All-New Chevrolet Malibu To Receive Turbo Engine
23
Sponsored Links
Outside my hotel window, I’m staring down a rainy Austin, Texas skyline and a handful of 2013 Chevrolet Malibu Eco sedans enjoying their natural shower. The Bowtie brand plans on launching the efficient Eco model first at the beginning of 2012, with a cheaper base model featuring an all-new 2.5-liter Ecotec engine to follow several months afterward.
The 190 horsepower motor looks to replace the 2.4-liter engine seen in the outgoing ‘Bu, but at the same time it hardly suggests performance. Thankfully, the vehicle’s product planners recognize a need for something more enthusiastic, and will grace the new ‘Bu with a turbocharged four cylinder engine sometime in the future. As of this writing, the word isn’t out on just which engine it will be. It’s possible that it could be the 220 horsepower 2.0-liter mill seen in the Buick Regal Turbo. Just as plausible is the punchier 270 horsepower, 295 pound-foot powerplant found in the Regal GS. But perhaps we may see an all-new 2.0-liter turbo in the Malibu’s engine bay, as GM has been rumored to be developing such an engine, which is set to debut in the 2013 Cadillac ATS later in 2012.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a 2023 Corvette Z06 Convertible. Details here.
Sponsored Links
Is it just me or does the new Malibu look a little too much like a Taurus? I love the idea of a turbo option though!
It’s just you, the front end of the Malibu looks more like the previous generation Camry to me though
Well, you can always grab a peak at our Malibu unveiling videos here:
Non-ECO Malibu First Impressions:
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2011/04/nyias-2011-2013-chevy-malibu-ltz-first-impressions-video/
Malibu ECO First Impressions:
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2011/04/new-york-2011-2013-chevrolet-malibu-eco-first-impressions/
Interior:
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2011/04/nyias-2011-2013-chevy-malibu-ltz-interior-first-impressions-video/
Slight styling differences between ECO and regular Malibu:
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2011/04/nyias-2011-2013-chevy-malibu-ltz-eco-differences-video/
I think they’re shooting themselves in the foot here. the 3.6 is a great engine and dropping it for a turbo is a step backward in driving refinement and experience. BUT, I think the masses won’t know any better since these small turbo motors can be babied into giving awesome EPA numbers, and those bragging rights for the highest HWY mileage will mean more sales. As great as the current Malibu is with the V6, they’re a rarer sighting these days since everyone is mileage obsessed. It’s a shame because these turbo motors in real life don’t get any better fuel eco. than a bigger V6. Car and Driver just had a 3 way comparison with the V6 Accord and Passat and 2.0T Sonata, and in there testing all 3 cars got the same mileage. I would without a doubt rather have the V6.
@ Mozeby. I’ll have to disagree. First, the comparison of a Honda product and Hyundai product is not apples-to-apples. Hyundai has done an amazing job of late and it shows by their increased market share-but this is largely consumer-engineering and not as much mechanical engineering. Take any Hyundai vehicle in any category and shop it against a rival, and odds are, the weak point of the Hyundai is still it’s powerplant. Example: Hyundai is big on promoting 40 mpg HWY for it’s Elantra yet Motor Trend and MotorWeek both got substantially less ( 10 mpg less ) in actual driving. Compare this to Honda or Acura products which oft exceed EPA mileage ratings in everyday driving.
GM needs to be known for it’s slick, smooth, reliable powerplants as Toyota and Honda have been since the ’80s. No more brand engineered, cast iron, yesterday-tech engines spread over multiple divisions. That “dog don’t hunt” anymore. We’re into the information age and people who spend hard-earned money aren’t easily swayed by advertising and hype anymore ( not as much, anyway ).
Ecoboost-type tweaking is the way of the (near) future folks. It makes sense because the tech is there ( and has been there for quite awhile ) to make a 4 as smooth as a six with balance shafts, better fuel and timing mgmt and advanced materials. A small turbo is an excellent way to maintain the power and acceleration people have felt entitled to in America for a long time.
In the debate over EVs, EREVs and Plug-In Hybrids – it’s always mentioned how Americans feel entitled to go further, faster and use more foreign oil “just because”. While this is true to a point – Americans are not stupid. Most of us know funding terrorism and bogus dictatorships via huge fossil fuel consumption is stinkin’ thinkin’.
We know it’s time to “man up” and be cool while(by) being smarter. This means smarter, better engineered ( and yes, smaller ) powerplants in lighter weight machines. They’ll do the same work using less energy.
My prediction? E-Assist will become the new turbo. E-assisted 4 cyl. engines and intercooled turbo performance cars are here to stay. Why not celebrate it and not mourn the cast iron V-8;V-6 days of yore?
James
I’d agree with you there. Downsizing engines and electrification is the name of the game. It’s where the industry is headed, thanks in part to stringent CAFE requirements. The fact that VW and Toyota continue to use 3.6 and 3.5 liter V6s is proof that they can’t offer a smaller, boosted engine because they don’t have it ready! The VW 2.0 turbo is old (as in 10 years old) and Toyota has never done turbocharging well (with a few notable exceptions).
Personally, I enjoy sixes as well as high-output turbo fours. The sixes have that smooth power band that I’ve truly come to appreciate while the turbo fours have that lag-no lag transitionary period that I find exhilarating. That said, it all depends on the vehicle.
For example, a boosted four is fine for a Malibu, Cruze, or even Impala/full-sized sedan, but I can’t see it powering a muscle car such as a Camaro. Now, if only Chevy introduced a smaller, lighter, and more “balanced” model under/alongside the Camaro — something along the lines of an FT-86… 🙂
I’m gonna disagree with you, there, Alex. From where I stand, Toyota has never done a bad turbo at all. If we consider only the turbos and exclude the supercharged models:
Starlet GT (1.3L 16v turbo)
MR2 turbo (2.0L 16v turbo)
Celica GT-Four (2.0L 16v turbo)
Supra (3.0L 24v turbo)
Of the above, only the Starlet wasn’t sold in the US. All of these cars have achieved cult status around the world. Of particular note, the Celicas, for many years were Toyota’s entry into FIA World Rally Championship with drivers like Carlos Sainz, Juha Kankkunen, and Didier Auriol being very successful in them.
Toyota is a shadow of its former self in many ways, but that’s just nowadays. Toyota was once a really decent performance-car manufacturer.
Agreed — Toyota needs to get back to its roots and stop being the volume leader in every segment. That’s why I was careful to insert that “with a few notable exceptions” bit. My argument surrounds that fact that Toyota never made a turbo-charged mainstream vehicle — something that achieves as high of sales volumes as the Camry, Corolla, or even the Prius. All of the above were niche models, with drivers purchasing other vehicles in 20x higher volumes.
PS: impressive that you know about Sainz and Kankkunen 🙂
James I’ll disagree with u on this one. The only reason GM, Ford, Hyundai, and whoever else, are rolling out all these small turbo engines is the fuel economy game and nothing else. It’s not about higher tech or moving forward, the fact is no small turbo engine is as refined or has the linear, smooth power delivery of a V6. If it not better, than why use it? We’re sacrificing driving quality and satisfaction in the name of slightly better EPA numbers (or bragging rights).
“We’re sacrificing driving quality and satisfaction in the name of slightly better EPA numbers (or bragging rights).”
True. But it’s occurring because automakers know that most consumers don’t care about driving quality, satisfaction, or dynamics. They look at spec sheets, choose the car with the most [fill in the blank] and for the lowest price… And as long as the exterior has some “swagger”, they’re sold.
Prime example: Hyundai and Kia. Low price, stunning looks, but terrible in driving and handling… Except for the Genesis.
“because automakers know that most consumers don’t care about driving quality, satisfaction, or dynamics.” – Really? Why do you think that Honda and Toyota took away so many sales from the big 3? More people research before buying a car these days than ever before, and when you have leading publications like Car and Driver or Motor Trend always comparing your vehicles to the competition, they better be highly competitive or better than the rest. The Accord didn’t become a top seller because they had the highest HP or lowest price. They consistently were ranked at or near the top of the midsize class. Chevy had that with the current Malibu, and I’m sure the next one will be very good too, but I also know these small turbo engines just don’t win over many critics. They haven’t been too kind to the regal because of it’s engine especially when the Acura TSX with it’s V6 is quicker and gets no worse FE. Add to that a lag free drive and more progressive and linear power curve.
@Moze: Maybe I should rephrase what I meant to say by “automakers know that most consumers don’t care about driving quality, satisfaction, or dynamics.”
Magazines and publications (like GM Authority, even) can compare and contrast cars all we want… but when a POS like the Elantra almost outsells the Cruze (and outsells the Focus), I start to wonder if enough people 1) read about it, or 2) if these attributes are high on consumers’ priority list when shopping for a car.
Another example: the terribly-handling and horribly-driving Sonata outsells the Fusion and Malibu. Even though it’s new, the Sonata can’t hold a candle to the driving pleasure offered by the outgoing Malibu, let alone the new one.
So, I would like to think that people care about handling, driving quality, and overall vehicle dynamics, but I can’t explain why people buy inferior vehicles (in those particular areas) in such great numbers. This makes me think that they simple care at features on paper and the price.
PS: about the Honda, Toyota, and Accord coming to their success. Considering that their competition was significantly worse and very slow to react, I understand how they took over. No argument there!
@Alex. Exactly. I have a few years on you, and I distinctly remember when the early ’70s (Datsun) 240Z came out. Wow! It’s timing couldn’t have been better – right at the heels of the Arab Oil Embargo.
I was just a kid and my brother bought the first one sold in Arizona and drove it up to Seattle on I-5 averaging 95+ ( he said the only vehicle that passed him the entire way was a red Ferrari going through LA at over 120mph! ) . The straight six has always been one of my favorite ICE engine configurations, and famous for it’s smoothness + longevity. DOHC types have nestled in some pretty exciting to drive cars.
History repeats. That’s why it’s never smart to forget our past – just don’t live in it. The 240Z sold like hot dogs at a Tigers game because it flew in the face of the straight-line-only, gas-sucking pony car. For a fraction of the cost, one could enjoy handling, and a Euro-esque driving feel… It opened my childhood eyes that performance didn’t only mean what you could do in a straight line.
Likewise, today we can pare down without losing excitement. A 4 cyl. Camaro, in my mind, would have to lose dimensions in all directions. Think Hyundai Genesis Coupe.
Absolutely. I drove a 240 a few years ago; very impressive, especially considering the timeframe of its engineering and development.
We know the Camaro will shrink for the next (6th) generation when it goes on the Alpha platform. But I don’t think that will be enough; I’d call for a new model entirely that competes directly with the FT-86, which itself is much smaller than even the Genesis:
http://fordauthority.com/2011/12/does-ford-need-to-shrink-the-mustang/
True. GM needs affordable “halos”. They never really have taken the bait the likes of Toyota or Nissan dishes out with those two seater flurries like MR-2 or 350Z…
The conundrum with the sleek 2+2 is that back seat. If it’s gonna be useable and not slammed by the press – it has to actually seat adults back there who’re not in a yoga position of some sort. To reduce size too much and you’re dealing with a hatchback or kammback style body that just doesn’t sell well in the USA for some reason. BMW 3 Series size fits into the hot coupe realm. I’ve always thought the Porsche 911 was genius – putting midget sized cushions in back and calling them “seats” so the insurance companies have to insure them as 2+2s and not sports cars.
The Camaro brand is like the VW Beetle or New Beetle to me. VW canned it after milking the retro theme for more years than expected, but knew to continue, it had to be less retro and more livable, driveable and accepted by males. VW dropped the cute and came up with a compromise that I feel just won’t sell well because cute is what moved Beetles out the door. Same with Camaro. To really move Camaro into the 21st Century ( is this a Malibu thread? ) GM should move it’s greenhouse forward ( cabover ) and keep it’s wheels far out into the corners leaving no overhang to speak of. Clever packaging could deliver a four seater, 4 cylinder E-assist/Turbo performance coupe, but it would have to lose most or all of it’s retro “charm”.
Maybe Camaro should die it’s slow death and a new model altogether take it’s place?
They better not steal the “exclusive to Buick” 270 hp ecotec that’s in my GS!!!! LOL!!!
@Mozeby. “Bragging rights” eludes to ego. Whether it be us, the consumer wanting to boast about our fuel economy at the Christmas party or water cooler, or boneheads scratching themselves and bloviating upon whether one’s mid-life crisis-mobile gets to sixty a second or a tenth faster than yours. Any way you look at it, it’s one person claiming they’re somehow better/smarter than another. Stupid – huh?
Bragging rights of a corporation may be annual sales or making specifications that make for good advertising fodder – “we’re better…”. It may be for profit or for puff, it could be for bluff – but in no way is smaller, more efficient about bragging.
Smaller and more efficient power is just smart. It’s about not putting our soldiers, sailors and airmen out in some hellhole to die fighting for our rights to oilfields. To expound upon my former comments – look at Honda’s new CR-V, just released. Honda claims “15% less inner friction ” inside it’s new 4 cyl.. This is the innovation GM needs to strive for, it’s called “refinement”. Refinement leads to smoother ride, faster speeds using less energy, wherever that energy comes from. It’s all good. If your V-6 could use less energy while maintaining your “driving quality and satisfaction”, so be it – but it cannot. Sheer laws of physics say you will continue to be wasteful unless you find a better way to move mass from one point to the next. V-6s are not efficient. End of story.
If we want to talk driving dynamics and qualilty of ride equalling pure satisfaction – enter Volt. If you get the chance – drive one. The center of gravity of the large battery pack in the very center floor of the car make it handle better than any Cruze, Regal or LaCrosse. It’s weight also plants it to the ground and gives it’s luxurious drive an almost eery silky glide along the road. Of course, in EV mode it’s completely silent with zero vibration – how better can driving quality get than that? When dialing in tire noise because it is the only thing your ears percieve, …..I feel that’s a high satisfactory quotient, don’t you?
To me, GM needs to further Voltec and refine it’s gas generator ( Atkinson Cycle, Aluminum block-balance shafts-nano injectors ), as today ( and I mean TODAY ) Ford is bragging up it’s C-Max PHEV and hybrid and the grossly expensive Focus EV ( same price as EREV Volt with no gas backup ) – so the sabers are already rattling. GM has a clear lead. Look to tech for improvement in any category of driving satisfaction.
“It’s all good. If your V-6 could use less energy while maintaining your “driving quality and satisfaction”, so be it – but it cannot. Sheer laws of physics say you will continue to be wasteful unless you find a better way to move mass from one point to the next. V-6s are not efficient. End of story” – Go read the C&D comparo between the Sonata 2.0T, Passat V6 and Accord V6 and pay attention to their FE numbers over the course of their test and tell me how these V6s aren’t as efficient. Like I said before a turbo is fine if you’re not using the throttle, but the minute you’re accelerating it wastes gas no better or worse than a V6. I’ve read many complaints about the Mazda CX-5 and Acura RDX who also use turbo 4s and their numbers are what you’d expect from a 3.5 V6.
@Moze — you’re absolutely right. Currently, there hasn’t been any evidence that smaller, turbo-charged engines result in better real-world fuel economy that larger, naturally-aspirated units. The turbo fours do better in the EPA circuit tests, though — which doesn’t translate to real-world numbers. That’s why I applaud Ford for sticking with the biggest-in-class 2.0 liter in the Focus.
I think they also use Lithium Ion battery for Focus and C-Max
Mozebe: I can’t agree with you on the turbo 4’s not being as smooth and linear as a V6. Have you driven the Regal GS yet? There is no indication that there’s a turbo 4 under the hood. There is no turbo noise and the power range is smooth as silk, at least IMO it is. of you didn’t know there was a 4 under the good, you’d more than likely guess it was a V6.
@Mozeby: Moze, you just aren’t convincing me. How can we compare SUVs of any size with a compact sedan? The weight difference alone makes quite a diff in mileage, then add ride height and sheer drag of the body.It also floors me when I hear advertisements proclaiming vehicles with 30-40 mpg highway are “fuel efficient”. We don’t drive on the highway all the time – so what are the vehicle’s true numbers? Aren’t they asking you to go into debt for the next 4-6 years for a $25-50,000 machine that still will have you visiting the pump regularly and getting a TRUE 20 mpg? In my book that is just not a smart purchase for anyone.
I won’t sit here and laud the turbo 4cyl or any other ICE powerplant. Any way we slice it, we’re talking 19th century piston, crank and bang technology.
As I’ve stated – Look to the Volt and a soon-to-be slate of PHEV vehicles – most not as impressive as Volt, but still showing us there are new ways to move you down the road.
I was shocked ( no pun intended ) to see a Tesla dealer in an upscale mall in my area. The Tesla roadster on display made me drool. The large Tesla-only charging facility located in the covered parking lot also gave me a peek into the future.
The Roadster on display was sold to someone in Europe, and they told me there was ONE Roadster left I could buy ( a white one in California ). When that one is gone, the little sports car that could will just be a memory. Tip: If you can purchase one – mortgage the house – you’re looking at future Cobra material here. Keep it, charge it, go 0-60 in 3.7 seconds in it, and sell it in 25 years for millions.
A Model S chassis was on display – a mock up without a body. It’s impressive the way Tesla has been able to survive. I’ve read that Lotus just stopped making the Roadster chassis – and there was no plans to work with Lotus or make a proprietary Tesla Roadster V.2. The Tesla rep in WA told me “there was never plans for a Roadster II”, so believe whatever you will – but you have to admire the genius of wowing the world with a sports car that could outperform most Porsches and Ferraris, go 240 miles on an electrical charge and never use a drop of fuel. It sort of gives the term “halo” a new twist. EV racing would also show the world that EVs are no slouch – and not some eco-boring option.
Let’s get on with Tesla Model S – seats 5 plus 2 children, has a very useful hatch area and a trunk in the front! They’re claiming 0-60 in 5.4 seconds for the entry-level Model S at $60,000, and a long-range model at 300 miles on a charge! Breaking news – Tesla announces at intro a Model S that goes 0- 60 in 4 seconds!
This is the stuff of legend. When you get a chance – watch the new documentary: “Revenge Of The Electric Car” and watch carefully as Bob Lutz walks the Detroit Auto Show with Tesla’s Elon Musk. The respect and even “awe” of this young upstart is very evident.
I look forward to the day when people who argue infernal combustion are just thought of as dinosaurs and the rest of us will drive EVs primarily and keep our classic V-8 and V-6 cars for sunny Sundays when we can still break the bank open to buy a few gallons and take a cruise, then put them back in storage.
@James — I don’t think anyone would argue with you that the future (at least as it’s seen today) is electric. I’m a fan of such as future — but it will take us some time to get there, as I’m sure you’re well aware.
For starters, the massive change in infrastructure will take time and investment from all parties involved — including the government(s), manufacturers, and independent business. Then there’s the cost issue — which will subside with time.
After driving the Tesla Roadster myself, I was sold on electric. Then I drove the Volt and was sold even further. Good stuff, but it won’t happen tomorrow.