AutoblogGreen

Come on, GM.
Give us the natural gas option.
Its the most realistic alternative fuel we currently have. (Ask Honda - Their Civic GX is available NOW)

Reply

re:"and use eight percent less fuel than a comparable output 1.8L "

If it requires premium fuel, which costs 5% more than regular, not much of a gain overall. 8% doesn't seem like much of an increase for the turbo.

Reply

#2, I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to make the smallest engine in a line-up require premium fuel. I think it is using a very low amount of boost so it is not for performance, it just allows gm to use a smaller motor.

This will be on the chevy cobalt as well I think next year which means it should get 38-39 mpg highway thats getting better at least.

Reply

Modern turbocharged engines do not require premium. Regular will work just fine you just have a little less horsepower.

I'm excited about this engine. GM should make this the base engine on the Astra, Cobalt, G5, HHR, and maybe even the Aura, G6, and Malibu. Couple this engine with some engine shut off technology when the car is stopped or coasting and we could be looking at a 20% MPG improvement on the cheap.

Reply

#2 & #3, I hope you guys are coming from the American perspective, because most quality engines are 95RON fueled.
So the lower output turbo 1.4 will probably still be a 95RON fuel engine, and the higher output version will probably be a 98RON fuel version. (just like VW twincharger 1.4)

Look at what GM says for the Corvette, 95RON minimum for the LS3, 98RON for the LS7
http://media.gm.com/eur/corv/en/download/td/td_z06_en.pdf
http://media.gm.com/eur/corv/en/news/pk/pk_08.02.10_new_engine/6_Specifications.doc

Reply

#5;

From an American perspective, the RON requirement of any engine is meaningless. I have yet to visit a fueling station where gasoline is denoted in anything other than (R+M)/2, as the formula for octane rating is displayed on the decal along with the number.

I am unaware of any presently available vehicles with a turbo- or super-charged engine that do not require 91 (R+M)/2 fuel, forcing most of us outside of CA to go with the commonly available 93.

Reply

My 2005 9-3 linear(175hp)does not require premium. It runs great on 87 octane. I believe the current 9-3s(210hp)"suggest" 91 but can run with reduced power on 87 octane.

Reply

Usually there is always a 10 point separation between RON & MON, so you deduct 5 points from the RON to get the (R+M over 2)
http://media.gm.com/eur/cad/en/download/td/td_cts08_en.pdf

So, since California has such terrible gas, the automakers can not count on mid-grade being 95RON-90AKI, they just say 'screw it', use 91 or better.
If the US has national regulations for 87,90,93 AKI gasoline, then mileage could start to improve.
http://media.gm.com/intl/saab/en/product_services/ps_cars/ps_c_9-5bio/index.html

The 173hp Saab takes 95RON
http://media.gm.com/intl/opel/en/download/pdf/tdata/td_vectra_en.pdf

Reply

"I am unaware of any presently available vehicles with a turbo- or super-charged engine that do not require 91 (R+M)/2 fuel, forcing most of us outside of CA to go with the commonly available 93."

Fill your tank half with 93 and half with 89 if you need 91 octane and you want to save a buck or two.

Reply

Hm.
Lot of opinions and /or suggestions here on old fuel(s)
and ancient engine technology...

- Anyone done the math on how long it'll take GM to break even
with the investments done in these dinosaurs ?
- Or how that would compare to the time schedual we're
forced to keep regarding stopping greenhouse gas emissions ?

i'm just kinda pissed off.

No way can we reach the goals in time if car companies are
allowed to continue producing the outdated combustion
engines and do 'business as usual'.
Hell, those development money could have been invested in
sustainable tech for the future !
(And I'm NOT proud of beeing from the country where GM
dug up most of turbo-know-how)
- Someone has to FORCE the carmakers to change lane !

Cheers !
// T

P.S. By the way, SAABs innovative 'Trionic' engine
management system is adaptive, and can cope with an extreme
span of fuel quality.

Reply

10. Hm..... If the oil companies can't make money off of the fuel.. you deffinately won't see the developement in that direction. So expect to see internal combustion engines running oil related fuels for a long time to come. HHO fuel would be cheap and eco friendly as well. But it isn't being taken seriously by the automakers.. (wonder why ??)

Reply