How's this for a sign of the times: Buick announced today that it will offer a 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine in the 2010 LaCrosse entry-luxury sedan.
The 182-horsepower direct-injection 2.4-liter, which the company estimates will give the LaCrosse about 20 mpg in the city and 30 mpg on the highway, will compliment the two direct-injection V6s that Buick already announced for the new sedan (3.0-liter and 3.6-liter). Buick expects that 25 percent of customers will opt for the little motor. As an odd side-note: Both V6s produce the same 17/27 mpg despite a 0.6-liter and 25-hp gap.
This is the second formerly V6-only model that General Motors has fitted with this four-banger. This motor helps the upcoming 2010 Chevrolet Equinox midsize crossover get a 32 mpg highway rating from the EPA.
So Buick goes four-cylinder and Acura adds a V6 to the formerly I4-only TSX? Strange days, man. Strange days.
orangutan says:
10:59 AM, 06/22/09
The new 3.0 V6 is a waste because it achieves worse relative fuel economy and lower absolute power levels than the 3.6 off of which it is based.
It's interesting that the best they can achieve with the 2.4 I4 is 20/30 when the same engine beats those ratings by 2 miles/gallon in the FWD Equinox in both the city and on the highway.
Note: your 31 figure is wrong for the Equinox. The FWD is rated at 32 and the AWD at 29.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f.jsp?year=2010&make=Chevrolet&model=Equinox%20FWD&hiddenField=Findacar
jkp1187 says:
11:21 AM, 06/22/09
Interesting, but it's not like Buick hadn't offered a 4-cyl before. My father had an old Buick Century with one. Granted, it was basically a Chevy Cavalier with a plush interior, but still, not like this is a major milestone.
danielpund says:
12:06 PM, 06/22/09
Orangutan,
Right you are. Thirty-two mpg is indeed the highway rating for the four-cylinder, front-drive Equinox. I don't know how I managed to short the Equinox the mile, given that Chevrolet has been shouting the number from the top of the RenCen for months.
Fixed.
Daniel
firstwagon says:
12:44 PM, 06/22/09
jkp1187
Your Dad's Century was a Chevy Celebrity with a blush interior, not a Cavalier. My old Buick SkyHawk (another Buick with a 4 cylinder) was a Cavalier with a plush interior ( and lousy handling).
1487 says:
12:45 PM, 06/22/09
orang:
lets wait for final EPA numbers. GM told us equinox would average 21/30 when it was unveiled. I expect 22/32 to be final number.
"I don't know how I managed to short the Equinox the mile, given that Chevrolet has been shouting the number from the top of the RenCen for months."
As they should when their competitors make less hp, weigh less and yet get worse mileage. Why does IL have a problem with GM touting mileage or anyting else? Do you think Toyota would do anything different if they had class leading mileage?
crowb says:
01:48 PM, 06/22/09
Dude, chill out. Daniel was just making a joke.
estreka says:
02:18 PM, 06/22/09
GM really needs to update their V6s!
lexuslvr says:
03:16 PM, 06/22/09
304hp is updated.
billt9 says:
03:40 PM, 06/22/09
And to think GM currently gets 185 hp in the current 3.4-liter V6!
That's a shrinking of 1.0-liter to make the same power as what GM makes today!
cwc1 says:
04:23 PM, 06/22/09
^But I suspect the 3.4 makes more torque with a better torque curve, as is typical for larger displacements.
billt9 says:
04:42 PM, 06/22/09
yes that's true but I like to twist stats to make a mockery of things so don't you dare point out those extraneous facts that do not support my current mocking statement.
hondacura4 says:
08:37 PM, 06/22/09
"But I suspect the 3.4 makes more torque with a better torque curve, as is typical for larger displacements."
A 3.4 OHC V6 with VVT would make even more power and torque and have a much better torque curve.
"GM really needs to update their V6s!"
Since when? GM's high feature V6's are modern and competitive.
stovt001 says:
10:47 PM, 06/22/09
I'd even argue that the old pushrod V6s were efficient and torquey. They didn't rev high and didn't make stratospheric peak horsepower numbers, but as long as you were sophisticated enough to look past the simple headline figures they differentiated themselves nicely. Japanese and American V6s had their own characteristics. Imagine that.
1487 says:
06:21 AM, 06/23/09
The OHVS have been phased out simply because of the media (and import owners) bashing pushrod engines. Its really that simple. The 3.9L OHV in the Impala is more efficient than the 3.6L DOHC V6 and only makes slightly less hp. The 3.9L is probably a better overall engine for heavy vehicles than the 3L V6 they are rolling out now but since OHV has been criticized as low tech we get low displacement DOHC V6s with no torque instead. Reviews of the new Equinox are reporting that the V6 doesn't feel much faster than the four cylinder and that is likely due to the paltry torque of the 3L. Unfortunately to keep the mileage of its V6 products competitive GM is phasing out the non DI 3.6L engine.
billt9 says:
12:01 PM, 06/23/09
Impala 3.9-liter: 17/25
Impala 3.9-liter Active Fuel Management: 17/27
Malibu 3.6-liter: 17/26
CTS 3.6-liter: 18/26
The 3.9 got the edge from displacement on demand. I bet that means its 0-60 is slowed by another 1.0 second.
The malibu stats sure make no darn sense.
How does the CTS get better mpg with RWD?
Well at least the new 3.6-liter makes more power and torque, and still gets roughly the same mpg. So overall the new High Feature V6 series is an improvement over the High Value pushrod series.
The High Value series even had to use AFM to match mpg, which also makes the engine even slower.
1487 says:
12:58 PM, 06/23/09
bill:
Get the numbers right. The Impala without AFm gets 17/27 vs 18/28 for the AFM model. And this is with a 4 speed auto. the Lucerne is heavier than the Malibu and has a 4 speed and still gets 17/26 with the 3.9. Add a 6 speed and you can expect 18/27 or better with the 3.9L engine. The 3.6 makes more power but is less efficient in spite of being smaller.
AFM does not have an adverse affect on OHV engines, you are confusing it with VCM and Honda. Different system.
billt9 says:
05:07 PM, 06/23/09
I fail to find any instance of 18/28. Maybe I'm blind. Or GM web sites are just horrible to navigate.
http://www.buick.com/vehicles/2009/lucerne/features.do?year=2009&brand=lucerne
http://www.chevrolet.com/vehicles/2009/impala/features.do
The Malibu appears to be a special exeption. The Malibu engineering must have been done the current gen Equinox style: Lowest cost possible while within publicly acceptable specifications.
You can see the new engine does better in the CTS, and RWD to boot. So it can do much better in FWD.
It may just depend on which engine team has the smarter engineers, and which team gets more funding.
Toyota's 3.5-liter 268 hp is getting 19/28 in the Avalon and Camry, 19/27 in the Rav4, 19/26 in the Venza. Maybe GM should have just one engine line with all the money.