I forgot to mention that a few days ago, at an US used car importer, I saw what was the ricer of muscle cars. It was a 1970 Malibu with a big scooped hood with catches, mag wheels, a wooden enlargement for the center console, and a cheap coat of orange paint sprayed over the badges... including a "307" badge. 307 ci. The ricer of muscle.
Still disingenuous. The only reason the 1.4T was ever a base engine is because the engines below it were discontinued. It would be as if, instead of replacing the 3.1L in the Cavalier for 1995, GM had kept the 3.1 and discontinued the 2.2 altogether. The 3.1 would then have technically been the "base engine", but only because the previous base engine was taken away. This is exactly what happened to make the 1.4T a base engine in the Cruze. You're just cherry-picking your comparisons in order to make your favored Maytag-on-wheels look better. Top dog for top dog the numbers are much closer on everything but fuel economy, but the thing is, the Cavalier was never, itself, a gas hog. Even the V6, based on my experience dailying one for several years, was plenty good enough in terms of fuel efficiency. But then, that just proves my point - modern car design optimizes fuel economy and emissions way past the point of diminishing returns, at the expense of pretty much everything else, but especially at the expense of any character, uniqueness, or anything else that might possibly tempt someone to love their car instead of just using it up and replacing it. Some cars do end up with genuinely high power output as a byproduct, but don't have the road feel and handling balance to match - or just need that extra power to overcome their own morbidly obese weight relative to their predecessors. It's not that I think high specific output is bad per se, I just don't think it's an especially relevant consideration in the real world unless you're trying to skirt some arbitrary tax-class cutoff, and then only for that reason.
The 3.1 was the Cavalier's performance version, not even available in four-doors. Meanwhile, the 1.4 turbo was an ordinary engine. Also, I deliberately chose a later 2nd gen Cavalier year in order to make it look less worse in comparison. If I chose, for example, a '90, things would get worse. And your point of diminishing return is way beyond mine. I actually like searching for the #1 solution in different automotive cases.
As far as I know, it's only a prototype (like the Semi and Roadster), so they may or may not do a few design tweaks. Then again, neither of the 3 I've mentioned even got a little bit into production since the release of their prototypes. Can't say whether I think they would make into production or not, but they should start considering it in the next few months atleast.
Im currently watching canadas worst driver and it kinda got me thinking how long it would take me to fail the driving test if id have to do it again.
In all fairness, you’re comparing an engine with roots from the mid-70’s to one with roots from last Tuesday. The 2.2L wasn’t even all that fantastic of an engine to begin with anyway. 1.5L power with V6 fuel economy. GM has the tendency to do that. The 4.3 V6 was another example. 4 banger power with V8 fuel economy. I could never get more than 15 out of my GMC Sonoma when I had it. My 5.2 mopar does better than that... usually... when it decides it want to run.
The cybertruck looks like a pure concept car. It is pretty neat looking though. GM's newer 4.3 Ecotec v6 is underwhelming as well. Ford likes smaller displacement turbo charged engines. I'm not much of a fan of the 2.3 turbo in the mustang, or the ranger, and much less in the Explorer. It is a silly little food blender. The 10 speed transmission is worse. It may as well be a cvt. The 3.0 twin turbo v6 must be pretty fun though. If I get my hands on one of those I'm going to do some donuts.
I once saw a 60's falcon ute with all of the panel gaps shaved, including the doors, as well as a chop top (i have no idea how you were supposed to get in it), and the entire thing, including every paintable part of the engine bay and all the chrome trim, was painted either purple or yellow. it also had a bunch of 2001 era amps and speakers in the back. oh, and it also had wheels on it something like elure 047s.
According to this 1993 Chevrolet brochure I found, while the Z24 was indeed the only Cavalier to come with the V6 standard, it was available as an option on the Cavalier RS, which sounds sporty but was actually the "normal" mid-trim model available in all four body styles (hey, remember when body styles other than "chopped-off half-wagon" and "Prius that ate too much" were common?), with the most basic being the VL for "Value Leader". Its badge twin the Sunbird, meanwhile, used the V6 as the standard engine in the GT but allowed it to be specified in any body style or trim, apparently independent of other options and packages. To prove this I can, if you'd like, scan in and upload a page from the early 1993 Pontaic catalog I have laying around the house. tl;dr The V6 was indeed a feature of performance Cavaliers and their twins, but it was also an option on the ordinary ones, so as far as I'm concerned it still counts. Even then, if you're going off the later Cavaliers, the proper comparison for the 1.4T would be the 150-horsepower 2.3L and 2.4L I4s, not the 2.2. If, on the other hand, you really do want to compare the 1.4T as if it is were a base engine, then try comparing it with the Cobalt. All the way through 2015, the quickest gasoline Cruze, that being the 1.4T, had less rated power (138 HP) than even first-year base-model Cobalt (145 HP), certainly less than later models (155), even a little less than the weaker 2.0L in the Canadian Pontiac G5 (141, IIRC) and of course the old V6 (140 when last used in a J-body, plus diesel-like torque without being smelly and dorky). Back when the Cruze was relatively new and the second generation with the better 1.4T didn't even exist yet, I brought this up (along with the Cruze's absurd over-3000-lb-sans-driver curb weight) on another forum only to get a lot of "MUH INTERIOR QUALITY THO", which as far as I'm concerned is third behind "MUH SPECIFIC OUTPUT" and "MUH BICYCLISTS' RIGHTS" on the list of arguments that have no place in car culture. Even if it is a better engine on paper, however, the question for me isn't "is it better?", it's "is it better by enough of a margin to excuse soft responses, dull sound, and DIY-hostility, plus the excessive weight, softness, and complexity of the car itself?" And for me, the answer to that question is and always will be, in every case, no. See, I too like searching for the #1 solution in different automotive cases, but I'm looking for #1 in character, driving enjoyment, and tuner-friendliness. That's why - or at least part of why - it bothers me that regulations and marketing-induced gadget obsession are forcing the entire new-car market to centralize around the 2 or 3 most boring configurations imaginable, with more boringness on the way in the form of EVs and robocars. Even sports cars aren't safe from fake fun and "everything integration" anymore.
So we might actually compare other compacts and see if it's something across the range. Either way, it's a cheap compact. It's simply fast enough, and that's it. What? A car's interior, the place where you actually spend the driving time, is unimportant? For the people who are actually going to buy an economy car, the higher comfort and sophistication is actually a plus. If you're at odds with nearly 100% of car buyers (and I guess that's the case), focus on enthusisst cars, or find something else than cars to focus on.
The Cruze is fast enough, but it costs more and is more complicated to achieve roughly the same on-paper performance. I'm not even saying you can't like it personally. But the ritualistic Cavalier hatred has got to stop. History is full of cars that had low specific output, were not luxurious inside, and could not autocross like a Honda Civic - why single this one out? It's not that it's unimportant, it's just that critiques of the Cobalt's interior focused on all the wrong things. I never saw anyone compare the Cruze and Cobalt on things like control layout, driving position, steering wheel grip, gauge readability, or any other such thing, probably not even overall long-trip comfort (though this was too long ago to remember). It was all just "those horrible materials aren't up to my standards". And apparently, the interior, as defined by materials and assembly, is the only thing that matters when comparing the two cars. The reduced power doesn't matter, the lip-flappingly absurd weight doesn't matter, the loss of the highly tuneable 2.0/2.2/2.4 engines doesn't matter, the hostility to DIY repair and modification doesn't matter, the fact that the Cobalt's sports variant could literally outrun an R34 GT-R in the twisties whereas the Cruze doesn't have a sports variant at all doesn't matter, it's just "eww, plastic, therefore bad car". And these are (alleged) car enthusiasts saying these things. I mean, come on guys, this isn't exactly an S-Class we're talking about here. This says nothing positive at all about the direction society as a whole is moving in. The only reason car culture exists at all, at least outside the top echelons of wealth, is because the technology to achieve your ideal (of making every car that isn't an outright sports car perfectly boring) did not exist until recently. Half the fun - especially when America's car culture got its start during the Depression - was that just about any car could become an enthusiast car, whether it was designed as one or not, with just a few, often relatively simple, modifications. The direction in which new car design has been heading for the last 10 years or so strikes at the very heart of what made car culture possible in the first place, and even if you believe that it truly was market forces rather than ham-fisted regulations which caused this to happen, why would you think it was a good thing? You asked a few pages back what could be done to save car culture that wasn't already being done. Here's an idea: stop siding with the forces arrayed against it.
Because you feel like it's singled out as you try to pretend it's more than you having a low budget in your case. It's not a Corvette either. It's an economy compact. For most people in the class, it's supposed to get you from A to B in relative confort. What's wrong with such thinking? Or I could go down to your level and say that it's better than thinking like a broke paranoid hick. [QUOTE="Shotgun Chuck, post: 1091045, member: 99288"]The only reason car culture exists at all, at least outside the top echelons of wealth, is because the technology to achieve your ideal (of making every car that isn't an outright sports car perfectly boring) did not exist until recently. Half the fun - especially when America's car culture got its start during the Depression - was that just about any car could become an enthusiast car, whether it was designed as one or not, with just a few, often relatively simple, modifications. The direction in which new car design has been heading for the last 10 years or so strikes at the very heart of what made car culture possible in the first place, and even if you believe that it truly was market forces rather than ham-fisted regulations which caused this to happen, why would you think it was a good thing?[/QUOTE] Because it makes the ordinary buyer happier than the alternative. I can switch to buying enthusiast cars, or just staying interested in music and developing my existing liking for cycling. Do you have any other interest than cheapo compacts?
The Cavalier I owned a time ago was almost too slow to get on the freeway, and I had to floor it 24/7, thus returning incredibly low MPG. I remember the V-6 wasn't much better. The Cruze was, and will always be, a better car than a Cavalier. The Cruze isn't a rustbucket, it's not deathly slow, it's significantly safer, and it's got much more interior room. I'd rather have an Iron Duke than a Cavalier, worst car i've owned.
I think the ending to this video may give Shotgun Chuck an aneurysm With that said, I do like Chris Harris, its a fun video, and I can't say I disagree with him regarding this car.
So the pinnacle of British engineering is a roadwrecker made even slower and dorkier? Nah, I think I'd take the Rolls - and I don't care much for fat, puffy luxury cars.
