GMNext "team member" (and former AutoWeek freelancer) Chris Terry "reveals" what we've known since we hung out with Maximum Bob in a small, windowless room at The New York Auto Show: the Camaro is looking at a turbo-four. While the pony car faithful are still choking on their Cheerios, ADD-afflicted GM's echoing hybridcars.com's claim that turbos could well be the "new hybrid." "As Europeans have known for the better part of a decade, turbos are tomorrow’s 'replacement for displacement' (although Europe’s inclination towards the turbo has to do with emissions laws and fuel taxes that favor diesels, almost all of which have turbos)… The enthusiast in me says, 'If this is the future of motoring, I’m all for it.'" It's kind of creepy to know that a PR flack is possessed by a car enthusiast. And you'd think Terry would acknowledge U.S. fuel economy and emissions regulations in his ode to blowers. But most importantly, he doesn't answer his headline writer's question. To fill that gap, we offer: turbo-charged engines' [manufacturer-recommended] preference for premium fuel (currently .25 per gallon more expensive than regular), the fact that turbos are most efficient when you don't actually use them (say, during federal fuel economy testing), the possibility of higher maintenance costs and, well, other stuff.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I agree there might be a bit of a long-term maintenance (and warranty) problem when you introduce turbos to the masses. What happens when you tell Joe Sixpack that he has to use 0w-40 synthetic and 91+ octane in his new car?
And how about those long-term powertrain warranties and Joe keeping up with all of his DIY receipts.
All of this to gain about 10-20% efficiency over a well-tuned NA V6? Most people vote with their wallets, so it will probably come down to total cost of ownership, not just the day-to-day fuel costs. The European taxation on displacement (which many, but not all countries have) is the biggest driver of innovation on that front.
We’ve been here before…the domestics got serious about Turbos in the early 80’s (Chrysler’s turbo-everything K-Cars). Heck, we’ve even seen a turbo4 pony car before–the SVO Mustang.
Given how far ECM’s have come since then, this makes sense. Besides, most people aren’t changing their own oil these days (granted, I’m the exception), and GM has a habit of making powertrains bulletproof.
Its a rewind to over 30 years ago, a case of been there….done that, what else is new.
If a V8 no longer hunts, a 4 with a turbo should hunt and find the prey.
Anyone remember when F1 cars had 4 cylinders with turbos.
Smaller engines using a Turbo can generate impressive horsepower gains, but still lack the low rpm torque needed to get a heavier vehicle moving. As a result, a Turbo is best utilized on small lightweight vehicles.
Can anyone explain the differences in Octane ratings in europe and the states? Here Premium is 98 Octane, and Regular is 95… the price difference is often pennies on the litre, but yeah I guess that would add upto 20-20 USA cents to the gallon.
What is the Octane rating in the USA? I forgot: 89 and 91?
So everything here is small and high reving compared to the pushrod 6s in the states then?
Johnny, the srt caliber makes 265 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm, and 285 hp @ 5700 rpm. Doesn’t seem lacking for low end torque to me…
I have been enjoying turbo-charged four bangers for 20 years in a Saab 9000T and now in a smoother version, the Saab 9-5. Sure, you have to pay attention to the oil but that’s true with any car, at least in my book. With Saab’s advanced engine management system you can get away with using regular gas, except in very warm weather when «pingking» can become a problem. Sure if you keep your right foot to the floor you are not going to get good mileage but if you are polite with the pedal, you get outstanding mileage for the size of the car. But if you need power, it’s there. Its like having two engines in one. The passing power on the highway is truly astonishing. More important than the HP, the torque curve of Saab engines make the difference. As I’ve written before, turbo-charging expertise is probably the biggest asset GM got from Saab, with perhaps the knowledge on how to build exceptionally safe cars. For the rest, GM doesn’t have a clue what they are doing with Saab and are killing the brand slowly but surely.
Or you could, you know: cut horsepower.
The enthusiast in me says “Bring on the Turbos!”
The great thing about turbos is their “mod-ability”. With just wee bit of tweaking to the boost a person can squeeze signifcant amounts horsepower.
Is the Cobalt SS a sneak preview of the new GM turbocharged engines? If so, then I’m liking the early results.
Virages, I believe Europe uses the RON octane rating method and the US uses PON.
How well do they really work? I liked my Volvo 940 Turbo but fuel economy was pretty mediocre at 20-25mpg (typically 23), considering the car was reasonably light and had a 2.3L engine that would deliver close to 30mpg, conventionally aspirated, in a 240 wagon we also owned.
Maybe GMNext should be asking instead: “Why not make everything lighter?” As the Cobalt XFE demonstrates, almost better than trying to force air into the engine — why not hunt around the car to see how to save weight?: (1) engine tweak; (2) smaller tires; (3) replacing heavy components with more advanced lightweight materials; etc. GM was able to get 10-15% better economy in the Cobalt just screwing around. You don’t need an expensive turbo.
But of course, there are turbos and there are turbos…you can take the same basic engine (such as the old Saab 2 liter that I’m familiar with, or an Ecotec, or whatever) and mate it to different sizes of turbos with different overpressures depending on what you want. Sequential twins, even, in other cars. So smaller turbos give you less overall power, but can provide faster response with less lag, and of course less impact on fuel economy. If you want more torque, go with the bigger blowers, but you pay more to move that air….
Still, you can drive turbo engines fairly conservatively without using much boost, such as in slow traffic where four idling cylinders wastes less gas than six or eight. Keep the boost for when you need it, such as in passing or merging.
Presently owning cars with both turbos or superchargers, I think right now I prefer the former, if only because they actually seem more transparent in their maintenance for us–change the engine oil and coolant and you’ve serviced the turbo as well. The damned s/c in my Toyota works OK, but it has a separate lube system that always seems to mysteriously lose oil and is a PITA to keep topped up.
Weight reduction and selective use of turbocharging will both be elements in the drive to improve fuel economy, just like they were in the 1970s.
Once CAFE stopped incrementing up we got back into horsepower wars and weight bloat.
The only thing different this time is that batteries, electric motors and electronic controls have advanced enough that various forms of hybrids are now in the mix. Everything else being done, even displacement-on-demand (aka cylinder deactivation) is a refinement of the solutions pioneered in the late 1970s and into the 1980s before everyone took their eye off the efficiency ball. Even direct injection is an old technology brought back into play primarily due to regulatory requirements.
Johny canada:
a small four cylinder turbo is more than enough for ‘any’ passenger vehicle
heck, a small four cylinder without a turbo is more than enough for ‘any’ passenger vehicle…
[this is assuming said passenger vehicle is under 4000 pounds]…
I’m all for turbos. Correctly sizing the turbo and tuning the engine can provide linear response and lots of power from a small engine. Ref. Mazdaspeed 6. And I love the tunability. Pop a chip in there and you can instantly see +50whp easily.
Fuel economy improvement though? I remember when I had my Audi TT I got ~30 mpg a couple of times when I was driving around with something fragile in the back, but damn when I put my foot into it and that fait whistle from the turbo started the gas gauge looked like a reverse tachometer.
So, I am a little confused…is the turbo good???
I was hoping Ford’s new ecoboost tech next year would be a good thing.
I was also under the impression they would be regular, not premium.
But diesels still are a GOOD turbo plan, I presume. I think every new one coming this fall will be turbo.
The Ford info:
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/06/detroit-2008-ford-launches-ecoboost-gas-turbo-direct-injection/
Turbos don’t increase fuel economy, they in fact use nearly as much fuel as a V8. And a turbo four is going to spool very hard to move a car as big and heavy as the Camaro.
Funny I was just reading a thread on another forum yesterday about the Mazdaspeed3 and owners were complaining about the awful fuel economy they get, we’re talking high teens.
GM needs to design smaller, lighter cars that can adequately use a turbocharged four cylinder engine. Not stuff them in beasts designed for and that would be better off with V8s.
A four cylinder Camaro, turbo or not, is not going to sell very well. It’s also going to tarnish the car’s image with it’s fanbase, the very base GM is depending on to buy it.
Ford has the right idea with the Mustang. Turbo V6 and two new V8s. No four cylinder in their halo muscle car. They already make four cylinder cars for that.
Talking about turbo diesels: 400Nm@1700 rpm sound interesting ?
Check it out
http://www.saab.com/main/GLOBAL/en/ttid/index.shtml
I would find it very hard to resist would it be available in NA.
Another turbo SAAB fan here (who would have guessed?) RE: maintenance issues, modern turbos are maintenance-free and last the life of the car. Seriously, I’ve owned many old turbo Saabs and driven them hundreds of thousands of miles and never had a turbo or engine problem (many other problems, though!), it’s very rare.
As others have stated, fuel economy depends heavily upon how you drive it. Put it to the floor and it will guzzle gas like a small V8, but my mom gets 30mpg…
Premium fuel is not necessarily a requirement for normal operating, although it generally improves performance. Turbo engines with high compression ratios and/or big turbos and/or poor control systems do necessitate premium fuel. However many don’t (most of my Saabs didn’t, only the high performance Mitsubishi TD04 Aero I have now does), and many modern non-turbo cars do due to high compression ratios.
The mazdaspeed3 get poor mileage…?
Worse than the 26 advertised?
And that is a very light, well build car.
The new engines are supposed to do a great job of adjusting to the octane level.
I thought the “ping” is gone.
But my trailblazer really needs the mid grade, or it pings all the time.
All the owners discussing it were averaging 17-20mpg city in their Mazdaspeed 3s. Not much different than my friends who own STis.
I can think of two related reasons turbos can contribute to better fuel efficiency.
1. It is my impression that the smaller a motor’s displacement is, the less internal friction it has. Internal friction burns gas just to rotate against it. Turbocharging a small motor produces more power with less energy being expended just to rotate its machinery.
2. Lower RPMs needed to generate the same power also should be more fuel efficient. Example, my 1990 Eclipse turbo could be had with the same motor in a non turbo version. I can climb a long hill in my turbo at 75mph at 3000 rpm, and 5th gear is just fine, with reserve power, actually. Certainly the non turbo version would be in 4th if not 3rd gear to generate the power needed to maintain the same speed, and perhaps 4500 or more rpms. Which motor would be burning more fuel on that uphill climb? I’m betting on the non-turbo.
I wonder if the addition of a turbo could actually take advantage of ethanol by increasing boost depending on %E?
It would at least take advantage of the main feature of ethanol; the slower burn.
@ Cody
The SRT Caliber makes 265 lb-ft of torque at 5600 RPM not 2000 RPM. Nevertheless a great package, just not the best choice for a Chrysler 300.
@ Improvement Needed
heck, a small four cylinder without a turbo is more than enough for ‘any’ passenger vehicle… No doubt a Russian Trabant with only 2 cylinders will even get the job done, Comrade.
In reference to shaker’s question, Saab has been working a lot on turbo-charged ethanol engines, now available in the 9-3 and 9-5 in Europe. «E85 has a much higher octane rating (104 RON) than gasoline (95 RON), and turbo-charging allows the use of a higher boost pressure and more advanced ignition timing – giving more engine power – than is possible on gasoline without risk of harmful ‘knocking’ or pre-detonation.» If you look at the numbers, the performance gain is significant but I don’t know about MPG. Saab’s latest concepts are combining two mode hybrid technology with E85 and E100 turbo charged small displacement powerplants. Will be interesting to watch.
I dislike the idea of putting a turbo 4 in the Camaro, but I like the Camaro’s styling.
The reason people buy Camaros with base engines is because the rest of a given modelmaker’s lineup is styled to look boring and ugly. The Ford Focus, Chevy Cobalt, Toyota Corolla, and just about all of the other vehicles currently built have nothing attractive or interesting about them. They all look the same.
If you style the Cobalt to look like the Camaro I would buy one right off the bat, but they’ll never do it. Thus, we get turbo-4 Camaro where an attractive Cobalt would attract a lot more buyers.
There’s a 4.2 liter atlas engine gathering dust somewhere in that GM complex. Why, oh why don’t they stuff a powerplant that once occupied a place on ‘Ward’s 10 Best Engines’ list under the hood of this Camaro and call it good?
It can be the best of both worlds. A traditional V8 for traditional fans, and a turbo’d inline six for those who live by the snail. A modern-day Supra. How cool would that be?
virages:
The difference is in how the calculations are made. In europe and other parts of the world, they use the research octane (RON) to determine the octane rating. In the us and canada, we get our figure by avering the ron and motor octane number (MON). This results in us fuels recieving a rating 5 points lower, though the is little difference between both fuels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating#Measurement_methods
Once CAFE stopped incrementing up we got back into horsepower wars and weight bloat.….
Ain’t that the truth. If we kept up with small incremental improvements, cars would have been fast without the guzzle…
“To fill that gap, we offer the need for premium fuel”, thats the magic of direct injection, allowing for a high enough compression ratio to use regular gas with turbo-charging,(not to mention that DI itself increases fuel-efficiency). Ford’s eco-boost engines will run on 87 octane.
The question/post was meant to provoke thoughts about the future of powertrain and turbos, so I’m glad I’ve achieved that in small measure. I was happy to see reasonable, very informed debate from your readers about what downsized turbocharged gas and diesels actually deliver to consumers. I hope the debate continues.
It’s ironic that you think it’s “kind of creepy” that someone who works as a writer in the auto industry—even as PR guy—is a car enthusiast; kinda like finding it “kind of creepy” that a chef might like food, or that Chauncey might love the three-point line. Also, the “headline writer” quip was puzzling; we know exactly no one that has a headline writer for a blog. Do you?
As to your objections regarding turbocharging:
• You claim that turbos need premium fuel. That’s only partially true, but mostly not true . . . at least not with modern engine management systems. Take the engine in question, the 2.0 turbo Ecotec. Premium is recommended. But premium is not required or “needed” as you wrote.
• If you’ve ever filled up a diesel here, you’ll find that there is typically only one grade available; there is no “premium.” Most turbos in this country are diesels (heavy light-duty trucks), still, though that may change in the next decade as more gas turbos come to market.
• You’re right that turbos are most efficient when you don’t actually use them (to their full potential, which to be fair is what I think you were intending to mean). The problem, again, is your conclusion, that this makes them bad. Ask yourself this: what percentage of your driving is actually done at full throttle? Even the most leadfooted among us knows that once up to speed, your engine is loafing, most likely spinning between 2,000 and 3,200 rpm. This is part throttle (i.e. inefficient), which means that unless you’re calling up full engine power, which is maybe 10% of the time, you’re driving around with a smaller, more fuel-efficient engine. This is especially true in the U.S., where most consumer driving is actually suburb to suburb (things get worse in the city, no question/argument; yet interestingly in Lausanne and Geneva earlier this month, I saw zero hybrids in three days. Go figure.)
• Higher maintenance costs? Likely, especially if you actually change the oil at recommended intervals with recommended blends. But again, you may have the jumped the gun on drawing the right conclusion. Ask the bigger question: will marginally higher maintenance costs outweigh the fuel economy improvements and associated fuel cost savings? Even considering the the added purchase cost? The answer depends on the vehicle, the driver and the driving cycle.
Finally, and for the record, I am not, nor have ever been, an employee of AutoWeek. Did you ask AutoWeek? Did you look at the masthead? Puzzling that you must have googled my name to find two articles I wrote as a freelancer many years ago and concluded from only two stories that I was an employee.
To paraphrase Daniel Patrick Monihan, “You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.”
Chris Terry, GMnext.com
christe: Thank you for responding to the post. You may be interested to note that you are the first GM employee to ever do so. Congratulations, and duck! Seriously… 1. Tongue was planted firmly in cheek when I riffed on your phrase “the enthusiast in me.” But it does imply that you have to channel your inner enthusiasts, rather than living the dream. In general, you’re right: I find that most PR flacks in this industry are not what I’d call car enthusiasts. But that’s me. Your mileage may vary. 2. Yes, obviously, it’s true that the 2.0-liter turbo Ecotec recommends rather than requires premium. I think it’s a distinction without a difference. Do you need to use premium? No. Regular will do– but it reduces power to avoid predetonation. And if it’s no biggie, why does GM recommend it? And can you blame buyers for following the manufacturers’ recommended guidelines for operation? In any case, I’ve amended the text as follows: “…turbo-charged engines’ [manufacturer-recommended] preference for premium fuel (currently .25 per gallon more expensive than regular)…” 3. The “headline writer” whose question you didn't answer– "Why not turbo (almost) everything?”– could be you. Quip quibble aside, the point remains. Your text says “here’s why we should” go turbo, not why we shouldn't. Not the same thing. 4. Not sure why you're bringing up my failure to acknowledge that turbo-diesels don't run on premium fuel– especially when you blog post implied blown oil burners are a European thing. In any case, to suggest that A) I don’t know that diesel is mostly a single grade fuel and B) I was factually incorrect because my premium fuel objection didn't apply to oil burners is disingenuous. Do you really want me to put “diesels excepted” in parenthesis? 5. As far as the your “part-throttle not full-throttle” argument is concerned, many of our commentators have already pointed out that the amount of boost summoned, and revs required to do so, and resulting mpgs, depends on the size of the engine vs. the weight of the vehicle. If you think a turbo-four Camaro would spend most of its time lolly-gagging at part throttle, or that the turbos wouldn’t spool like crazy from a standstill (sucking down REGULAR gas), I challenge you to prove it. [NB: hyper-milers are not representational drivers.] Now you could tune the blown four for mpgs (as your boss the Car Czar suggested in New York). But the resulting loss of accelerative urge could kill sales. Engine efficiency can’t be seen in isolation. If Honda (for example) can make a normally aspirated car in the same class as a turbo-four Malibu that gets as good or better mpgs, a blown four will get blown out of the water. 6. “…yet interestingly in Lausanne and Geneva earlier this month, I saw zero hybrids in three days. Go figure.” Rest assured, I will contemplate the full implications of this remark. 7. “Ask the bigger question: will marginally higher maintenance costs outweigh the fuel economy improvements and associated fuel cost savings? Even considering the the added purchase cost? The answer depends on the vehicle, the driver and the driving cycle.” See? You DO know how to raise the important points. Too bad this wasn’t included in the original blog post. 8. Again with the hair-splitting. I know a freelancer isn’t an employee, but c’mon. Sigh. Text amended. But while we’re on the subject, if you care to share, what is your journalistic background? No diss. Just curious. Again, thank you for engaging in this online conversation. I’m extremely grateful for your testicular fortitude, for running the gauntlet of TTAC’s Best and Brightest. Let’s do this again.
chiste…
Robert is right.
Thanks so very much for joining our world.
We all welcome your input.
I want to avoid showing my incompetence so will not get between you two.
However, as for the hybrids in Europe…its because of the diesel availability.
I still believe that once allowed, they will be successful in the US.
And as far as I am concerned…a shout out for bringing on the turbos.
There is always room for more.
But again, keeping them sized correctly with the correct car will be important.
Looking forward to more of your writing.
I’ve got to second the European diesel availability remark. On my street, there is exactly one Prius. The rest are almost without exception diesels, except for the Cayman and a few other gasoline powered cars.
It’s amazing how cheap diesel can be when there is actual demand for it!
(By the way, I do live in Europe.)