GM announces 30 mpg 2.4L direct-injection I4, plus new 3.0L V6

GM announces 30 mpg 2.4L direct-injection I4, plus new 3.0L V6

Share

By Nick Aziz

General Motors on Thursday announced its 2010 Chevrolet Equinox crossover will come equipped with a 2.4-liter direct-injection four-cylinder Ecotec engine delivering 180 horsepower at 6700 rpm and 172 pound-feet of torque at 4900 rpm. Perhaps most importantly, the engine promises to deliver 30 mpg on the highway. That tops Ford’s new 2.5-liter I4, which produces 170 hp and returns a highway EPA rating of 28 mpg.
GM also announced plans to offer the new Equinox with a 3.0-liter V6 delivering 255 horsepower and 214 pound-feet of torque. Also featuring direct injection, the motor has an isolated fuel injector system that promises quieter operation than other DI engines. Rubber isolators are used with the fuel rail to eliminate metal-to-metal contact that would otherwise transmit noise and vibration from the high-pressure fuel system.
“We first introduced direct injection in North America in the 2007 Saturn Sky Red Line and the Pontiac Solstice GXP,” said Tom Stephens, executive vice president, GM Global Powertrain and Global Quality. “We’ve been rolling out the technology across our portfolio as quickly as we can so that our customers will have additional fuel savings options. Direct injection is a state-of-the art engineering solution because it enables improved fuel economy and lower emissions without sacrificing power.”
37 COMMENTS
1. desertdriver589 days ago
  0 0
  
  It might be a little too late GM…
  Why isn’t the new Camaro out yet? After years of teasing, it is still not out.
  GM management is too slow
  
  Reply
2. Commodore589 days ago
  0 0
  
  First you suggest that it might be too late for GM, and then you complain about the Camaro not being out? You do realize that the Camaro will do nothing to save them, look at where Mustang sales are – I believe the Mustang had its worst month in Nov. in its entire history (40+ years). Now is not the time for pony cars
  
  Reply
3. psykoz589 days ago
  0 0
  
  Horrible MPG, 400hp GTO or 300hp Camaro with 2.73 rear-end gets 25-27mpg on highway…
  
  WTH is GM smoking?
  
  Reply
4. Nightblack_97589 days ago
  0 0
  
  Okay GM. YOu’re finally getting it. You have a…..
  1.) Good car in the Malibu except that it is heavy and slightly underpowered
  2.) a 2.4 liter engine that makes a little more power with better fuel economy
  …. NOW PUT THEM TOGETHER AND WATCH YOUR MARKET SHARE RISE!!
  
  If you are going to strike, now is the time. The camry has an interior that will age terribly even if they fix all the engine/tranny problems.
  The honda accord does now get very good mileage and the revvy 2.4 liter engine feels out of place in a car that large. Still fun to drive but the leather seats are hard and very uncomfortable. The cloth are still okay.
  Your only real competition would be the Mazda6 and the newly redesigned Ford Fusion.
  Please don’t screw this up. You can take care of the only little weakness your malibu has.
  
  SIx speed, paddle shifters, and 180 HP with 30 MPG. That’s an American car I’d drive with pride!
  Not to mentiona good exterior and a decent interior.
  
  Reply
5. DeansterTJ588 days ago
  0 0
  
  GM has money to blow on engine development?
  
  Reply
6. DrFill588 days ago
  0 0
  
  Sounds good
  The new 2.7 in the Toyota Venza has 180+HP and gets 29, so this is pretty comparable
  The Equinox probably weighs the same too
  DrFill
  
  Reply
7. oldraven588 days ago
  0 0
  
  DeansterTJ, now the only thing GM spends money on is it’s Economy car/Green technology projects, and even those are starting to be put on hold (new ecotec factory).
  
  Reply
8. oldraven588 days ago
  0 0
  
  Too bad it’s going into a Theta, though. Who knows, maybe new Thetas are much better than my ’03 Vue.
  
  Reply
9. RaineMan588 days ago
  0 0
  
  My 1990 Beretta GTZ has a 2.3L 180hp 4-cyl that gets 28MPG highway. That’s right folks… a 19 year old engine with the same amount of power and economy as a “brand new” one. Automotive technological advances continue to dissapoint me.
  
  Reply
10. 1gokart588 days ago
  0 0
  
  psykoz, you do realize this is a SUV and not a car. The new Equinox getting 30mpg on the highway will be best in class:
  SUV, FWD, automatic 4-cylinders: (highway figures)
  Honda CRV (27mpg), Toyota RAV4 (27mpg), Hyundai Santa Fe (26mpg), Ford Escape (26mpg)
  
  RaineMan, your 1990 Beretta GTZ weighs like 2700lbs and gets 28mpg, this new equinox weighs like 3600lbs and gets 30mpg. Automotive technology is advancing unlike your intelligence (you disappoint me)
  
  People when are you going to stop bashing on GM?
  
  Reply
11. bradleygt588 days ago
  0 0
  
  thanks gokart for that, you took my comments right out of my hand! and remember these are based on the ‘new’ epa ratings. I personally don’t know anyone who drives normal (not racing every second) who doesn’t get better then the EPA ratings. I am sure some folks will get mid 30′s hwy if EPA is at 30 mpg
  
  Reply
12. Z06ified588 days ago
  0 0
  
  GM is leading the way with direct injection technology. I think they sell more direct injected powered vehicles than anyone else. Porsche has only recently decided to play catch up with direct injection.
  
  Commodore – the Mustang sold poorly in November not only because of the economy, but because there is a new model coming out soon. Sales always slow considerably on the outgoing model just before a new model release.
  
  Reply
13. Madcapp588 days ago
  0 0
  
  Its not just the engine, that’s only the heart. The transmission is the brains to using the power, and the way to higher MPG is a partnership with a dual clutch gearbox of at least 6 speeds.
  
  Reply
14. oldraven588 days ago
  0 0
  
  Z06ified, VW has been using DI for quite some time now, and have a DI engine in just about every model they produce. The number grows, once you start including the likes of Seat, Audi, and the like.
  
  In the NA market, gasoline engines, and N/A engines, I’d agree with you, but VW has them beat in Europe and with DI Diesels.
  
  Reply
15. Borat588 days ago
  0 0
  
  This is not fact is a goal. GM has a tendency to miss its goals by a mile. So far they are in bankruptcy preparations. That’s reality.
  
  Reply
16. desertdriver588 days ago
  0 0
  
  Commodore, you are definitely right, the Camaro will not save them. I realize that. I used the Camaro to illustrate how GM is usually late to the party. I’m an accountant by profession. I’m good with numbers, but not the best with words. The new Camaro should have been out right after the previous generation ended. GM did publicly apologize a while ago for letting customers down and not making the cars people wanted. Lutz can stay, Wagoner needs to go.
  
  Reply
17. 02WRXPSM588 days ago
  0 0
  
  The 2.5 liter motor in the Subaru Forrester (which made several SUV/CUV of the year lists) gets 26 mpg, out of a motor that has barely been touched in the engineering department in eight years. Way to go GM, you beat it by 2 MPG!
  
  Reply
18. 02WRXPSM588 days ago
  0 0
  
  Typo, 4 MPG
  
  Reply
19. johnnycanuck588 days ago
  0 0
  
  RaineMan, the difference now (hopefully) is that the new motor won’t grenade before the new car smell is gone. The Quad 4 was ahead of its time as in a premature birth. I know as I had an ’89 Calais that I picked up after my friend’s mom had put about 10 large into the car and she had bought it used so who knows what went into it before that. It ran great all the time I had it (5 spd by the way) and I believe it’s still alive. 1gokart is right though, both our cars probably had close to a thousand pound advantage. That’s what they need to work on next, although 3,600 lbs isn’t bad for a useful crossover nowadays.
  
  Reply
20. bradleygt588 days ago
  0 0
  
  borat, what ‘goals’ for EPA mpg has GM missed recently? can you show me anywhere outside of your biased brain an article/press release that GM put out with an EPA goal that was later showed to be off by ‘miles’??? PLEASE show me just one. It shouldn’t be that hard to do since GM has released about a dozen new vehciles in the last few years! (Tahoe/Yukon; Silverado/SIerra; Cobalt; Malibu; Impala; Aveo; G6; Traverse/etc.)
  
  I don’t think so. Go give your non NA car a hug and make yourself feel better
  
  Reply
21. tripleonefive588 days ago
  0 0
  
  Borat is correct This isnt fact yet Believe it when its on the road. Even if the mileage is good its still an unproven pile 19 years GM 10 years. I’m being lenient on them as well it took the J2 about 15 to prove they were reliable
  
  Reply
22. bball09588 days ago
  0 0
  
  They are getting 30 mpg with a vehicle over 4000 pounds. The similar Saturn Vue is 4300 pounds.
  
  Reply
23. RaineMan588 days ago
  0 0
  
  Johnny… the quad four in that beretta is sitting on 128,000 miles and it still runs quite well. It is all about proper preventative maintenance… oil changes… etc.
  
  I am just suprised that after GM did away with the engine in 95 it has taken them more than 10 years of R&D to come up with what is practically the same thing. Same displacement… same hp… same tq… same economy.
  
  Don’t get me wrong… I love Chevy. I’ve got a 06 Cobalt SS that sits in the driveway right beside the Beretta… but such lackluster development is exactly why the American auto manufacturers have failed.
  
  Reply
24. oldraven588 days ago
  0 0
  
  RaineMan, what Johnny’s getting at is the fact that this new engine, in your Beretta, would get much more than 30mpg, if it is getting that from an Equinox. Sure, you’ve got a point in the hp/tq/disp. sense, but fuel efficiency has everything to do with what it has to haul around.
  
  Reply
25. RaineMan588 days ago
  0 0
  
  I understand that the extra 1000lbs of weight makes a big difference. I guess actually making a car smaller and lighter is a foreign concept to auto designers too. They wouldn’t need all this advanced engine tech if they could make a new car that weighs less than 3000lbs. Everyone is so hooked on pounds and pounds of soundproofing, eleventy-billion airbags, traction control, reverse cameras, blind-spot indicators, GPS nav, DVD players, voice recognition and wireless internet capability that they think they can’t live without it. Heaven forbid you actually hear the engine, road and wind when you drive a car… and the world might actually come to an end if I can’t check my e-mail while yacking to my girlfriends on the phone and drinking my McLatte with the 2.5 kids watching SpongeBob in the back seat commuting to work/school/soccer practice.
  
  Maybe… just maybe… if someone were to actually try makeing reliable a-to-b conveyences without all the bells and whistles and electronic doo-dads they would discover that a sub 10-second 0-60 time could be achieved without needing a 300hp direct injected turbocharged intercooled engine with cylinder deactivation and continuously variable valve timing. It would be a lot cheaper too.
  
  Reply
26. tripleonefive588 days ago
  0 0
  
  Everyone is so hooked on reliability resale, no wind noise, safety, traction control, technology etc. Thats right if I wasnt interested in those things I would buy a GM car
  
  Reply
27. A4588 days ago
  0 0
  
  OKAY so WHERE is everyone that was complaining that 180hp is too underpowered for a damn FUSION??? with a 1.4l Ecoboost Turbo? Same power, probably more torque than this engine, and a whole litre less of displacement for better mileage. Consider all you idiots served.
  
  Reply
28. neptronix588 days ago
  0 0
  
  Safety regulations have caused cars to get heavier. unfortunately no way around that.
  
  30mpg in a SUV/Crossover type car is VERY impressive. Name another crossover that can get that kind of mileage? oh wait, there aren’t any.
  
  The idea that american cars are all gas guzzlers is way overblown.
  The displacement to mpg ratio on these cars is insanely good.
  I’ve owned 4 cylinder hondas, and have had a chevy cavalier. The cavalier was faster
  than all of them with it’s old-tech 2.2. Outside of the motor, the car was not so great.
  
  but don’t go saying gm’s powertrains are crappy. I would rather have an ecotec car
  than anything else with a 4 cylinder. those things seriously burned rubber. Now they’re
  even better..
  
  Reply
29. bradleygt588 days ago
  0 0
  
  Rianman:
  
  You really think a car would sell in medium or large volumes without those ‘electronic doo-dads” and stuff? I have only been selling cars for 4 years, but in my time I find MOST customers want as many doo dads as they can afford. The only ones who buy the ‘stripped’ out models are the ones who are A, using it for a work truck/transport or B, can not afford a more loaded one. and listing to road and engine noise is not a fun way to spend a 30+ min commute if you ask me. Airbags are a good safety feature imho and should be standard in all vehicles.
  
  and btw, the US Govt is making traction control/Stability control standard in all vehicles sold by 2011, I believe(although most manufactures have it standard on alot of units already. I know at VW they are standard on all ’09′s).
  
  i understand your point, but sorry, the good old day are gone to where just steel, wheels and an engine got you by. If you like road, engine and wind noise with no doo dads, sounds like you are a great canidate for a stripped out motorcycle or maybe you could drive a good old John Deere tractor down the road! THEY make a very good sound at high idle!
  
  Reply
30. RaineMan588 days ago
  0 0
  
  I’ll admit that I do prefer to actually be part of the driving experience instead of “just along for the ride”… perhaps that’s why I enjoy blasting by all those soccer moms and yuppies who are too busy being distracted to actually remember that they are driving a car. Maybe that explains why airbags, tire pressure monitors and traction control are being required by Big Brother now. There is a big lack of driver awareness and road sense these days.
  
  I’ll never buy a new car again.
  
  Reply
31. oldraven588 days ago
  0 0
  
  Bradleygt, I think the solution here is to keep standard equipment as it is, but offer a Stripper model as an option for economical models. I bet an XFE would get better millage than it does if it had no AC, power windows, no more than two airbags, etc. Strip every option out that isn’t mandated.
  
  Reply
32. johnnycanuck588 days ago
  0 0
  
  RaineMan, I wouldn’t go so far as to say never but it would have to be something pretty special. I also agree with you about the ‘driving experience’. I did 400kms in a snowstorm yesterday. The first 250 through rolling valleys and mountain highway were awesome as despite the conditions it was fun to be the guy in charge. Simple vehicle (’98 Tracker) with manual hubs locked in, good snow tires and a 5 spd manual gearbox: I was passing guys with 3 times the power like they were standing still. Sure I scared the wife but she just had to take one look at the sh*t eating grin on my face to know resistance was futile. She also said she’ll never bitch again about what I do on the same stretch in our Mustang GT.
  
  Reply
33. psykoz588 days ago
  0 0
  
  1gokart, uhm… This SUV [car] weighs 3600lbs, a GTO weighs 3900lbs. Again what’s their problem? I am not impressed with the 30mpg it gets at all. EPA ratings are actually usually a little more conservative than what the car actually gets too. I’ve seen many people try and get EPA ratings on their cars in tests and not achieve that.
  
  GM could totally put out Displacement On Demand LS2′s into lighter cars, use better gearing and achieve the same 30mpg and more.
  
  Let me go back to my original point, a 3800lb camaro w/ a 2.73 rear-end also got 30mpg (28mpg EPA estimated) and output 300horsepower.
  
  Chris
  
  Reply
34. bradleygt588 days ago
  0 0
  
  i agree raven and rainman, to point. the nostalgic side of me says great, but the marketing side of me says wont work that well. We just took in a very nice 78 VW Micro Bus, very nicely done, runs great and look good. Air cooled engine of course and very primative inside, minus the aftermarket radio that was added.
  
  looks good and has drawn alot of looks, but is it practical in todays market? For around $8k that is? Besides being a cool weekend car, who is going to drive this vehicle?
  
  I’d love to have an old Chevy truck to drive, because I love the styling, stepsides and all, but I wouldn’t feel safe with my son in the truck, going up against other vehicles same or heavier with better crash resistance. Hopefull automakers can capture some of the old styling and mix it with new technology that makes things safer and more reliable while not loosing the fun of the driving experience.
  
  Reply
35. global_lightning588 days ago
  0 0
  
  This is exactly what GM needs to be doing. Get new tech and models out now. Sell on quality, not on cost.
  
  Reply
36. DrFill588 days ago
  0 0
  
  Raineman
  The Baretta was a piece of monkey crap, hence it isn’t made anymore
  It’s was monkey crap because it is loud, cheap (shifter/clutch in particular), rides like a truck, and has no emission, quality, or noise control
  It is one of many models that GM into this mess to begin with
  Defending monkey crap is no way to go through life, son.
  
  You mentioned the foreign companies using lighter weight to improve EPA mileage
  Imagine how much they’d save if they built something with as cheaply as the Chevy Baretta
  They’d make a fortune!
  Just like GM!
  But they chose to build their cars their customers might recommend 5 years later
  
  So GM’s “Baretta business plan”, 15 years later, How’s that working out?
  DrFill
  
  Reply
37. 1gokart587 days ago
  0 0
  
  psykoz, Chris
  
  Car vs SUV, Cars will always get better fuel economy that a SUV. There are a lot of factors. SUV rides higher (aerodynamics are worst), bigger OD tires and threads (rolling resistance, etc). Manual transmission vs automatic.
  
  This new engine mated with an automatic on a SUV today will give a highway EPA of 30 mpg. Yes,it is not official yet, bven if it’s off by 1 mpg, it’s still “Best in Class” There is no SUV (other than Hybrid) can achieve this. So *thumbs up* for GM.
  
  Yes today’s vehicles are heavier and that’s because of new regulation and customers demand for safety and “doo-dads”. Airbag, Traction control, stability control, side and front impact, etc.
  
  I will agree that GM is still slow in re-acting to the weight issue compared to the foreign counterparts, but that’s a different topic.
  
  Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.