Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cruze news: [Chevy] Cobalt replacement to get turbo'd 1.4-liter and 40 mpg
autoblog ^ | Jul 14th 2008 | Jeremy Korzeniewski

Posted on 07/14/2008 6:09:19 AM PDT by wolf78

Rising fuel prices, both in the U.S. and abroad, means that automakers can now offer similar engines in vehicles sold throughout the world. According to Automotive News, General Motors' next small car, the Chevrolet Cruze, will be offered with a new 1.4-liter force-fed four-banger, putting out between 120 and 140 horsepower and returning fuel mileage in the 40 mpg range.


(Excerpt) Read more at autoblog.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: automakers; chat; chevrolet; chevy; cobalt; cruze; energy; generalmotors; gm; mpg; prius; transportation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 last
To: rockinqsranch

“If it ain’t Ethanol, tell me if you can what it is.”

You’re correct, IMO. Comparing BTU content of gasoline vs ethanol doesn’t tell the whole story.


61 posted on 07/14/2008 8:35:54 AM PDT by EEDUDE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: EEDUDE

A friend had a new 68 or 69 GTX for his HS graduation (his dad owned the local bank.) It was a screamer...


62 posted on 07/14/2008 8:36:15 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Fishrrman

what would you recommend for a starter honda now? Daughter in the market and is looking at a Nissan Murano.


63 posted on 07/14/2008 9:06:39 AM PDT by Dick Vomer (liberals suck....... but it depends on what your definition of the word "suck" is.,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: EEDUDE

“Comparing BTU content of gasoline vs ethanol doesn’t tell the whole story.”

Thank you. Refreshing to know somebody actually reads and comprehends what someone else is saying out there in FRland. I’m afraid my FRiend I was communicating with on this matter this thread was preoccupied with other duties, thus the lack of thought towards his responses. Obviously was speed reading and missed the content of my posts. I’ve seen that a lot at FR though, so not surprised.

Saab did some experimenting awhile back to increase engine efficiency, but in so making the engine itself more efficient, failed in the mpg category. It was an interesting article. I’ll have to look it up again and post it. One would think a more efficient engine, of which SAAB is one of the most efficient there is, or should I say durable...perhaps that isn’t a good equation...would lead to better fuel economy.

Regardless as I mentioned in my previous conversation with another poster, I’ve had SAAB’s for 20 years, and know when something isn’t right. Thus the mileage rechecks on the two four cyl. Turbo models we have. Astounding to see the drop in fuel economy since our last mileage checks a number of years ago.

This means, according to my FR friends’ perspective and information this morning that one must have a new car tuned specifically for Ethanol. Wonder what will happen when Ethanol is dropped like MTBE after the Nov. election?


64 posted on 07/14/2008 9:23:22 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists...call 'em what you will...They ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: FlashBack
We’ve had it in the 9’s but our current combo is a low 10 second setup.

Nice. Mine ran mid to high 12s NA...but it was a 289. The 175 horse Nox really cranked the torque numbers up. Without it, most of the time was earned on the 2nd half of the 1/4. I had a custom ground crane that was 5.05/5.30, 3.83 gears, ported/milled heads, dual springs, C4 tranny with 3000 converter, intake, headers, traction bars and bags, etc. I ran M&Hs at the track..just junkers on in the picture.

It didn't look like much...ran like a raped ape till a friend revved it over 7500 on a pass and water started blowing out the radiator bypass due to a crack we could never find.


65 posted on 07/14/2008 9:23:23 AM PDT by Malsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Malsua

Nice!
I’ve owned a hald dozen of these over the years.
I’ve got one Futura in the garage with 48,000 original miles on it (302).
I’ve got an NX nitrous kit in the garage that may find it’s way onto the 401 one of these days but for now we’re all motor.


66 posted on 07/14/2008 9:47:36 AM PDT by FlashBack (www.proudpatriots.org/www.woundedwarriorproject.org/www.moveamericaforward.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
if memory serves

I think your memory is faulty, by several times. There is considerable difference between gasoline and diesel fuel and there there is considerable difference between a gasoline engine and a diesel engine.

67 posted on 07/14/2008 10:52:30 AM PDT by MosesKnows (Love many, Trust few, and always paddle your own canoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows
"The makeup of both gasoline and diesel is different as well. Gasoline is typically C9H20, while diesel fuel is typically C14H30. The increase in carbon and hydrogen atoms is the reason the energy density of diesel is greater as well. On average, 1 gallon (3.8 L) of diesel fuel contains approximately 155x106 joules (147,000 BTU), while 1 gallon of gasoline contains 132x106 joules (125,000 BTU). "

I have both diesel and gas vehicles, I thought the BTU ratio per volume was even higher than what this site states, that is what I was referring to.

68 posted on 07/14/2008 10:58:46 AM PDT by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: WilliamReading
You forgot one...


69 posted on 07/14/2008 11:01:12 AM PDT by Hatteras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Realism

I tried my best to find one back in ‘85 to buy new for my first car. The dealers were not even taking offers, most were at full sticker or above. I ended up with the SS Monte Carlo instead. Never understood why Chevy only put the 305 dog in that thing.


70 posted on 07/14/2008 11:03:44 AM PDT by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Hatteras

Is that a Chevelle?


71 posted on 07/14/2008 11:11:10 AM PDT by WilliamReading
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
I tried my best to find one back in ‘85 to buy new for my first car.

Mine was 4 years old when I bought it. A friend was forced to get rid of it when her mother insisted it was a death machine.

72 posted on 07/14/2008 11:30:41 AM PDT by Realism (Some believe that the facts-of-life are open to debate.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Realism

They were quick, blew the doors off of my SS if both were stock.


73 posted on 07/14/2008 11:32:12 AM PDT by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: wolf78

My 1996 Honda Civic hatchback when new got actual 44mpg highway mileage on straight gas. It still gets 40+mpg. How is this an improvement?


74 posted on 07/14/2008 11:33:04 AM PDT by TexasRepublic (When hopelessness replaces hope, it opens the door to evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasRepublic
How is this an improvement?

I'd generally agree with you.
Conversely, some automotive writers note the weight burdens
added to most cars in the last decade or two; e.g., multiple
airbags, other safety materials and airconditioning in many
more cars of all weight classes.

That might account for seeing the present machine as "improved".

But as an owner of a 1972 Capri that (from my best records) got
34 mpg regardless of whether I went 55mph or 70mph on the highway,
sentimentally, I'm with you.
75 posted on 07/14/2008 11:39:16 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
They were quick

Yep, especially for a car you could drive daily, but no fast turns and they don't need wings to fly. They came stock with a 125 mph governor on the chip.

76 posted on 07/14/2008 11:44:36 AM PDT by Realism (Some believe that the facts-of-life are open to debate.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: WilliamReading

Hardly. It’s a Monza. ;-)


77 posted on 07/14/2008 12:38:27 PM PDT by Hatteras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Hatteras

The last Chevy I owned was a Monza 2+2. A real piece of crap, and that is being kind to Chevrolet.

I never went back to GM after driving that car, which was a compltete lemon with aluminum engine.


78 posted on 07/14/2008 1:33:41 PM PDT by WilliamReading
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: wolf78

The Volt is not a short term savior. It’ll help GM several years down the line when non-gas vehicles become more common.


79 posted on 07/14/2008 6:09:38 PM PDT by Bogey78O (Don't call them jihadis. Call them irhabis. Tick them off, don't entertain their delusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson