Chevrolet cars have outsold combined sales of trucks, crossovers and utilities in April, May and June of this year – and are expected to represent 47 percent of the brand’s sales for the first half of 2011. The last time cars led Chevrolet’s sales for three consecutive months was in May, June, and July of 1991. That year, cars represented 52 percent of Chevrolet sales.
“Chevrolet has always been known for building great trucks,” said Alan Batey, U.S. vice president, Chevrolet Sales and Service. “Today, we are in the middle of transforming the brand with a strong lineup of cars that match the appeal of our trucks and crossovers.
“That transformation is clearly bringing new customers to the brand – as passenger cars and four-cylinder engines are driving Chevrolet’s growth this year,” Batey said. “We expect that momentum to accelerate as Chevrolet introduces three new cars over the next two years – the Sonic, Spark, and next-generation Malibu.”
And no, that isn’t necessarily a code-phrase for “our truck sales are in the toilet.” Sales of Chevrolet cars and trucks are up this year. The most interesting part of the PR release quoted above, however, relates to engine choice…
I read this paragraph at least three times, just to make sure it didn’t say “Chevrolet car buyers” — but no, this refers to the whole lineup, with the resurgent four-cylinder (Fre)Equinox leading the way. Chevrolet is on its way to becoming a four-cylinder brand in the same way that Honda, Toyota, and (to a lesser extent) Nissan have always been four-cylinder brands. Credit has to go to the new lineup of Daewoo world-engineered and American-built small cars. With the imminent arrival of the “Sonic” and “Spark”, the trend will only continue.
Chevrolet made a name with affordable six-cylinders, captured the country’s heart with affordable eight-cylinders, and now competes by selling taxpayer-financed four-cylinders. Since the disappearance of the Impala SS, it’s not even possible to get a family-oriented Chevy car with a bent-eight. Depressing, huh? Look on the bright side: the 2.4L engine in the Equinox has almost fifty more net horses than the original 1955 Chevrolet small-block.
WHAT? My Eyes! Get that photo of that…that…THING off this page! Every time I see an image of one of those, I just keep remembering the extremely wise decision to have my mom buy her 1979 AMC Concord!
Now where was I? Oh yeah…
Four cylinder engines? About time, I say. The only worry I have, and have never been able to substantiate this is, propelling a 3,800 lb. vehicle with a 4 instead of a 6 or an 8, does this cause the engine to wear out faster, as it seemingly has to work harder? Or is that a thing or worry of the past?
When I read a year or two ago about being able to order a Malibu LTZ with a 4 cyl., I was happy about that – you get a very nicely trimmed car with an economical motor – right up my alley (I’m cheap, remember?).
Still, the old concern persists. Not sure if TTAC has dealt with this subject before I signed on or not about a year ago.
There aren’t enough of the current crop of four-cylinders with over 150k miles on them yet to reach any solid conclusions, but my sense is that these engines (when properly maintained) should be good for at least 200k miles even when pulling the extra pounds.
Maybe more. NYC seems to think that a four-cylinder Nissan is a viable replacement for the Ford Crown Vic, which regularly lasts over 400k in taxi service. (It will be interesting to see how those Nissans hold up.)
I’d be more concerned about the rest of the car, especially the transmission. Transmission failures are far more common than engine failures, judging from responses to TrueDelta’s Car Reliability Survey.
Any engine will last forever if you never shut it off. As long as the cooling system is up to it, an engine will churn along pretty much forever.
When I was in college in the late ’80s I worked for a summer for a bank courier service that used the utterly craptastic mid-late 80s Ford Escorts. They would regularly achieve 4-500K miles. In three years…. Absolutely everything would be completely worn out, but the engines would soldier on until they (usually) ate a valve at the big mileages. They were driven 24×7 by shifts of drivers, and were litterally only cooled off on Sundays, when there were no runs.
And yes, I beat the ever-loving whee out of those things as a 19yo college student. :-)
As for big cars with little engines, my Volvo 945 is 3400lbs or so, and its 2.3l 112hp Swedish monster-motor is perfectly happy at 214K. Just as slow as it was brand new. I drove an ’87 744 with the same motor to 315k and sold it to a friends mother. Decent engines simply do not “wear out” these days. Something else will break.
krhodes1,
Agreed. Often times high mileage cars in specific uses are not indicative of general durability. There is always someone who got 300+k out of any lemon mentioned on the internet, and usually they did it while averaging 50K miles a year. Engines that see a thousand miles a week don’t see too many cold starts.
…Engines that see a thousand miles a week don’t see too many cold starts…
Million mile Accord??
I’ve never understood the notion of an engine wearing out because it has to “work hard,” that speaks more to poor design than inherent weakness of smaller engines. Yes, Detroit’s four cyl. efforts from the ’70s and early ’80s left much to be desired but you can find plenty of imports from the same era with engines the same size or smaller which ran perfectly fine for many, many miles. I’ve run multiple 4 cyl. VW’s, Toyotas, Mazdas, Hondas well into triple digits without incident. If you regularly carry full loads a larger engine will be peppier in traffic or on hills, but if the car you’re considering is generally reliable I’d have no concerns whatsoever about getting it with a 4 cyl.
Working hard => more revolutions / minute.
More revolutions => more wear
(one of the criteria in the oil change algorithm is total revolutions)
In a correctly-designed engine, all the important bits are supported by hydrodynamic lubrication (a film of oil). The moving parts, ideally, don’t touch each other. Hence – (almost) no wear. And, the bits that bend with engine rotation (valve springs) are designed for infinite life – below the fatigue strength of the material. Number of revolutions to failure is essentially infinite.
You know the old saying about 90% of engine wear occurring on start-up? There is a lot of truth to that. When the engine is stopped, the oil film is not present. Once the engine starts, the oil film is almost immediately there. So the life shouldn’t depend so much on the number of revolutions, but rather on the number of starts! (And in the engine oil life calculations, that is also one of the factors.)
The number of cylinders is simply irrelevant. HP is HP whether you make it with 1 cylinder or 12. The more cylinders the smoother the engine is for a given amount of power output. Fewer cylinders are more efficient all else being equal due to less friction.
The whole “4cyl don’t last” meme stems from 30-50 years ago when there were huge unstressed V8s and tiny little 4s, and that is all there was. Sure, if you take a 1.3L 55hp cast iron carburated 4 in a non-aerodynamic car and push it along at 75-80mph it is not going to last very long. A modern 180hp 2.4l 4 is a VERY different beast indeed.
Performance expectations today are simply ludicrous. Back in the 80’s a 4cyl Malibu with an 8.5 second 0-60 time would be considered a rocket ship. That was sports car territory 25 years ago. I had an ’84 VW Jetta GLI which was considered a pretty rapid machine back then, it’s 0-60 time was just under 10!
I just drove my 112hp ’95 Volvo 945 from Maine to Waterbury CT this week. Lots of fast traffic, lots of merging, lots of hills. No problem at all, you just put your foot to the floor and keep it there when you need to GO. The Volvo could run foot to the floor another 214K and it would not faze it in the slightest.
Thats a legitimate concern. When I drove air conditioning service vehicles in a prior life they were always loaded and I couldn’t seem to get more than 175k on a Nissan NAPSZ engine. When I got out of that line of work I still drove Nissan 4cyl trucks but 250k or more was very common. One of them pulled over 300k as a commuter (100 mile round trip/empty). It just seems very logical to think the engine either is subjected to higher stresses or lower gearing. Obviously I just described two very different types of driving but they weren’t as different as you think since you pile up the miles doing service in Houston.
Just my $.02.
Modern 4-cylinder engines should last as long as anything other if properly maintained (oil change). The Saab 9-3 convertible 2004 model with a 1.8 litre turbo 4-cylinder I have been driving for 150k miles now only revs to 4000 rpm at 125 mph on the Autobahn so it is not stressed by any means, even if that is quite a heavy car.
When I was selling Toyotas back in the early 90’s, the new V6’s were just being released. I remember talking with the service manager who was somewhat skeptical of the success of the V6’s, relating that he had seen numerous Toyota 4 cylinders go over 300K, but the V6’s would have to prove themselves. I never asked him why he was skeptical…
In my family fleet, we have a 2.2L OHV 4 cylinder that has 249, 800+ miles on it, a 2.3L Quad 4 with over 160K miles and a 2.2 Ecotec with over 120K miles. I’m pretty religious about maintaining the motors, only the 2.2 OHV has any issues, it’s got a ticking lifter, nothing I can’t remedy with a little oil additive.
We have a 2009 Pontiac G6 with the Ecotec and 6 speed tranny, and I plan to keep the car and get about 200K miles out of it over the ten year expected lifetime of the car. I’m not worried.
Its been case in the past of a 4cyl variant will use more gas than a 6 in the same car coz it works harder if the car design is right weight this shouldnt happen
As the VW ads of the 1960’s once said, “Small is beautiful”
The Flagship of Government Motors also runs on 4-cyl.
You totally missed The Volt.
As long as I can easily get up the 20% grades (at 85mph) on interstate highways here in the Western USA I’ll be alright with it.
But this does reafirm my decision for my next vehicle to be a coupe or sedan with 8cyl. Just to say I owned one and can describe the experience when my grand kids ask me, “What was a V8 like, g
Grandpa?” (FYI I’m 34.)
The design criteria for interstate highways is 6%. Where are those?
Forgive the hyperbole. Although looking it up it’s actually an 8% grade before you need to apply for a waver in the US Interstate system. AZ-68 into and out of Laughlin, NV is the one I was thinking of.
I think gearing is going to be a prime factor in downsizing engines.
If you gear for a lower maximum speed, say no more than 110 mph, then with at least 6 gears you can build a car that has plenty of giddy-up below that yet can still cruise effortlessly around 80 mph.
All through my teens to mid-thirties in UK I drove dozens of 4-cylinder cars and any one of them would still be perfectly adequate in today’s traffic and would be quite fun.
At the risk of sounding like my Dad, “you just don’t need all that power”.
Really, zero to 60 around 10 secs, easy cruising at 80 with a max of 100 is all anyone really NEEDS, anything more is just overkill and waste.
I’m as much of a “car guy” as any but I’m just accepting that the days of massive engines and outrageous performance are probably fading away and, you know what, I’m OK with it.
Some may laugh but, as I think back, some of the most fun I had driving was in “puny” little cars like an MG 1100, Hillman Avenger 1500 and a Skoda 120 LS. Yes, engines between 1.1 and 1.5 litres.
All that said, I just filled my 5.9 litre guzzler with $130 of Shell Bronze this morning so I’m a hypocrite too. LOL
While it is definitely noteworthy that after decades of hellacious mediocrity, Chevy’s new small cars like the Sonic and Cruze are actually cars people want to own, the real news is the retreat of the V6 from family cars. As direct injection and turbo charging make their way into the mainstream, there really is no need for 6>= cylinders unless the application calls for more than 300 hp. That trend is sure to continue as cross-overs, large cars and even trucks convert to lighter, fuel efficient DI turbo 4 cylinder engines.
don’t look now, but I believe the Cruze and Malibu were the #1 and #2 selling cars in the nation in June. If their ownership experience (I’m one of them–2010 ‘Bu LTZ) is anything like those of the vehicle in the image above, then GM will sow the seeds for their next bankruptcy. So far, for me, not bad…21k miles and only one unplanned trip to a dealer for a service airbag light that was fixed in 20 minutes (connector under seat–very common in these, I understand).
So I gotta ask. Did you get the 4cyl or the V6 and how do you like the engine?
We got a 4cyl Malibu last fall and I’m completely satisfied with the engine. It’s smooth, quiet & peppy. I really don’t see the need for the V6 in this car. Only drawback is you’d like a little more acceleration for freeway merging but it’s adequate, you just need to plan a little more ahead.
In comparison I had a 2.3L Fusion which was much noiser, not sure how the current 2.5L Fusion stacks up on that account. I always thought the Fusion’s problem was a lack of noise insulation in the engine compartment.
mtymsi: I have the same drivetrain in a Pontiac G6, and I would like a little more ooomph for merging onto Michigan freeways. If I put the 6 speed into manumatic mode, I can get pretty sparkling performance out of the Ecotec. But I guess I’m spoiled from the motors we used to have.
If you really want a brand-new, RWD, V8-powered GM, you could buy one, at least last Friday, from one plucky dealer. His contract from Chevy did not bar him from selling the Caprice PPV (Holden Statesman, a long-wheelbase version of the G8) to civilians, even though it’s for law enforcement only. He had 13 Caprices on his lot. I wonder how many are left…
http://jalopnik.com/5815228/chevy-dealer-will-sell-you-a-new-caprice-police-car
G8 community is watching this, as of three days ago there were 10 left.
There are yards full of V8 holdens and Falcons here just buy one on holiday and mail it home bring something old and rare with you from US get you V8 GM or ford free….
Don’t forget these are not your grandmother’s 4 cyl. They’re far more powerful than ever before.
I’m just wondering when the new powertrains are going to show up in the trucks. Ford has really taken the march on Chevy with the Ecoboost and it looks like GM is scrambling.
4-cyl. This is a high mileage commuter car, so efficiency is key. The engine is plenty refined, actually, though not quick. The transmission (6-speed auto), on the other hand, leaves me guessing as to what it’s logic is (and whether it will really go the distance). Thankfully if I want to, I can switch it into manual mode with the selector on the steering wheel, which is more satisfying to drive.
If buying solely for myself, I would have gone with a manual (hence possibly a 6 over a Malibu), as I much prefer to be choosing my own gears, but this is my wife’s daily driver.
Pining for more cylinders is about as absurd as pining for more inches of endowment: if one has enough to get the job done, more really just gets in the way. Waxing nostalgic for more cylinders, more displacement, more valves, more spark plugs/wires, more complexity is worse than foolish. It’s quality that counts, not quantity.
More cylinders run smoother and deliver smoother. I’d rather drive a 2.4l I-6 or H-6 than a 2.4l I-4.
In a fwd transverse configuration an inline engine is really preferred if you’re ever going to work on it. And there no reason to believe they aren’t as reliable or more reliable than any other type of engine. Even Ford 4 cylinder engines from the 70’s and 80’s can last forever if they get e new filter and some oil sometimes. Volvo’s will last forever unless you pour gravel into them (sometimes even if you pour gravel into them)
And try to tell any Sierra Cosworth owner that a 2.0 4 cylinder doesn’t perform. Norwegians and brits regularly get 400-600 hp from what is essentially a 16v head on a 1970 Pinto engine with a turbo on it. And we’re not just talking hi-revs either. Not to mention old Saab turbo’s (pre-GM preferrably) I can go on forever, ( I almost did too )
And this is from someone who loves v6 engines btw…(not in FWD cars though)
+1 on transverse 4 cylinders, although no turbos for me!
Got 186K miles on an ’89 Ford Probe, tranny went out, engine still had tons of life left.
The irony of today’s higher specific output 4-cylinder engines is that they are *necessary* in order to move the bloated vehicles they propel.
Somehow, 75 HP was sufficient in 1978 to move a 2000-lb econocar to 60 mph in 12 seconds. Today, we call that ‘leisurely’ or ‘dangerous’, add sound deadening material, 8 airbags, 17-inch wheels, lower emissions standards, and then require it hit 60 in 9 seconds or less. So the engine ends up being 140 HP and the car weighs 2900 lbs.
I’m not saying I want to go back, except on the bloat issue. I’m glad to see the American public becoming re-acquainted with smaller, lighter cars again. GM’s cars have usually been on the heavier side due to its affinity for sound deadening and soft ride, so it will be harder for them to make these 4-cyl cars as efficient as the competition (Cruze Eco being a notable exception).
The Sonic keeps creeping up in weight. Most magazines were predicting 2,800 lbs. Motor Trend came back from the model intro and published 2,850 lbs. That is more than 100 additional pounds compared to a 2012 4 door automatic Civic EX. It isn’t high mechanical specification that is making the car up to 600 lbs(27%) heavier than its lightest competitor. The Sonic still has a beam axle and drum brakes.
You mean, like a ’80’s K car? I guess progress moves slowly at the General…
Some versions of some highly regarded cars come with beam axles and drum brakes even today in the 21st century. A whole slew of VW’s come this way, so do some Toyotas and Hondas.
Yes, just like 80’s K-cars. Which cribbed a lot from… VW.
Looks like GM NA is being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century by its foreign divisions, about time.
I know you’re probably a member of the whole “Americans can’t design anything good” crowd of naysayers, but GM’s global 4-cylinder lineup was largely designed in America under the Ecotec brand, or by a global team with American money. The engines for the 4-cylinder North American cars are assembled at Tonawanda.
I won’t speak for him but I don’t think Bryce meant that.
I visit Detroit several times a year and sell products to all the car companies. Their are some very good engineers working at the big 3.
However with the collusion of their dealers the management of the big three chose to focus their resources selling overweight V8 OHV engine powered trucks.
Despite having all sorts of technology on the shelf and multiple divisions across the world they would not move on.
Spent all their money on Hummer cup holders.
Global 4banger manufacture was done in OZ for many years but now the V6s are made in OZ Ecotech these are the engines from the J series yes?the 4cyl commodore terrible engines oil burners at low Ks and warp heads for fun I think youll find GM has moved on from those, We have some Chevs from Japan the Cavalier its junk it the only unreliable Toyota as far as the view from the outside goes the US car industry imploded years ago the cars were only suited to US conditions smooth freeways no corners now Americans want proper cars that stop and steer and dont hog gas Ive seen the last few attempts by the Detroit 3 and buy elsewhere as does most of the world. GMs over seas divisions build bloody good cars as do Ford real cars we have been driving them for years tough reliable repairable , Occasionally a US import has been tried the last joke was the Taurus what a POS no wonder Ford will not import the Falcon its light years better than anything Ford US builds You did get Holdens cheap too but Pontiac got closed These are the GM and Ford cars that mean something not the FWD rubbish the US suffers. We had the Neon do you see my point we go th PT croozer we have lots of Dodge SUVs all diesels but hey none of it seems to keep value We have Explorers too but the Ford Territory came out and its so much better The one US success story in NZ was the CadillacCTS Kiwis bought that they snapped them up in no time but since they are only a Holden underneath you can see why
If the V6s produce as much if not more power than the V8s that came before them…
And if the 4 cylinders produce as much power as the older V6s did that came before them…
Could we not see 3 cylinder engines as powerful if not more so than the older 4s?
These days of variable cam timing, variable intake runner length, DOHC multi-valve engines, direct injection etc have done wonders to the new crop of engines.
But for packaging, economy, and weight I’d like to see all this technology applied to a Triple.
Fiat is all over the compact, highly efficient three cylinder engine thing. Have a look at the Fiat Twin Air 3 Cylinder engine:
http://www.autolatest.com/en/news-details/1946-how-a-fiat-twin-air-3-cylinder-engine-works-
john; that Fiat engine is a twin, as in two cylinder. They don’t make a triple. That site you linked too got it wrong in the headline. Typical…
Ooops, thanks for setting me straight.
Well then, if three cylinders is good, maybe two is better :).
And add to that, the TwinAir is if I recall, direct injected and a parallel twin, is quite refined and with a turbo can in one form do 105HP, which is 4 HP more than the 1.4L 4 sans turbo.
Reviews so far say it’s one hell of a motor and in the 500 makes the car a blast to drive, in some ways even more so than the 1.4 since with the turbo, it produces 107Lb Ft of torque at something like 1700rpm.
I’d love to see it brought stateside.
I have pondered before adding an electrically operated pre-luber to my vehicles to maximize engine life while minimizing initial wear.
Sumpthin’ ye heathens of apparent ample discretionary wealth should debate.
Restless within the shanty as 100 degree high-humidity outside temps wend their way inside.
Turn on the A/C?
Aint ya got windows in yer shanty?
Four cylinder engines powering the majority of everyday use cars is going to be the norm in the US just as it is the norm in every other developed country. Cheap oil is gone forever. The rapid industrialization of Asia swamps all other considerations when doing energy economics projections.
Four cylinder Toyotas, Hondas and Hyundais have been selling in big numbers in the US for a long time. Up until very recently, the US brands mostly put low tech, low performance four cylinder engines on the market because they didn’t really treat that market seriously. GM, Ford and Fiatsler are all now very, very serious about staying competitive in the heart of the US car market. That heart beats on four cylinders. Welcome to the future GM.
Now that the needs of the US market are becoming more similar to the needs in other global markets, things are really getting interesting.
BTW, My four cylinder Honda/Acura TSX always has plenty of power available for anything I ask of it. Sure, our V6 Accord can outrun it, but who needs to drag race the family car?
but who needs to drag race the family car?
Don’t need to drag race a family car, but escape velocity is nice to have sometimes.
“Don’t need to drag race a family car, but escape velocity is nice to have sometimes.”
I’ve never felt in any way uncomfortable with the escape velocity of my TSX. Granted, I sometimes have to put the pedal to the metal for a short amount of time to do the squirt into traffic thing when merging, but those instances are rare, and it is kind of fun hearing that four banger run wide open for a little time. Some people seem to be concerned about using the full range of an accelerator pedal. I’ve never been bothered by that, perhaps because I spent a lot of time in my youth driving a 1974 Fiat X1/9. Now that was a car which spent a lot of time wide open, without ever going terribly fast.
Well, a 1st-gen TSX with a manual transmission is quick enough to get away from all but the most deranged QX56 driver.
My (around 13 seconds 0-60) Diplomat is fine for most around town driving, but I hate it when a giant Duramax Silverado of Death decides to play NASCAR with my rear bumper on a two-lane road and I don’t have enough engine to get away. Attempting a passing maneuver is always an adventure too.
I have been drag racing the ” family car” since 1956, and I still do it. Right now, we have two 14 second family cars. Try it.
The extra power and torque of a six-cylinder engine as opposed to the standard non-turbo four found in most current midsize cars is nice for passing on hilly 2 lane roads as a safety feature.
Four cylinder N/A power in a midsize sedan (or worse yet, a crossover SUV) often means getting stuck behind slow RV’s and trucks for miles on 2 lane roads in rural Washington and Oregon.
Gee…thanx Saab and Opel for teaching us how to make 4 cylinders that dont suck. GM
I hope there’s a framed picture of that Citation in some GM exec’s office, captioned “NEVER AGAIN!!!”
While 4 cylinder engines can generally get the job done, I prefer a V6 to a naturally aspirated 4 because of the low end torque, and the ability to get going without having to rev the engine all the way up. I also like the aural qualities of the 6 more, as they have a nice growl at higher RPMs that beats the pants off of the raspy whine of most 4 cylinders.
Now, turbo 4s are a different story. I’d be happy to take a turbo 6 over a NA 8, and a turbo 4 over a NA 6. Modern turbos have almost no lag, and great low end torque combined with better fuel economy.
You oughta try a small displacement diesel. V6 torque with 4 cyl economy. Wish more makes followed VW’s lead.
Thats why I like my turbo Diesel Citroen and thats why Ford use PSA diesels plenty of grunt great fuel economy now they put a V6 2.7 TD in the Ford territory it will be brilliant indteAd of just great
@ Bryce: In an ealier comment you mentioned, American cars were not built for the condtions/roads found in Oz.
It would be intersting to see how your turbo Diesel Citroen would look and perform after, say five Canadian winters. Slush,snow,salt, throw in a couple of -40 morning cold starts.
Just saying.
Mikey: Since Citroens are sold in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, I’d guess they are built with harsh winters in mind and do just fine.
In really cold weather, a diesel probably needs a block heater to start after sitting overnight but then again, gasoline-powered cars can benefit from one in the same situation.
You guys act like it’s the end of the world when the GM 4-cylinder rules the day. I’ve owned LS1, LS6, LS2’s with their low 30’s mpg. My 2.4 Ecotec Saturn Sky with aftermarket turbo makes 42-44 mpg when I’m being good or arouns 40 mpg with air conditioning on. The V8’s have nice responsiveness most like a freight train but my Sky will pull harder at 2500 rpms on up and do it with electric smoothness of no LSX engine.
Wow do you REALLY get that good of gas mileage out of the Sky, WITH a turbo?? Highway or around town? They were only rated at 19/25, how do you almost double it?
It’s all in the choice of keystrokes.
My family fleet has a couple of Ecotecs, we routinely exceed the fuel mileage estimates for the cars. We have a Pontiac G6 with the 2.4 Eco & speed, which is supposed to get 25/33. I usually run about 10 over (in MI the speed limit is 70) and it knocks mileage down to about 28-29 MPG. My kid’s Sunfire gets 39-40 MPG, but that’s usually her by herself in the car. Even my old Cavalier still gets 25+ in city and 35+ on the freeway. Again, 10 over and lightly loaded with only me in the car.
Norm doesn’t specify how fast he’s going when he gets that mileage. The onboard computer in our Pontiac gives me some pretty high figures (well into the 40’s) when I’m driving at 55-60 MPH. Speed definitely kills your mileage. But I’m not unhappy with 28 MPG at 80(ish) MPH.
“You guys act like it’s the end of the world when the GM 4-cylinder rules the day.”
No, not at all. The world ended way back when Chevy dropped the 283 and 327 and the pillarless hardtop!
Must say that I still own a 283. It got itself parked by pulling 13mpg when prices became high the first time. You may be seeing them through rose colored glasses but you sure have the time right. They replaced them in 68 (more or less) with the 307 and 350 which were just covered with primitive smog junk. I spent as long as I could driving pre 68 models when I could. Nobody old enough to remember them will probably ever forget our Government at work engineering cars. Come to think of it, they never stopped.
When I read about future cars and engines, sometimes I hope I can keep my 372+ HP V8 antique running until it can’t drive anymore, or I die.
If you use the extra torque from a turbo instead of reving the crap out of it looking for hp you will get good gas milage but if you cant drive you wont
Chevy is taking a big gamble on anything related to Daewoo, unlike the other well know Korean brands, this company has done nothing to convince me that their products are up to Western standards. Aveo is still available and point to that fact, it is an old design but they could have made it better if they were able to
Daewoo’s car building history since the late 60’s (through Saehan Motors, which Daewoo bought in the 70’s, that was more or less GM Korea) mainly consists of GM products. It’s about 45 years too late to say the are taking a big gamble…
Gm still has it’s share of problems. The Cruze steering wheel fiasco comes to mind. As far as 4-cyl family cars are concerned, our 4-cyl 2.5L Altima has plenty of pep. 5 and 6 speed transmissions help keep modern engines within their RPM sweet spot. you cant possibly compare a 4-cylinder Chevy Celebrity with a three speed automatic and throttle body injection to anything made now.
Please, anyone, find a car in the last 5-10 years that has not had a recall of any kind.
The Cruze steering wheel fiasco is similar to the Toyota Tundra tailgate fiasco or the collapsed lifter fiasco. Which is to say it’s such a tiny amount as to be insignificant.
But, you’re right and the vast majority of folks either dismiss or ignore: We’ve come a long way in the last 25 or so years. These really are the golden years. We won’t know it for a few more years…
As far as I know, the “Cruze steering wheel fiasco” was limited to one car and one car only. Which leads me to suspect post-factory tampering of some kind, but we’ll never know.
“Chevrolet has always been known for building great trucks,” said Alan Batey, U.S. vice president, Chevrolet Sales and Service. “Today, we are in the middle of transforming the brand with a strong lineup of cars that match the appeal of our trucks and crossovers.”
For that quote to make sense, I guess we’re supposed to have been lobotomized sufficiently to have forgotten that Chevrolet was known for its great cars first, and they became primarily known for great trucks and cruddy cars only after they totally squandered their engineering and design prowess and built nothing but plasticrap for a couple decades, huh?
That said, I’m glad to see GM/Chevrolet back on the upswing. ‘Bout time.
The current GM 2.4 liter Four is a far cry from boat anchors like the Iron Duke, but I’ve gotta say the current Honda & Toyota 2.4/2.5 liter four-cylinder engines make the GM unit sound tractor-like by comparison.
I can’t really think of anything positive or negative to say about recent GM 4 cylinders. The engines work and they don’t get in the way of the car. I don’t tend to pay a lot of attention to basic 4 cylinder models that get traded in because they don’t really excite me – I just mark them up and put them in line to go through service for their eventual fate as used car inventory or wholesaler/auction fodder.
We’ve had a rash of Honda CR-Vs with the Honda 2.4 liter 4 as trades lately though, and I’ve had a few customers who’ve wanted to take a look at those in comparison to the Escape. The Honda engine is smooth, quiet, and refined, but at least in the CR-V, it doesn’t have the punch or energy that the Ford 2.5 liter 4 in the Escape has. It’s certainly a more refined engine overall, and I’m sure it’s reliable, but it lacks character. For some people that could probably be seen as a benefit. As far me, I’m impressed with the engine from the perspective of refinement, but I’d gladly trade that refinement in for a bit of fun.
I don’t agree with your claim that the current GM 2.5L sounds like a tractor at all. We have a 2011 Malibu with one and the car is very quiet.
cylinders, schmilinders… as long as they can build ’em here, satisfy their customers and make a profit, i’m happy. after all, it was our tax dollars that kept ’em afloat. doesn’t mean i have to drive one though…
Call me a contrarian, but I always liked the yester-tech Iron Dukes and Chevy designed [1.8, then 2.0, then 2.2]4 cyl. engines.
Remember, after the Vega engine disaster, GM wanted to make sure they steered clear of chance taking.
They used a similar method to arrive at the 2.5 as they did for the Chevy II’s 4 cyl: they made sure it could be machined on the same line as and share as many parts [pistones connecting rods, etc]as the base V8 to save costs. A cast iron block. No timing belt. None of the potential problems of the Vega engine and the same or better fuel economy.
It was that spiritual connection to the II’s 4 that fascinated me. Iron Dukes were loud, gruff and you could tell one from a block away when it started. And GM tried to stuff them in ever car they made during the 80s from Xs to As to Ns to pick ups.
And while I liked them for their retro quality [they would have been right at home in a Durant….], people would try a Toyota 4 or a Honda and realize what a difference there was between the two. That alone would make or break a sale.
I actually fell in love with my father’s Oldsmobile: a 1984 Ciera with the 151 Iron Duke and went and found the same combination in a Citation, then an 86 Calais which my brother still runs.
And I chose the 99 Cavalier because of it’s retro engineering: OHV, connection to the original J, that sort of thing, long running design.That doesn’t appeal to many, I’m weird, but the engines got better somehow in a glacial sort of way.
Now I have an Ecotec in my current car, an 05 ION [told you I’m weird] and it’s the best aspect of the car. That and it’s GM 4 speed auto.For that combination alone I’ll keep it. And it always gets better than EPA #s old and new #s.
Sadly it’s of lower build quality than the Cavalier it replaced. +1 for Lordstown.
When GM stops meeting even the simplest slob’s low standards it’s time to move on. They had their chance.
Sick as it sounds: I’d love to have another Citation or even an 80 Olds Omega. GMs Edsels.Incredible industrial backstory.
I hope the engine in the Cruze is as good as the 2.2 Eco. Seems a bit backward,techwise as it did to me when it was usede in the Saturn Astra: timing belt, cast iron block, fussier servicing requirements…..
You’d think that would appeal, but not using a timing belt and having to change it and the water pump and and and every XXXX # of miles was also a factor in my preferring GM’s 4s.
Low cost to run,parts availability for the long term, so simple any mechanic could work on them. There’s a beauty in that primitive engineering that appealed to me, what can I say ?
“You like sh**ty cars ?……”