Cruze news: [Chevy] Cobalt replacement to get turbo'd 1.4-liter and 40 mpg

autoblog ^ | Jul 14th 2008 | Jeremy Korzeniewski

[EEDUDE]

“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.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

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

[Dick Vomer]

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

[rockinqsranch]

“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?

[Malsua]

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.

[FlashBack]

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.

[MosesKnows]

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.

[Abathar]

"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.

[Hatteras]

You forgot one...

[Abathar]

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.

[WilliamReading]

Is that a Chevelle?

[Realism]

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.

[Abathar]

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

[TexasRepublic]

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?

[VOA]

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.

[Realism]

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.

[Hatteras]

Hardly. It’s a Monza. ;-)

[WilliamReading]

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.

[Bogey78O]

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