Things We Hear: Chevy Should Offer A V6 In The Malibu Because Toyota, Honda And Nissan Do
32
Sponsored Links
From what we saw and heard, feedback was mostly positive when Chevy unveiled the 2016 Malibu at the 2015 New York International Auto Show in April. But though the multitude of comments rose two resounding criticisms of Chevy’s new midsizer:
- The lack of a V6
- The lack of all-wheel-drive
We’ll discuss the lack of all-wheel-drive in the near future, so let’s talk about the lack of a V6. Specifically, the 2.0L turbo-charged four-cylinder engine (250 horsepower and 250 pound-feet of torque) remains the optional high-end engi
ne in the Malibu, rather than a V6.
To that end, here’s a comment we found on the subject while scouring the web (we’ll keep it anonymous):
So why are the top sellers in the segment like the Camry, Accord and Altima offer V6 options while the Malibu does not? The 3.6L LFX is a great engine, with the other alternative being the new 3.6L LGX. Put either one of those in and watch sales explode.
Replacing displacement with boost is nothing new. And in many cases, the practice resulting a better vehicle that’s more responsive, more fun to drive and more economical. But there are two general problems with this line of thought. The first revolves around the misunderstanding of the competition, while the second doesn’t take into account the sales distribution of optional engines in the segment.
They Don’t Offer Turbo-Charged Fours Because They Don’t Have Them
Yes, the Japanese competition — Toyota, Honda, and Nissan — each offer a V6 as the optional high-end motor in the Camry, Accord, or Altima, respectively. But that isn’t because those six-bangers are so amazing. Instead, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan simply do not have a competent turbo-charged 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine to use, even if they wanted to.
That’s right, the three biggest Japanese automakers, the same ones that are usually thought of by the public as offering the most environmentally-friendly and fuel-efficient vehicles, don’t have a modern turbo-charged four-banger to offer because they were late to the turbo-charged party. Late to approve such motors, late to develop them, and late to bring them to market.
Granted, Toyota is just now rolling out its new 2.0-liter I4 in the Lexus NX crossover, and the motor is expected to make its way across the rest of the Lexus and Toyota lineup over the next year or two. And whenever that ends up happening, we’ll bet that it replaces the Camry’s V6.
All in all, the world is replacing naturally-aspirated sixes with turbo-charged fours. And the top-sellers in the segment are resting on their laurels (read: reputation), and are therefore behind the curve.
Sales Distribution
But even if Chevy did offer a V6 in the Malibu, would it actually make “sales explode”? No, it wouldn’t.
That’s because only 15-20 percent of midsize sedan buyers in America opt for the more powerful optional engine. And when we’re talking about 20,000 Malibu sales in a given month, a number we hope the 2016 Malibu will raise, 15-20 percent simply isn’t enough to make sales “explode”.
That can only be done with a best-in-class vehicle with a stellar model and marque reputation.
And So
All in all, there are obvious elements of a vehicle that should be changed or improved “because of the competition”. But offering a V6 rather than a turbocharged I4 in the Malibu isn’t one of them. In fact, in this case, the competition is behind Chevy and the Malibu, and will likely replace those sixes with boosted fours. Whenever they decide to catch up.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a Corvette Z06 and 2024 Silverado. Details here.
Sponsored Links
Comedy do . because honda, nissan and toyota is comedy do . not like a comedy. this story seems too childish do.
build better cars than mb vw-audi-bmw-off and forget it toyota-honda-nissan do.
vw take 1 liter motor 270 hp. this is This is a development
dont look what crap other made. made best things in the wolrd and develope. bring new solutions to the world for the first time. Reach them, and also the first generation.
On star ahhaaaa
I see both sides of this argument. If it’s really really easy for GM to fit one of their V6’s in the Malibu then I think they should do it as an option and keep in the 2.0T also as the more economical base engine but they shouldn’t over exert themselves making the V6 work.
More 4 cylinder advancements and maybe a diesel would suite this segment much better or maybe a V8
I’d accept this article if one thing were true: Sure, a turbocharged 4 cylinder can be competitive to the 6 bangers if they produced similar power output… like the 4 cylinder turbo mustang… however, in this case the 4 cylinder GM Turbo motor puts out lower performance numbers than the 6 cylinder competition. Less torque and HP. A whopping 11% less power mind you than the Honda and 10% less than the Altima.
If the 4 cylinder had similar performance to the others, I’d say your right. The Ford Mustangs 2.3L 4 cylinder puts out 310 HP. Fords 2.0 liter puts out 270 lb-ft of torque. (10% more torque than this one)
I’m not a Ford fan, and I’m a GM fan at heart. I support the use of 4 cylinder turbo cars to replace V6s for cars like the malibu, and I think it can work, but the real validity here to me is that the GM’s top engine is much less powerful than the competitions, regardless of whether it is a 4 banger turbo or a 6. Now does the market care? probably not, but typically shouldn’t you have a low, a top, and expect people to go in the middle? Why not throw in a V6 special order only and use the 3.6L. Now you uphold your brand (GM), and outpower your japanese rivals, with a great middle-tier motor?
The reason I’d think they don’t want to do that is they want to make the I4 aspirational. If thats the case they should have started with a LTG out of the ATS or the LTU out of the Regal. Even if the fuel economy is a hair lower, your HP and torque beat out the competition making a believer out of the 4 cylinder turbo.
But frankly that was never the game of the Malibu. Keep in mind the Malibu’s LTG outperformed the V6…
GM has a 2.0 liter that puts out more hp and tq…they used it in the 2013 Regal GS (detuned for 2014). It put out 270 hp and 295 lb-ft of tq. They also have the 2.0 liter from the CTS…although I understand why they may not want to use that one.
@Dudie7 – It’s basically the same engine. It’s just tuned differently.
That is why Trifecta tunes for Malibu Turbo give you +66 hp, but not nearly as much on ATS, Regal, or CTS. Trifecta pushes the same engine to its maximum safe horsepower, Chevy just leaves more horsepower on the table.
This is one of the more disappointing things with the loss of GM Performance Division. There are no in-house Stage 1 or 2 tunes to get that horsepower back. You have to void your warranty, frankly for no good reason too. GM could offer the same tunes – they have been tested over 100,000 miles without incident.
Let’s remember this folks, the next gen Malibu is already 300 lbs lighter than the predecessor Paired with the 2 liter turbo with 8 speed. Also if we all can see, the take rate of the 6 cylinder of a midsize sedan is fairly low. Majority of the top sellers are selling in their 4 cylinder forms. Not the V6. Accord gets a V6 because its a fairly huge car. It’s playing in the field of in betweens (I.e. middle of large and midsize). Also Honda doesn’t have a full-size sedan as well. Toyota barely made an 2.0 liter turbo in their Lexus NX. Nissan really doesn’t have any similar displacement turbo motors . If they do, they will put it immediately on their altimas and muranos and maybe even their pathfinder. All the top threes are just squeezing every mpg out of their 6 cylinders to be equivalent as the boosted 4s or else the V6 would be much thirstier.
I like to see as many possible options as is financially realistic. A V6 option would be a great up sale for dealers, but Turbo seems to be the future.
There’s one thing this article misses the mark on, and it’s pretty key…
People want a natural V6 over a Turbo 4-cylinder for one reason: Durability.
GM’s naturally-aspirated V6 engines routinely make it to 300,000 miles without incident. The same can’t be said about their Turbo-4’s.
I love my LNF turbo’ed Sky Red Line. But I know its small block will crack before it sees 200,000 miles.
Also, an excellent case can be made for mating a V6 engine to a torque-vectoring AWD setup for the Malibu. That would make it rear-biased off the line and a true sport sedan. If you aren’t going to bring Pontiac back, there’s no sense in not offering a Malibu SS AWD – particularly with Focus RS on the rise.
Have ever seen a 2.0 block crack?
There are many HHR and cobalt SS with high miles with no issues.
I was lucky to know John Lingefelter while he raced one of these engines with a stock block and head. He would not see any breakage till 1500 hp. Even then it was the head.
Plenty. In fact GM made sure the LTG small block would bolt on to LNF because of the high rate of small block cracking – final run LNF’s apparently shipped with the Gen3 small block as a result.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Ecotec_engine#2.0_LNF
While GM has reduced the odds of an engine failure in Gen 3 EcoTec, the future is still quite uncertain. C&D had two 2.0T’s fail in one season if I recall. GM’s High Feature V6, dating back almost 30 years to the Buick 3800… is without question in comparison.
And, don’t forget, GM offers turbo delete models to fleets all the time. That’s what the 1.4L I4 non-turbo on the Cruze was for. Consumers don’t want to worry/pay for a blown turbo either.
With today’s modern turbo engines (and associated blocks), durability is on par with naturally-aspirated engines.
The ones that fail do so not because it’s a turbo engine, but because it has either been 1) abused/tuned past the limits (as per Scott’s comment above) or 2) was defective from the beginning, and probably goes bad within the first few thousand miles.
Also:
1. That Buick 3800 and has nothing to do with today’s LFX and LGX.
2. When you refer to 1.4 non-turbo on the Cruze, do you mean 1.8? The Cruze never had a naturally-breathing 1.4 in America.
Chris I have been around the LNF in street and racing and I have yet to see a block break.
The weak areas are Pistons and rods up to 400 HP and the rest of the engine takes much more.
I have also been driving a LNF with 23 PSI boost with nary an issue and know many others with no issue.
Now while there is a possibility for a for a turbo to go out vs. engine that does not have one that is only because there is more to the engine.
On the other hand I have seen many 3.6 with failed timing chains too but the fact is any engine is going to have a percentage of failures even the Z06.
I would not dis the Turbo engine as you do as the fact is there are many out there and the failures are no worse than any other engine. These are not the old 3.8 Turbo engines that lost a turbo at 36K miles before they got the water cooled housings.
The fact is for most of the Chevy mid size and smaller cars as well as their competitors the engine will be all smaller 3 and 4 cylinder engines with Turbos. V6 and V8 will be only found in the higher priced models at lower volumes.
It’s not racing/performance that causes the small block cracks. It’s long term wear. Highway miles do it, not drag races. The cracks are due to not enough aluminum and poor reinforcement due to casting issues. EcoTec Gen 3 (LTG, et al) addresses both problems – but it’s still too soon to tell if that was enough to fix it.
Every Sky/Solstice with an LNF and a cracked small block I’ve heard of exhibiting this is over 70,000 miles. It’s not RX-8 grade chronic… but it is why the final LNFs were improved with the new small block. Also it’s occurring outside the warranty period typically, and off GM’s responsibility.
As to the relevance of the venerable Buick 3800 – it IS relevant. That was the engine that started GM’s track record of having some of the best, most dependable and reliable V6 engines in the industry. They’re essentially bomb-proof.
(And yes I meant to type 1.8 not 1.4 on the non-turbo – a pesky Flash ad on the site prevented me from editing).
But I get it. Most car buyers today trade-in after five years, and GM cares about new car sales vs used car market where this matters more. But some of us actually keep the new cars we buy for a few hundred thousand miles… and GM could easily offer a V6 as an option for us…
…Detroit-Hamtramck already stocks the V6 engines for the Impala. Dropping it in to Malibu as an option would cost next to nothing.
Still not seeing it. Head gasket once in a while but no cracked blocks.
The fact is the V6 is dying out in this segment and there is nothing we can do. Also the V6 engines are getting more and more expensive and they also have their own set of issues as they are much more complex than anything the 3800 had.
Packaging is a major issue as even in my 08 the 3.6 is tight. Hell the plugs on my old 3800 SC were not easy to change.
Second DOHC V6 engines are not light. Weight is a key factor today too.
MPG is lower. No matter how you spin its lower.
As for the take rate on the V6 the last Malibu that had one the take rate was a small percentage of all sales. I know as I am in this smaller group myself.
Going forward there is little room for the larger engines as they are no where near the regulations for the 2015 cars yet and even cutting 300 pounds here that is still not enough. If you do not address it with the engine you have to remove it in size of the vehicle or you need to remove it with higher cost systems like the hybrid and the materials used to build the car.
I have it on good authority that packaging is not the issue for a V6 in the current Malibu. There are no technical reasons – this is purely a market call.
All Epsilon II vehicles can accept a 3.6L V6 – it’s a platform requirement, and one the Malibu doesn’t deviate from.
While I really enjoyed the 2.0t I4 in my Malibu and absolutely love the 2.0t I4 in my ATS, I see the new LGX V6 and immediately know that it will be more powerful, refined, and efficient. Most of the V6’s in the Mid-Size Sedan category achieve the same, if not better than the fuel economy of turbocharged I4’s all while being more responsive. I’m all for GM’s 2.0t, but they need to introduce a new variation of it. It should be making 270HP and 300LB-FT. Variable Valve Control, Variable Valve Timing with Intermediate Park, and Stop/Start technology would be a great start. They could even add Dynamic Skip Fire as well as a feature that could shut the turbocharger off in light-load conditions. There’s no reason that the 9-Speed FWD Automatic shouldn’t be out by now either! From a 2.0t I4, I expect at least 26 City and 35 Highway. Imagine if they put all of that technology into their smaller I4’s! We would see 30 City and 42 Highway out of that smaller 1.5t!
This engine is pretty spot on.
The others have no real turbo engine yet and they will in the near future. The V6 as we know it in the FWD car is not going to be around much longer in these cars.
The MPG needs and the need for lighter and smaller engines will continue.
As for sales the V6 in these cars count for a very small percentage of sales. Even the Malibu from 208-2012 the V6 sales are limited at best. If you do not believe me count the tail pipes as the V6 cars have two the 4 has one. I own a V6 version and I like the car and the V6 is ok but I would take my Turbo 2.0 over it any day as the flat torque curve is just much more fun to drive.
It will be interesting to see their take on AWD as I hope they show the percentage of sales that other like Ford have and how few they really sell. Also the added weight and cost to the car. The Ford Fusion with AWD can sticker over $42,000. Just how much is anyone willing to pay for a Malibu? I love the car but once I get to $42K I start to look around and find that there are many other options for that same price or just a little more that are much more interesting than the Malibu.
Price is everything in this class and you go for giving as much as you can to people at a good price. GM has other divisions to offer the higher value things at higher prices while Ford is pretty stuck doing it all with only two divisions.
Agreed about V6s and the future of them in this segment.
But I will add that a Fusion AWD starts at $28,400 with the 2.0L Turbo. That’s for the well-equipped (mid-level) SE model, not a baser.
Sure, you can spec one out to $42,000… but the point is that most people will be very happy to pay roughly $30,000 for a stylish, practical, roomy, and well-equipped midsize sedan with AWD. Chevy is missing the mark on not offering the Malibu with it.
Personally, I think a V-6 can compete with a turbo four if done right. When you boil it all down, an engine is basically an air pump, and fuel economy is largely affected by how much air is pumped per mile. Two ways to improve fuel economy are to reduce the size of the engine and/or to reduce the cruising RPMs. The Corvette with a 460HP V-8 gets 30+ MPG, because of the cylinder deactivation and a lower cruising RPM. Incorporating cylinder deactivation into the V-6 and an final drive ratio that results in <2000RPM @ 70MPH will result in great fuel economy, but still have the torque of the V-6 when you need it – without turbo lag. In short, cylinder deactivation allows a big engine to pump less air while a turbo allows a small engine to pump more air. Two methods that both achieve performance and efficiency. I like the cylinder deactivation better.
The durability of a V6 is a known fact, as my 231 CI (3.8L Buick V6 is 20 years old (going on 21) and actually runs better with age. But newer engines haveincreased performnce and economy numbers with leser displacement. And I bet that the new Hybrid Malibu with a 1.8L I4 and electric drive will sell more than the turbo I4, because it gets better MPG (up to 47) and the electric assist increases its initial torque like if it had a V6 or a small V8.
The durability of a V6 is a known fact, sure. But is a modern turbocharged engine any less durable? From everything I have seen, the answer is no.
False!
The 3.6L LGX or and the 3.0L V6 FROM Cadillac are good options matted to AWD that will make the Bu the better car in the segment.
… and they both have six cylinders. Which is clearly a dying trend in the mainstream midsize segment.
I think it’s the only good idea if you put V6 with awd
While a good emotional idea to do so the real question is what would you and many others pay for a car of this nature?
Even with only a 4 cylinder the Fusion with AWD now stickers for at or over $42,000. So how much would you pay for a Malibu? Only 10% of Ford buyer will pay this much.
Once you get to this price look around and see just what else you can buy at this price and for with in $5,000 more.
And I definitely agree with you. Not everyone wants to pay over 40k for a midsize sedan because then you can just go to the next size up for that kind of money. I’m just saying that it would be niche idea if you put 6 cyl with awd. I think the only midsize that has that is the Chrysler 200
It will not have it for much longer.
There are many good things that automakers can do but the problem is to still price them and market them in numbers that people will buy in number greater than 10% of the entire production.
Thinks like AWD Cruze and other things would be cool but there is a limit to what people will pay for many models.
I would have loved to have AWD in my Turbo HHR SS but it would have gone over $30K on the sticker. If I had to pay that much I would add a little more and just get a SS Camaro.
if you have to have a turbo on your engine ..then its too small and it going to work too hard and at some point blow apart.
why not use an engine that’s going to have less stress on it…a 200 horse power 4 is not going to live as long as a 200 horse power 6..buy what you want..you cant replace displacement and expect performance. do the research and don’t listen to a salesman that only wants your money. A turbo is a good add to an engine that can already make power. If you need a turbo to make your car drivable in traffic you might want to rethink things a bit. just saying.