looks like Renault tried to eliminate some overlap.
Interesting piece and interesting opinions.
By 2015, you’re going to probably have a hard time buying a “Chevrolet” class vehicle (other than Corvette) which will go 0-60 in less than 9 seconds, by the way.
‘coz GM is right now developing a 1.4 litre turbo four to replace the 2.4 litre Ecotec fours in most applications due to the new CAFE rules.
Yeah, I’m not going to buy one, either. “Ka-boom”.
At least it probably (?! hopefully) won’t be any worse than current GM junque, since when GM are in a rush and “borrow” Opel technology, they actually seem to be able to do an average job.
Let’s put it this way – the Chevrolet Chevette engine (an Opel design done for Brazil originally) was a far far better engine than the US designed Vega engine.
You could get more than 40,000 miles out of a Chevette with oil changes and normal maintenance. Heck, you could get 120,000 miles out of them (if you could stand the car that long). I know, I had a (badge engineered) Pontiac 1000 waaaay back in the day when I was first married and didn’t have any money.
One! A small block V8. I can see the ad campaign now: “GM V8 in every car or truck. Period.”
Make it sift from first to sixth to get 30 plus mpg, under normal driving conditions (something they did in the 90’s.) Add displacement on demand and forced injection, or maybe turbos for the high-end range…
Bring back the “Iron Duke”…
If GM can produce 115HP/115LB-FT from a 1.4L with their 2nd Gen high-pressure DI and 180HP/180LB-FT with it turbcharged, then it can replace all current I4 engines (Torque needs to come on at very low RPM). The 2.0L LNF engine with the new DI system is close to 300HP. It should move the Lambdas pretty well especially with the 6-speed tranny.
I remember reading that the new GM 1.4L Turbo is aiming to crank out about 140hp (and probably go up to 180hp, as Luther said). That sounds like an engine that could go in any Epsilon II or Delta platform car.
140hp is fine. The tradeoff in performance versus mileage is not bad at all. Manual transmissions help, too.
Is it in the manufacturer’s best interest to simplify engine line ups.
Yes, it is.
Lower costs.
Fewer opportunities to make mistakes.
More time and money to focus on improving the products that you do make.
More coherent branding and marketing.
Unless the customer really wants them, and unless the company can make them properly, basic engine options should be kept to a minimum. They can be tuned differently for different applications, but constant reinvention of the wheel does more harm than good.
Paul Niedermeyer :
April 8th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Justin: Maybe GM shouldn’t be selling the Aveo in the U.S.
Minor detail for you arm-chair captains of industry: and just how is GM going to meet the 35mpg CAFE rules? With 260hp Cobalts? They need to sell a lot more Aveos, but better ones, with a more efficient engine, smaller than the 2.0.
The South Korea-made Aveo does not help GM meet it’s domestic CAFE car number at all. Foreign cars and domestic cars (Canadian and Mexican made vehicles are counted as “domestic”) have seperate CAFE numbers. (The light truck CAFE number is combined.) To avoid a fine, GM has to beat the designated numbers for all three CAFE numbers.
Now, it does allow GM to import low-mileage Pontiac G8s from Australia. But it doesn’t help balance out Impalas (or Tahoes, which are under the light truck numbers).
All that being said, GM absolutely should have a subcompact for sale in the US. They are going to make those vehicles for world markets anyways; why not ship some to the US? But CAFE isn’t the reason to do so (other than the fact that they can balance it out with Australian muscle cars).
I think this thread proves that enthusiasts can’t run things any better than accountants can. Absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. It’s all philosophical arguments based on your own views of how important performance is. There’s no mention of torque (or power band) or towability for trucks, nor economy for small cars. It’s overly simplistic to say you need one V-6 and one V-8.
I think the fact that GM currently (and has been for a while) been advertising that their compact has best-in-class horsepower shows how out of touch they are with small car buyers. This, somehow, manages to be even worse. There is no way the average consumer is going to look at turbos as serious fuel savers. If you wanted to make small, turbo’d engines, I think they should be in Saturn and Saabs. A range of displacements for 4-cylinder engines is warranted. Direct injection and BAS should be standard.
I still think Cadillac should have their own, more refined V-8, even though the market isn’t as big as it used to be.
Ecotec (4-cylinder):
1.0L-Aveo
1.4L-Aveo, Corsa, Cobalt
1.4T-Corsa, Astra, 9-1
2.0L-Cobalt, Astra, Malibu, Vue, 9-1, 9-3, Aura, Solstice, Sky, HHR, Equinox
2.0T-Cobalt SS, 9-1, G6, 9-3, 9-5, 9-6x
@Justin:
You can’t just up and move the Corsa to Chevy after giving Saturn every other Opel. And I don’t see how it’s hurting them, even image-wise. A better engine would make a world of difference.
@CarShark
You can’t just up and move the Corsa to Chevy after giving Saturn every other Opel
Saturn has one Opel, the Astra. The Aura shares only the front end styleing and platform parts with Opel, and the Vue is Daewoo engineered.
How about GM just drop all their pushrod motors, use the 2.8 liter V6 as the base V6 engine, use the 4.2 inline 6 from the TrailBlazer in all their trucks, and use the V8 ONLY in the Corvette?
Upmarket cars could use a turbo version of the 3.6 liter V6 instead of a V8.
vento97: The Iron Duke! Wow, someone has a long memory. My Dad’s ‘87 Celebrity had that engine and it made the most remarkable noise, kind of like a pebble bouncing around in a coffee can. Bulletproof unit though.
@CarShark:
Yes! I agree. But fun, isn’t it?