By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Now they are getting back into the turbo again...after the competition, of course!
Perhaps there is some hope for GM after all!
Regards,
OW
I'm just as impressed by what a modern DI turbo can do - even run on 87 octane nowadays.
No kidding, I recently test drove an F150 with the twin turbo ecoboost. Wow, I've never driven a gasoline engine with so much power available between 2-3krpm. It was a 4x4 supercrew and it was actually fast. Quicker than any vehicle I've ever owned.
Even more impressive is turbo lag is basically nonexistent. I put the trans in manual mode, kept it in a 4th or 5th gear at 20 mph, hit the gas pedal, and there was basically no delay in available torque. I tried about everything to catch the turbos off guard and I didn't. Granted it was only about a 30 minute test drive. The only knock on it would be the lack of a v8 soundtrack.
My Expedition felt turtle slow after the test drive. It's been a while since I test drove a 6.2 powered denali, but from my memory, the EB felt stronger in the low to midrange rpm level.
A friend of mine has about 1k miles on his Ecoboost f150 Screw Lariat 4x4 with 3.73 gears. He claims if he keeps it under 70mph he gets 21-22 mpg. Impressive considering my Expedition with the same gearing would get 17-18 max at 70mph.
Here is a quote from an engine hp calculator.
For example, with an air temperature of 85 deg F, an absolute pressure of 25.09 in-Hg, and 40% relative humidity, the engine only produces about 81.1% of the rated horsepower.
http://www.anycalculator.com/enginehorsepower.htm
I've witnessed this first hand with our boat. In the early summer on a 75 degree day, it will run 2-3 mpg faster than on a 90 degree day in mid to late summer. That may not sound like much, but with as much drag as water creates, it can take 40-50 HP to gain 5 mph of top speed on a 20-25' boat.
General Motors also stumbled in the survey, particularly the Buick and Cadillac brands, which each dropped six spots to 24th and 25th.
The Buick LaCrosse, the all-wheel-drive version of the Buick Enclave, and the Cadillac SRX all fell below average this year after being deemed reliable a year ago, the magazine said.
Despite improvement, domestic models still have reliability issues: Of 97 domestic models and versions for which the magazine had data, 62 of them (64 percent) rated average or better compared with 96 percent for Japanese brands.
CR Reliability Survey
Lots of work to do, GM.
Regards,
OW
Perhaps they need a catchy label, also?
Perhaps they need a catchy label, also?
The difference is the vehicles they are in. Ford wasn't selling many ecoboosts until they offered it in the F150.
I rarely see a ecoboost powered Taurus, Flex, and MKS. Now you'll probably see quite a few 4cyl ecoboost Taurus' running around when it's offered in the 2012 or 2013 Taurus and other mainstream vehicles.
What vehicles has GM offered a DI turbo in other than the Regal, Cobalt SS, and HHR SS? None of which are big sellers.
Now, GM may say the Verano doesn't compete with the Cam/cords, but it's in that price range. The Verano may have a nicer interior, but I believe the people GM will be marketing to expect better fuel economy going to a smaller car.
Sure, something like an Audi A3 which is likely similar in size to the Verano, gets similar mileage, but it offers far more performance, like 2 seconds to 60 better. No way will they be cross-shopped, they are completely different cars IMO.
I don't see something like a IS 250 being cross-shopped either. It gets similar mileage but also offers a more powerful v6 in RWD. Still apples and oranges in my opinion.
The mileage of the Verano is only slightly better than a Lacrosse. Now what would be interesting is if GM had the brains to offer the diesel that is going into the Cruze in the Verano. Now that would make sense to me.
Also, once the 2.0 Turbo arrives (why such a delay?) next year, the Verano certainly will be more competitive.
I was looking through MT new car guide today. New turbo Regal has 270 HP and turns 6.7 sec 0-60 with 2.0 liters but the 6A is not yet available, just the 6M. It has 13 ft-lbs more than my 3800SC and only weighs 50 lbs more. Regal was 19/27 mpgs.
Suprised to see the 4.3 still a std in the Silverado and it turns 8.5 sec. A comparable time to the F150 with a 3.7 that has 108 more HP and was developed a decade and a half later. Or is that quarter century later?
I say BS. No way will a 4.3 run with Ford's new v6/6seed. The 4.8 v8 probably slower since it's still stuck with a 4 speed trans.
Don't know where that data came from, but pickuptrucks.com did a v6 comparison and the 3.7 Ford blew away the 4.3 Chevy and Dodge 3.7. The [non-permissible content removed] kicking got even worse when a trailer was put on the back of them.
http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2010/11/2010-v-6-work-truck-shootout-qua- - - - rter-mile-test.html
That's like saying my best bowling score is above my average. Duh.
The bottom tiers of Japanese cars are excluded by that statement, thus your restatement of the article is incorrect (biased) as expected. The article is actually titled...'Ford slips in reliability'.
Sure, it has nothing to do with the fact the Ford v6 has more torque and much more HP. Plus with it having independent variable valve timing on both intake and exhaust it can maintain 90% of its torque output from around 2k rpm to over 6k rpm (basically it puts out more torque than the 4.3 once it revs past 2k rpm and that continues to over 6k rpm, that's a huge power band compared to the 4.3.) Sure gearing is very important (after having a 6 speed I'll never go back to a 4 speed), still a 4.3 with the same gearing is not going to perform as well overall. Plus the F150 weighs over 300lbs more than the Chevy, and it still creamed it in every measured test.
Wonder if thats also why the Ford V6 gets 20% worse fuel economy? (12 vs 15 city)
Where do you get your info? The 4.3 Silverado is rated at 15/20 vs 17/23 for the Ford.
Check out the comparison test. The f150 in the test also returned the best fuel economy too.
http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2010/11/2010-v-6-fuel-economy-and-long-d- - - - - istance-ride-quality.html
"GM can do no wrong" thinking is what made GM fail in the first place.
Regards,
OW
And most turbos have an aftercooler for the reasons mentioned, cooler air, can get more in the engine + more fuel = more power.
Toyota
Nissan
Honda
Mazda
Mitsubishi
Lexus
Acura
Infiniti
Scion
Subaru
Suzuki
I'm guessing they meant Accord, Camry -- not Toyota, Honda, etc.
The name of the car is also a "brand" - a la Malibu, Impala, etc.
True, add the Sky and Solistice turbos, all low volume.
I agree with you - disappointing. Especially when you consider it's not quick. We could blame short gearing but then it should be quick off the line, and it's not.
I'd get a Cruze with the 1.4T. Better yet - the diesel.
They're comparing new cars to the average existing car. New cars have improved.
Actually what that shows is that the differences are far more subtle than they used to be.
That is correct, Suzuki and Mitsubishi are missing, for instance.
I know they've had trouble getting enough of a sample size for those, so perhaps they were omitted completely?
Look at weak sales of both companies and it's not hard to imagine why they cannot get a big sample.
Why GM doesn't have the DI V-6 from the Camaro in their base model Silverado is a mystery. Maybe in 5 years?
With EGR sending a mess back in to the intake porting, there's no gasoline to rinse it clean from the valves, so carbon can accumulate.
The (so far) more reliable DI engines have both port and direct injection. Look at Lexus - their direct-only 2.5l V6 has shown that issue, but the port and direct-injected 3.5l V6 has not.
GM is hedging their bets, perhaps until lower sulfur fuels are more widespread.
I agree with you - disappointing. Especially when you consider it's not quick. We could blame short gearing but then it should be quick off the line, and it's not.
I'd get a Cruze with the 1.4T. Better yet - the diesel.
I think I'd prefer the Cruze too. I'm very curious about the diesel. Sounds good to me.
The Verano makes me scratch my head. The Chrysler 300 starts at 27k, offers 292Hp and with the 8 speed, it will be rated at 19/31 HWY while being much quicker than something like the Verano. Not that they'll really compete with each other. I'm just surprised at the low FE ratings. The 300 probably weighs 600lbs more, is much larger, RWD, and has over 100 more HP yet gets similar FE.
What gives? How can a Verano rate lower? Seems silly.
Just checked, 22/32 for the mid-size SUV, 21/31 for a compact sedan? Huh?!
Not from me you won't;). I put 100k on a 5.3 so I'm very familiar with they strengths and weaknesses. Reliable, but just not enough torque for me.
The Hemi's are impressive, when they're all backed up by 8 speed transmissions, watch out. The gearing of the 5speed is their current weakness.
I agree, it's a head scratcher.
Manufacturer = General Motors.
Make = Chevrolet.
Model = Impala.
Saw an item in the NY Times on 100 years of Chevrolet. They were asking famous owners about their favorites. Dale Earnhardt Jr, Mario Andretti and such. Note fast Corvettes and old pick ups. My favorite was Jay Leno. He has a 1911 designed by Louis Chevrolet that he loves but his daily driver is a Volt! He loves the thing and has gone 10K miles in it and it still has only the factory gas in it! If someone gave me a Volt I'd keep it for sure - just too much money to buy one.
I'd guess any new vehicle from the factory has gasoline with Sta-bil or something similar in it. So that gasoline should still be good. Will people know or even remember to put Sta-bil in their gas when they do fillup? That might cause some interesting breakdown and warranty claims/issues.
I pretty much run stabil in the boat and waverunner anytime I think the gas will be in the tank more than a month, but they don't have sealed fuel systems even though both have FI. I'd guess a sealed fuel system in a car will keep fuel fresh longer, but if I owned a Volt and didn't use the gas engine very often, I'd always put stabil or seafoam in the tank. Cheap insurance.
I'm guessing the Volt uses premium based on how the on board engine operates when charging and it probably gets better economy with premium.
Yeah, but the dealers cried for them, if nothing else, to get buyers in the showroom, and then upsell them to a more expensive car. It got even worse in the 70's, when everybody had to have a version of the Nova, and even the Monza!
Nowadays, around here at least, Buick, Cadillac, and GMC are usually consolidated under one roof, so they might like having the Verano to get the lower-end buyers in the door, at least. If nothing else, maybe they'll sell a Verano to that buyer today, and then 4-5 years down the road, that buyer will come back for a nicer, more expensive car.
I'ma thinking that the Verano will be a tough sell. While I've only a "paper" analysis from the websites, I could get a fully loaded Ford Focus Titanium for a little less than the base Verano. Take a look at the front leg room and hip room and you'll see that they are about the same size, where it's important, and the Focus gets 37mpg. I would buy the Focus Titanium just to play with their "parking-assist" feature.
I think it will be too. I guess I don't see the point of a small premium car if it doesn't A) provide superior fuel economy, or
If GM has reasonable sales goals for the Verano it likely will sell what they expect. I don't see 20-30 year olds wanting one, but little old ladies that want something nice and easy to park.
And I drove an auto. Solstice GXP w/the 2.0L and was not impressed. It was smooth and competent, but not really exciting. I was looking for a sporty convertible; but I left it on the lot.
I'm with you - just get a Regal. Looks better, drives better, same 31mpg highway.
GM has put enough incentives on that that real-world prices likely overlap a lot.
$27,345
9.0s to 60mph
20mpg
Here's their non-GS Regal, with the same 2.4l engine:
http://www.insideline.com/buick/regal/2011/2011-buick-regal-cxl-24-liter-full-te- st-and-video.html
$31,780, but note base price was $26,995, so there's overlap
9.8s to 60mph
19.9 mpg
Basically similar performance and economy, for similar money. But you get a bigger car that also drives better.
You'd think the Verano would stand out more given it's smaller and lighter.
I think a lot has to do with the value of the dollar itself, though.
Plus, there's just simple inflation and sticker shock. Even though inflation has been low for awhile, it has a way of creeping up on you. The $22,389 I paid for my 2000 Intrepid, out the door, back in November 1999 comes out to around $30,491 in 2011 dollars (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/)
Even the ~$8138 that my 2000 Park Ave cost me used two years ago would come out to around $8606 today.
All things considered, I think new cars are a bit of a bargain these days.
We also want more content in our cars as well. I remember Ford Escorts and Chevy Cavaliers that didn't have A/C, power windows or locks, or even power steering. Nowadays consumers are demanding electronics such as nav systems and connections for their Ipods. All those "soft-touch" plastics not only make an interior look more expensive, but they are as well. New safety equipment (airbags, ABS, etc.) also add to the bottom line, as well as the newer powertrain technology that improves performance and fuel economy.
Face it, our tastes are getting expensive...