New Malibu Turbo!

[BowtieBelle]

Check this out. Bet we'll have one of these in a sixth-gen Camaro.

http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/chev...ibu_turbo.html

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Very nice torque numbers.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by BowtieBelle

Check this out. Bet we'll have one of these in a sixth-gen Camaro.

http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/chev...ibu_turbo.html

Well for that to happen, there would have to be some sort of tangible benefit to doing so, right? Compare it to the LFX V6 and lets see ...

• The LFX makes more torque (peak & through most of the rpm band, except one little hiccup around 2 grand
• They get the same fuel economy on the highway as the current Camaro LS (which is larger & <I assume> less aerodynamic)
• The LFX is also more powerful, some of which could probably be sacrificed for a bit better fuel economy if GM so desires.

So I see no reason why such an engine would be offered in the Camaro, there are no apparent benefits. It won't make much of a difference in weight as forced induction adds roughly the same weight as 2 extra cylinders.

Is this 2L turbo a good engine? Yes. Does it make sense for the Malibu? Yes, because there are a bunch of cost & weight savings to be made by reducing the number of engine configurations under the hood. The supply chains are simplified, the size & shape of the engine bay can be better optimized, less engineering needs to be done on the connections to the engine (including the motor mounts and any lines to/from the engine). But those same savings become penalties when you add another config. You are adding complexity, cost, and weight -things that you should only do if you've got a really good reason. I don't see one for using this engine in the Camaro.

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Well for that to happen, there would have to be some sort of tangible benefit to doing so, right? Compare it to the LFX V6 and lets see ...

• The LFX makes more torque (peak & through most of the rpm band, except one little hiccup around 2 grand
• They get the same fuel economy on the highway as the current Camaro LS (which is larger & <I assume> less aerodynamic)
• The LFX is also more powerful, some of which could probably be sacrificed for a bit better fuel economy if GM so desires.

So I see no reason why such an engine would be offered in the Camaro, there are no apparent benefits. It won't make much of a difference in weight as forced induction adds roughly the same weight as 2 extra cylinders.

Is this 2L turbo a good engine? Yes. Does it make sense for the Malibu? Yes, because there are a bunch of cost & weight savings to be made by reducing the number of engine configurations under the hood. The supply chains are simplified, the size & shape of the engine bay can be better optimized, less engineering needs to be done on the connections to the engine (including the motor mounts and any lines to/from the engine). But those same savings become penalties when you add another config. You are adding complexity, cost, and weight -things that you should only do if you've got a really good reason. I don't see one for using this engine in the Camaro.

I think she is considering this being combined with the same platform as the ATS, so it would be a lighter vehicle than the 5th gen, so performance may be about the same as with the LFX and you might get better mpg as well. I guess we'll all see when the 6th Gen comes out.

[FenwickHockey65]

Pretty sure 6th gen will be 2.0T standard.

[Ehmsea]

I wonder what this puppy sounds like...civic si comes to mind...

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by Ehmsea

I wonder what this puppy sounds like...civic si comes to mind...

I would think more like a Cobalt SS/TC

[Taintedveins]

Looking forward to see how much this system could be tweaked for the 6th gen, if it pulls 259 now and it has been tuned moderately, I wonder what would happen if they were more aggressive with the tuning? at 3400lbs and a v4 turbo putting down 280 I would be pretty happy. That being said if they could tt a v4 and put down around 320-330 with a v8 and v6 option as well I wouldn't mind either. Optimistically I would want the 4cyl to get 35-40mpg or so highway and 24 city.