http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2010/08/2012-chevy-malibu-ditching-v6-for-4-cylinder-engine-choices.html

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/X11CH_MA012.jpg

In response to increasingly strict fuel consumption and emissions standards future General Motors mid-size sedans will be offered exclusively with 4-cylinder engine options – starting with the 2012 Chevy (http://www.autoguide.com/new-cars/chevrolet/index.html) Malibu.
The development comes from GMInsideNews’s sources working on the next generation of mid-size sedans. The plan actually began with the current Buick Regal, which is currently offered with two 4-cylinder options. Even the upcoming high-performance Regal GS model will get a 4-cylinder.
There’s no word on exact what engines will be offered in the new Malibu, which is due out some time in late 2011. Possibility’s include the obvious Regal powerplants, which include the 182-hp 2.4-liter direct-injection engine and the 220-hp 2.0-liter turbocharged engine.
Four-cylinders have long been the volume models in the mid-size sedan category, but Chevy will be one of the first to drop the V6 entirely. The current Hyundaihttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif (http://www.autoguide.com/#) Sonata is offered exclusively with 4-cylinder engines.

Blah, not a fan of that. If they plan on doing this they better cut a few hundred pounds off the car, which we know won't happen. 182 and 220 HP are nice gains over the current I4. But that will not satisfy the current V6 drivers. They better make the Regal GS 255 HP engine at least an option....GM just keeps pushing me away.

Another disappointment. I was hoping they would at least keep a V6 for the LTZ. I just keep seeing GM go back to their old ways - heavy discounting, de-contenting models to save money, etc. I may be going back to Subaru sooner than originally planned.

LNF for 2012? That's what is in the Regal GS. CAFE regs are forcing auto manufacturers across the board to replace 8's with 6's and 6's with 4's.

Seriously folks... it's the 80's all over again. 4-bangers everywhere and pathetic power numbers in the name of increased fuel economy. Remember when the 5.0 made 180hp?

On the bright side, some of the hottest cars of the 80's were turbo-fours. Mustang SVO, Shelby GLHS, etc. Be prepared to see turbos make a big resurgence in the next 5 years.

I hope it nevers becomes law,
But there are those in the current administration that float the idea ,
to put a MASSIVE tax on the resale of cars with engines larger than 4 cyl in the future.

Essentialy making them worthless, I expect they will do some kind of tax payer buyback, but who knows?

At least the 6cyl Malibus should be drivable till your ready to throw them away anyway.

Sorry for the lack of link,
I do not recall if I heard this on " Top Gear " or just a regular news site that was complaining about all the great new ideas coming out from the Government ?

I hope it nevers becomes law,
But there are those in the current administration that float the idea ,
to put a MASSIVE tax on the resale of cars with engines larger than 4 cyl in the future.

Essentialy making them worthless, I expect they will do some kind of tax payer buyback, but who knows?

At least the 6cyl Malibus should be drivable till your ready to throw them away anyway.

Sorry for the lack of link,
I do not recall if I heard this on " Top Gear " or just a regular news site that was complaining about all the great new ideas coming out from the Government ?

Larger engines are taxed in the UK. Have been for years.

It's called a displacement tax... and I really hope it catches on in the US. $1000 per liter of displacement on new cars and $500 per liter on used cars should be about right. Want that brand new Corvette or gas guzzling V8 Suburban? Good, you can shell out an additional $6000 for it. The effect will be 2-fold. #1: It will get people to think twice about their driving needs. #2: It will get auto manufacturers to use more technology in their vehicles.

Perfect example here... the Silverado has 4 engine choices: 4.3L V6, 4.8L V8, 5.3L V8 or 6.2L V8. Ranging from 195 to 403hp and 260 to 417lb/ft. The bottom two engines, which equip most of the Silverados sold, could be replaced by the 2.0L LNF in either stock (260hp) or Stage 1 (290hp) form and deliver equivalent power and torque across the same rev-range while burning less gas when cruising.

I believe Ford is getting ready to take these exact steps and put their EcoBoost line of engines in the F-150.

It's either that, or jack the gas tax way up to compensate for falling revenues from cars getting better mileage... but the Govt. is going to have to pass something within the next 5 years to address the situation.

Also, from what I've heard... it is rumored that Chevy is looking at a smaller engine for the C7 as well. Probably a direct injected version of the 4.8 producing about 400hp.

It's called a displacement tax... and I really hope it catches on in the US. $1000 per liter of displacement on new cars and $500 per liter on used cars should be about right. Want that brand new Corvette or gas guzzling V8 Suburban? Good, you can shell out an additional $6000 for it.

That would be the stupidest thing ever. Especially since many of the V8's especially with the manual get good mileage. A new M6 Corvette will get better mileage on the highway then a 3.6 Malibu. Hell, my 5.7L Camaro when it was stock would knock out 27-28 mpg on the highway. People fail to realize that people buy these small 4 bangers thinking they will get great mileage. Then they see how slow they are and have to push them harder, leading to worse mileage then some big V8's. People assume V8's get bad mileage, you know what they say about people who assume....

Silver, the Corvette and Camaro are bad examples of V8 fuel economy. They are light weight and aerodynamically styled. That, combined with an awesome overdrive gear equals wonderful highway fuel economy.

Most V8s on the road are under the hoods of full-size pickups or SUVs, and struggle to return 20MPG in a combined cycle. These engines could easily be replaced by 6-cylinder diesels and see a 5MPG increase on average. Why no auto maker has put a diesel under the hood of a medium duty pickup or full-size SUV I will never know. Probably b/c they want the pickup buyers to shell out extra cash and step up to a 2500 in order to get the diesel.

Like it or not, America has 3 possibilities to make up for lost gas tax revenue from increasing fuel economy standards. These taxes are used to support road construction and maintenance.

#1: Displacement tax. A tax on those who buy vehicles with bigger engines, which (generally) burn more gas.

#2: Increased fuel tax. We could see the tax on gasoline go up by as much as 200%. Ehich penalizes everyone and makes the cost of goods and services go up, thus hurting our economy. This also does nothing to address the growing use of Hybrids and Plug-in cars, whose drivers use little to no gas, so they pay little to no tax.

#3: Mileage tax. A yearly fee levied based upon the number of miles driven. This would require the govt. to monitor the odometers of every vehicle in America and you would get a bill in the mail for a couple hundred dollars every year. This would be expensive to implement and enforce.

So, the displacement tax is the wisest choice. That way the tax is financed in with the price of the car at the time of purchase and is paid over the 4-6 year period of the loan. Thus recouping funds while presenting the least possible burden to both the government and the consumer.

If you've been reading the news these things are already being debated and one of the 3 measures will be passed into law within the next 5 years... it is just up to our elected officials to decide which one they like the best.

Griping about it won't do any good... it is going to happen one way or another.

Raine, I'd much more prefer a non-business use SUV/truck tax. To many people, who do not need them buy them. Make them pay for it, not someone who wants a V8 sports or muscle car that will still pull in decent mpg's.

Personally I think anything weighing over 5000lbs should require a commercial operator's license and be taxed as such... so I will agree with your statement. If you had to get a CDL to drive a large pickup or SUV it would dissuade people that didn't actually need them from buying them, and perhaps those that did still get them would learn some driving skills.

Unfortunately that is another argument completely, and I doubt it will ever happen. We'll just have to wait on $6/gal gas to get the cell phone yacking soccer moms in Suburbans off the roads... or at least into a sensibly sized mini van or "crossover".

This is a disgrace! What are they thinking? Basically they are forcing the public to like it or not . Well I guess my Malibu is the last GM product I will be buying.

I guess GM's new IPO stock offering will be a bust. Who the hell would buy the stock? Think about it, would you buy a 4 cylinder, from an american car company or japanese ?

Better yet wait for fiat if you want a four cylinder.

Does GM know we have choices ?

Rediculous !

Does GM know we have choices ?

They know we have choices... but the market is evolving (thanks to new CAFE standards) and soon enough all the auto manufacturers are going to be offering 4-cyl only models. Hyundai has already done it, GM is next, and you'd better believe Ford, Honda and Toyota will be right behind the next time they update Fusion Accord and Camry. The vast majority of Malibus built and sold are 4-cyl anyways... so it really won't make a difference to most of the purchasing public. As evidenced by the LNF, a properly built and tuned 4-cyl can put out just as much power as a V6... so I don't see where that leaves much room to argue this.

Don't worry your pretty little head... even with the new regs kicking in the performance wars aren't over. It's just going to take some more advanced thinking to get the same performance out of a smaller engine. Personally, I'm hoping this leads to cars getting smaller and lighter. This automotive bloat that we've been stuck with since the 90's needs to be reigned in. A 4000lb family sedan that only seats 5 is ridiculous.

... A 4000lb family sedan that only seats 5 is ridiculous.

I couldn't agree more! I had a '64 Mercury Parklane that weighed about 4400 lbs., had a 390 CID (~6.4L), and carried 6 people with less squish than the 'Bu with 5.

Of course, it was solid metal and wouldn't pass today's stringent crash tests worth a hoot.

But again, it was all metal and at least a foot wider. Heck, the trunk was 7 feet long, 7 feet wide, and had a 6-foot wide opening! (Yes, 7 feet from the inside near the taillights to the back of the back seat!)

It didn't corner very well. That's where "land yacht" came from I'd wager! But it was easy to work on and comfortable as all get out!

Most V6's get nearly as good mileage as 4 bangers. This is a bad move...

Guys

I dont know whats going on in the auto industry ! I just read that the new ford Explorer will have a 4 cyl with a turbo check this out ......


Powerplants rethought for the modern SUV
The Explorer also debuts a new EcoBoost turbocharged four-cylinder engine and it will offer a more powerful (and thirstier) V6. This 2.0-liter inline-four combines a turbocharger, direct injection and four valves per cylinder to deliver an estimated 237 horsepower at 5,500 rpm and 250 lb-ft. of torque from 1,750 to 4,000 rpm. Ford says that fuel economy is up 30 percent over the outgoing Explorer V6. The EcoBoost four-cylinder will only be offered with front-wheel-drive.

Guys

I dont know whats going on in the auto industry ! I just read that the new ford Explorer will have a 4 cyl with a turbo check this out ......


Powerplants rethought for the modern SUV
The Explorer also debuts a new EcoBoost turbocharged four-cylinder engine and it will offer a more powerful (and thirstier) V6. This 2.0-liter inline-four combines a turbocharger, direct injection and four valves per cylinder to deliver an estimated 237 horsepower at 5,500 rpm and 250 lb-ft. of torque from 1,750 to 4,000 rpm. Ford says that fuel economy is up 30 percent over the outgoing Explorer V6. The EcoBoost four-cylinder will only be offered with front-wheel-drive.
Key word is "turbo". That changes the game. I would rather a good, turbocharged 4, then a 6. When it comes to smaller displacement engines I would rather have forced induction. On larger displacement engines I prefer it normally aspirated.

Yes, the new Explorer will be available with Ford's EcoBoost 2.0L 4-cyl. 237hp, 250lb/ft. Certainly a great improvement over the old 4.0.

Also expect to see the Ecoboost V6 (360hp, 350lb/ft) make a debut in the F-150 as an optional engine soon. It provides performance nearly identical to the truck tuned 5.0 and will offer better fuel economy.

I would not buy a 4-cyl Malibu.

Raine, what's the reason that you think the government should force people's hand in deciding what to buy?

As cars continue to downsize, I'll be forced to drive 2 vehicles to take the family anywhere. Living in a rural area, a 4WD is a must. Small vehicles just cut it when the snow is deep. Some people need a large vehicle with a V8, I don't think a lot of people in big cities with nice climate get that.

Raine, what's the reason that you think the government should force people's hand in deciding what to buy?

A favorite quote of mine, "A person is smart, people are stupid, panicky dangerous animals..."

It isn't forcing people's hand... it is simply encouraging them to think twice before making a purchase. All the mammoth pickups and SUVs on the roads that haul 1 person 90% of the time are drinking down a lot of gas, and making prices higher for everyone. Why should those of us who drive sensible vehicles be forced to pay higher fuel prices so other people can tool around in 2-ton behemoths?

Why does America have a weight problem? Because a double cheeseburger at McD's is $1 and a 6" sandwich from Subway is $3. It's all about economics. If bad-for-you fast food was more expensive less people would eat it. The same goes with bad-for-the-planet gas guzzlers.

Taken as a whole, the American public are sheep. We follow all the trends in an attempt to "keep up with the Joneses" without actually stopping to consider if what we are doing is good for us. We can be easily swayed by popular culture and the news media pushing blatant lies (OMG! Obama isn't an American). Big businesses are smart and cunning... they figured this out decades ago and have been using it ever since to manipulate us so they make more money.

In the 80's SUVs were a niche market, it was advertising that convinced us we all needed a monstrous off-road capable 4-door truck to commute to work or run to the grocery store... and boy oh boy did it work.

Have you seen the new Jeep Grand Cherokee commercials talking about skid plates? Now tell me, exactly how many people are going to off-road their Jeep in that manner? Most 4x4s sold won't ever see a gravel driveway, little lone an actual trail. But oh, that commercial sure makes you think you need one, doesn't it?


As cars continue to downsize, I'll be forced to drive 2 vehicles to take the family anywhere. Living in a rural area, a 4WD is a must. Small vehicles just cut it when the snow is deep. Some people need a large vehicle with a V8, I don't think a lot of people in big cities with nice climate get that.

Cars continue to downsize? They haven't started yet... each generation is still larger than the last, a trend I'm hoping is curbed soon.

Big city, yes. Nice climate? It's Salt Lake City... we get snow in May (and I have pictures to prove that). I'll wager my little Subaru will eat your 4x4's lunch on snowy roads any day of the week.

I will admit that some people do need capabilities that only a full-size truck or SUV can provide. My problem is that these people represent a very small fraction of the truck and SUV driving public.

I wouldn't mind the big vehicles nearly as much if they had a Hybrid powertrane or a diesel under the hood, at least that would be using technology to help offset the deplorable mileage. A 6-cylinder turbo diesel of 3 - 4L displacement would produce just as much usable torque as a 5 - 6L V8 and burn much less fuel. Why hasn't this been done yet? You'll have to go ask the head honchos at Ford and GM.

one more reason to go with the sonata for my next car...

one more reason to go with the sonata for my next car...
You can't get a V6 in that as of the last redesign.
Hopefully they have the big steering recall fixed too.

Gas is cheap here, try Europe. I'd be ok paying a lot more for it if we didn't import it from OPEC. People have a right to eat McD's, get fat, and die early if they want. McD's shouldn't be held accountable because people are stupid. People should have a right to drive what they want, and suffer the consequences for their own stupidity. SUV's aren't really that bad for the planet, that's just more media lies and sheeple you speak of. As fossil fuels become more scarce supply and demand will drive the switch to alternative energy. The technology simply isn't here yet to subsudize it. And adding more CO2 from fossil fuels to the atmosphere simply won't cause much more planet warming despite what the politicians and media say. Mathmatics doesn't support it.

Displacement taxes are forceing people's hand, hardly encouragement. I really don't care if a soccer mom decideds she needs a Jeep with skid plates. As long as they can afford it, it drives the economy.

Cars haven't downsized in 20 years. But they downsizeds significantly before that. Going on a family road trip with 4 people in a Malibu? Better stay in a hotel and plan to eat out. Why haven't dielsels been used more? The technology costs more to clean the emissions. Ford and GM are afraid they won't get their investment back since they're selling less cars. I'd be the first in line to buy one. They both scrapped expanded diesel plans in 08 when the market tanked.

Oh, where I live, snow gets packed like cement into huge drifts with 50mph winds. When your Subaru gets high centered and stuck, I'll pull you out ;)

blah.

RaineMan, I'll try and cover a couple things you said.

First- turbo diesel's would be amazing both in light duty trucks, as well as passenger cars. GM was even working on a smaller 4.5L version of the Duramax for this very reason (plans were shelved). You want to know why it doesn't happen? Emission standards.

For example, I've heard the new Duramax motors gaining 5mpg just from the owners removing all the crap GM has to put on there to get it to meet fed. regulation. Said crap also costs money, in addition to diesel fuel costing more. This means a diesel variant of a 1500 Silverado would have such a price premium over a gas motor, in addition to the consumer paying more per fill up, the diesel wouldn't get good enough fuel economy to offset the cost to the consumer.

Second- Displacement taxes are like communism. They sound wonderful in theory, but they just don't work in real life. Small displacement does not automatically equal better fuel economy, its not that simple. A full size truck with a turbo'd ecotec is going to get the same, or even worse, fuel economy as a Gen 3/4/5 sbc; while having much, much worse drivability. It takes the same amount of energy to move a mass, whether its a 4 or 8 cylinder engine. The amount of fuel required to move that much mass is going to be much more efficiently burned spread out over 8 larger cylinders than crammed into 4 small ones.

For example- I have an 08 w/ 2.4L 4cyl ecotec. Curb weight is ~3400 pounds. I'm averaging ~24 mpg.

The car I had previously was a 2001 Trans Am WS6. It had a 5.7L 8cyl LS1. Being a fully optioned T-top car, curb weight was ~3600 lbs. This car wasn't stock either, full bolt ons with a TR230 reverse split cam that dyno'd 393hp to the rear wheels on a very rich tune. Average mpg- 22. No change in driving habits between the cars, in fact I was harder on the fbody.

200 more pounds of weight, 280-300 more crank hp, 3.3 more liters of displacement through twice as many cylinders, but only 2 less miles per gallon.

Taxing based on fuel economy- taxing based on final results of what each vehicle will actually do- is the only real fair way to do it.

Finally- If I want to drive a 9 gallon per mile, skyjacked suburban on a set of super swampers while I'm smoking down a Marlbro and choking on a triple cheeseburger with a dialysis machine sitting next to me, that's my God given right, and not you or anyone else in this world has a right to dare try and change that.

Will that make gas more expensive? Sure as hell will. But we live in a free, capitalist society, which means you have no right to gasoline other than the right not to be discriminated against when you purchase it. If gas is too expensive for you, go buy a Volt or ride a bike. Take public transportation.

If you don't like that amount of freedom, maybe you should move somewhere else in the world that has less... like China. They're doing so good for their people. The only freedom you don't have in this country is the freedom to take it away from someone else.

If you want to add a $6000 tax to my next pickup, I'm sure you realize that means I'm just going to have to charge YOU $110/hr instead of the current $75 when your A/C stops working and you want my company to fix it.

I don't mean to go off on a rant, and I apologize if I'm coming off rude. But it just bugs me so bad when someone ELSE tells ME how to live MY life, when they should be worrying about THEIR OWN. Where do you get off with that snob attitude? How dare you act like you have the right to tell people what is good for them? What have you actually done in your life, what good have you done for the world, that could actually justify that behavior?

Gentlemen, please remember: Deeply held opinions are defended that much more vigorously when someone is shown disrespect, or thinks they are. Please be careful in your comments and make sure you're being civil and respectful of the opinions of others.

Offering your opinion on a public forum such as this is means that you agree to let all persons respond to it. Be prepared for differing opinions, some of which may be just as deeply held as yours.

Also be prepared to have them edited or possibly deleted if the content is deemed to be outside of the site's allowances, or if it's just plain bad form.

Continue to post, but also think and edit your posts before pressing the submit button.

Transmission ends.

Then my current Malibu will be my last Malibu

2011 Malibu V-6: 252 hp.

2007 Saturn Sky Redline, with 2.0 liter I-4 engine: 260 hp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Sky).

2012 Focus ST, with 2.0 liter I-4 engine: 247 hp (http://www.examiner.com/autos-in-detroit/ford-unveils-the-2012-focus-st-at-the-2010-paris-motor-show).

2012 Opel Astra, with 2.0 liter I-3 engine: 300 hp (http://www.worldcarfans.com/110061426813/new-astra-vxr--opc-to-receive-300bhp).

I would think that performance-oriented Malibu drives would be more interested in demanding manual transmissions than antiquated engines.

2011 Malibu V-6: 252 hp.

2007 Saturn Sky Redline, with 2.0 liter I-4 engine: 260 hp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Sky).

2012 Focus ST, with 2.0 liter I-4 engine: 247 hp (http://www.examiner.com/autos-in-detroit/ford-unveils-the-2012-focus-st-at-the-2010-paris-motor-show).

2012 Opel Astra, with 2.0 liter I-3 engine: 300 hp (http://www.worldcarfans.com/110061426813/new-astra-vxr--opc-to-receive-300bhp).

I would think that performance-oriented Malibu drives would be more interested in demanding manual transmissions than antiquated engines.

Right on....

Just to show you that fuel mileage is better with a bigger engine when you have to move a lot of weight. I had an 86 3/4 ton with a bored, stroked, balanced and blueprinted 454. I removed all of the smog equipment and set the timing around 12*bdc. I was getting about 12 mpg. A friend of mine had a 92 1500 with a stock 305 and he got 8 -10 mpg. Even when I drove his truck it did not get any better than 10. My truck weighed 1000lbs more and had more than double the HP and Torque.
There is no replacement for displacement!

I'd like to know the final drive ratios of both trucks, but usually the heavier one (yours) would have the lower gears, making it less likely to get higher mileage. So you're actually better off with more carrying capacity and higher mileage!

My '91 F150 (std cab, short bed, 5.0 liter, automatic) never got better than 15.5 mpg on the freeway (I installed a cruise control), and about 10-12 in town. Don't know what it had for final drive ratio.

If I could have teased out more power from it without disturbing the timing, aspiration, or displacement, then I'm sure I could have had a slight improvement in mileage, but I'm sure it would have been very minor. When I had to replace the heads due to a burnt valve (with 2 cracks beyond the seats) I also replaced the exhaust manifolds with shorty, smog-legal (California) headers. I never checked the freeway mileage after that but I know for sure that those headers gave me more top end. I should have either replaced the heads with the car-type to mate with the shorty headers, or gotten the longer-tube headers for the truck heads. Regardless, it ran better all around.

Forced induction makes up for displacement by stuffing more into the cylinder than it can suck in naturally. And nowadays, with years of engineering and testing, newer engines are much more efficient with their fuel and burn cleaner than ever. Removing all the smog equipment back in the 70's and 80's actually helped mileage because that crap was just added on top of old technology instead of designed into the engine.

I'm still on the fence to some degree about "no replacement for displacement", but it'll still always be partly true. Take the same engine that screams, make it bigger with the same engineering and it'll just scream more. (Like taking a 4-banger up to 6 or 8 cylinders, not just boring it out.) I think I'll just vote with my money like I always have and see what the world's manufacturers put out there. I can always buy something old and make it run how I want, eh?

I had 4:11's he had 3:73's. I had this beast in CA and had to adjust the timing back to factory specs and deal with crappy mileage for the time it took to get to the smog shop. FI has some advantages, but there is always some lag with it.

Sure, they make I-4s with more horsepower than V-6s but their torque curve just isn't there. You end up running the car harder to get the same performance and your gas mileage suffers from it let alone the driveability. I agree with the "there's no replacement for displacement" remark.

Sure, they make I-4s with more horsepower than V-6s but their torque curve just isn't there. You end up running the car harder to get the same performance and your gas mileage suffers from it let alone the driveability. I agree with the "there's no replacement for displacement" remark.

Not really the case. A good turbocharged 4 will have more torque and a broader curve then a V6. While I love a big V8, hence why I own a Camaro. I have to say the torque curve of my MS3 is much meatier and "fun" then our Malibu. And when your off boost, you get good mileage. I would have gotten the 260 HP boosted Ecotech instead of the 3.6 if it was offered. Take a look at most 6 and 8 cylinder exotic cars. They do not have really large displacement engines. Ferrari F430, 4.3L, Porsche 911, 3.6L, etc, etc.

Sure, they make I-4s with more horsepower than V-6s but their torque curve just isn't there. You end up running the car harder to get the same performance and your gas mileage suffers from it let alone the driveability. I agree with the "there's no replacement for displacement" remark.

Or not:
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/1438/ecotec0ck.png

Audi's torque maxes out at 2,000 rpm:
http://sore4x4.com/images/db/250px2LTFSIDTMEdition.jpg