http://media.gm.com/us/gm/en/news/events/autoshows/09naias/brands/chevrolet/11_NAIAS_Chevrolet%20Cruze.htm

High performance "SS" models are not always first out of the gate....I hope one is in the works.

So don't get your underwear in a knot....yet. Corvettes hi- peformance versions are never offered right off the bat.

But the good news--- Six-speed automatic and manual transmissions


That 1.8L looks like a total waste......I figure it has to be WORSE on fuel then the 1.4L Turbo and it would be slower. WHY GM, WHY?

It should go:

1.4L Turbo 150hp
2.4L 180 HP (well 190-200 would be better)
2.0 Turbo

and we need a coupe! Even that lame ass Focus has one



HERE ARE SOME MEASUREMENT OF THE COBALT VS THE CRUSIE

wheelbase is up from 103.3 to 105.7 = +2.4"

Length is down from 180.5 to 178.5 = -2"

Width is up from 67.9 to 70.7 = + 2.8"

height is up from 57.1 to 58.2= +1.1"

Should be noticebly roomier inside but shorter outside. Both are good.

(for those who care about trunk volume--its down 0.7 Cubic feet. Still large for its class---13.2

The problem with Cobalt's trunk is the opening as opposed to the actual size.

It should go:

1.4L Turbo 150hp
2.4L 180 HP (well 190-200 would be better)
2.0 Turbo


...says you.

That 1.8L looks like a total waste......I figure it has to be WORSE on fuel then the 1.4L Turbo and it would be slower. WHY GM, WHY?Probably because the 1.8L will be the cheaper, entry level engine with the 1.4L offering better torque and mileage but commanding a slight premium in price. There's also news within the last day or so that the stateside plant that was going to build the new 1.4L has been delayed so the 1.8L might be the only engine available for a while after launch (unless they get the plant on schedule or import a small number of the turbo engines from Europe).


(for those who care about trunk volume--its down 0.7 Cubic feet. Still large for its class---13.2If they've increased the opening size and made it more useable I'd gladly give up a small amount of space. That's still a decent amount of volume and the internal capacity/shape shouldn't change a lot on the modified Delta platform.



Also one thing I noted is that they've retained the twist-beam rear axle but have added a Watts linkage. That would explain what I was seeing in a couple of the GM pictures I Photoshop'd/enhanced and thought might be an independent rear setup. Hopefully it should be a slight improvement for the base cars and a future SS model will retain the good ride/handling balance. (On a side note, if anyone is interested in what a Watts linkage on a twist/torsion-beam axle looks like crawl under a PT Cruiser and you'll get a good idea what to expect.)

...says you.

well DUH...course I said it :lol:

Probably because the 1.8L will be the cheaper, entry level engine with the 1.4L offering better torque and mileage but commanding a slight premium in price. There's also news within the last day or so that the stateside plant that was going to build the new 1.4L has been delayed so the 1.8L might be the only engine available for a while after launch (unless they get the plant on schedule or import a small number of the turbo engines from Europe).



I see what your saying but each engine incurs costs to the automaker. Emissons certifications, crash testing and EPA testing.

Crank up the 1.4L production costs could drop. I bet we'd be talking a very small amount of money in any production between a 1.8L and 1.4L Turbo (yeah it has some extra part)

But emissions and mileage have to be better on the 1.4L--making the 1.8L case all the more useless. CAFE would be higher.

Of course if the 1.4L cannot meet demand---then the 1.8L has to be there.