General Motors is offering a turbocharged 1.6 liter engine on the Chevrolet Malibu in China, apparently in place of the more powerful 2.0 liter turbo unit found in the midsize sedan in nearly all other markets. Unfortunately, the boosted 1.6 doesn’t seem to be the all-new direct-injected 1.6 liter turbo engine that was recently announced as part of GM’s powertrain revitalization strategy.
Instead, this turbo four-banger makes 181 horsepower (135 Kw) and 173 lb.-ft. (235 Nm) of torque — which puts it right behind the output produced by the outgoing 2.4 liter SIDI LEA four-cylinder. Interestingly, Chevy’s specifications state that the Malibu powered by the 1.6T is faster to 60 MPH than the one cradling the 2.4, but only by 0.3 seconds. Even so, the new 2.5 liter LCV is more powerful than both the 1.6T and 2.4 LEA, but we wonder if the all-new 1.6T will be even more potent than the 2.5.
The turbocharged 1.6 joins the naturally-aspirated 2.0 liter Ecotec, 2.0 liter turbodiesel, and 3.0 liter V6 LFW as the fourth engine not available on the U.S.-spec Malibu.
The GM Authority Take
We couldn’t care less about the mediocre (and hoary) 2.0 Ecotec, similarly unimpressive turbo 1.6, or the 3.0 V6… but we’d love to see the diesel mill offered in the North American-market Malibu. That, and the all-new 1.6 liter will definitely make things interesting when it finally comes to market, possibly making us question the existence of the 2.5 LCV.
| SPECIFICATION | 2.0L ECOTEC | 2.4L SIDI ECOTEC | 1.6L TURBO ECOTEC | 2.5L SIDI ECOTEC | 2.0L TURBO ECOTEC | 2.0L TURBO DIESEL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DISPLACEMENT (ML) | 1998 | 2384 | 1598 | 2499 | 1998 | 1998 |
| MAX POWER (KW / RPM) | 108 / 6200 | 137 / 6200 | 135 / 5800 | 147 @ 6300 | 193 @ 5500 | 119 @ 4000 |
| MAX POWER (HP / RPM) | 144 / 6200 | 183.72 / 6200 | 181.04 / 5800 | 197 @ 6300 | 259 @ 5500 | 160 @ 4000 |
| MAX TORQUE (NM / RPM) | 190 / 4600 | 240 / 4800 | 235 / 2200 – 5600 | 259 @ 4400 | 353 @ 1700-5500 | 350 @ 1750 |
| MAX TORQUE (LB-FT / RPM) | 140 / 4600 | 177 / 4800 | 173 / 2200-5600 | 191 @ 4400 | 260@ 1700-5500 | 258 @ 1750 |
| TRANSMISSION | 6-SPEED AUTOMATIC WITH TIPTRONIC | |||||
| MAX SPEED (KM / H) | 197 | 200 | 205 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| MAX SPEED (MPH) | 122 | 124 | 127 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| ACCELERATION TO 100 KM / H OR 60 MPH (SECONDS) | 11.7 | 9.5 | 9.8 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Comments
This should be the base engine here in the states. I venture to guess that it gets better FE than the 2.5 and is likely more fun to drive due to the torque factor.
Needs to be here. 2013 Fusion 1.6 EcoBoost in da house….
Ford doesn’t have a good 2.5, therefore the need for a 1.6T. Not sure the 1.6 is even needed in the Malibu.
I want a Malibu with an LS3. Oh no I can’t get that. Ok I want a LFX What I can’t get that. I will have to settle for the LTG 2.0L turbo because I only have 1 wish left.
That you should ‘settle for’.
Who the hell would buy a Malibu with an LS3?
The torque figures are incorrect for the 2.0 Turbo. They should be the other way around, ie 353NM / 260lb-ft
Thanks Richard; fixed.
Diesel diesel where is my diesel….malibu and cruze…please. Keep us abreast. Great chart comparison.
when e assist is ready for the 1.6t this will be released for other markets in replace for long in the tooth 2.4 rememeber stds get tougher in a few years for fuel economy China is a great test bed for durability. The US should like the 1.6t when released with an even higher power density than currently released on the engine.
Thing is Im gonna buy by end of 2013…gm or not…so I hope they get their stuff released or on the books for release…vibe is 10yrs young but time to upgrade.
So what are you looking for, exactly? A diesel-powered Malibu?
I am interested in a high mileage vehicle as opposed to a performance one in the CHevy family. I know the cruze eco gets 42 but I already get up to 36 on my 10 year old car and being I keep my cars a long time Id like to the most I can and when I heard of a diesel potential, I would pop for it especially since its not new to the US market engine wise..meaning its been on the road already elsewhere. Now I really like the New malibu but again I bet a diesel would get it in the 40s MPG vs say a 50 cruze mpg. Then I have a real dilema on what to get. I don’t need a large car but after MPG/quality of the product/look, size becomes the question..do I need a full size car the malibu brings. Anyway sorry for replying late and I patiently await what Chevy brings early 2013..hope the vibe holds up. Only one more inspection to get thru before ditching it in 2013..it was and is a good car for what I paid and very very reliable for a 2003 when bought..just brakes and tires.
I see. I think you will find that, since you already get better fuel economy in your Vibe than its official rating, you will also get better economy in the Cruze, not to mention an overall better car with far superior ride, handling, technology, safety, etc. compared to the Vibe.
When I had my Cruze (non Eco), I got about 45 MPG on the highway at 65 MPH (cruise control). Mine was the 2011 model rated at 36 MPG. A diesel-powered Cruze is on the way; it should arrive sometime in 2013, but the timing isn’t set in stone just yet.
Funny you say more in mileage for vibe than rated. When I bought it my sticker which I still have showed 29/36. I average 32…and now I notice that sites show 32 highway. Somethings up with that. All the newer models after seemed to go downhill in mileage.
I agree not to bother with the current 1.6L turbo, but the upcoming one would work fine. Roughly the same hp as 2.5L, more torque and I bet much better fuel economy. The new 2.5L is disappointing. Plus, offering smaller displacement turbos is the way of the future, and also good for marketing as it shows GM is in tune with the times. They also need to make that engine the mid-level offering in the Cruze (dump 1.8L, and have 1.4L turbo, 1.6L turbo and 2.0L turbo SS). GM is coming out with some great engines over the next couple of years; they just need to spread them over a good chunk of their vehicle range.
That’s the plan… but my question is why you think the new 2.5 is disappointing.
Imanjunk The EPA has changed the test. Now includes test speeds up to 80 miles an hour with the air conditioning on.