Lower weight without a loss of power. A winning formula I would say.

turbo four’s…. meh

There is a rumor going around that the Lambda’s have a camshaft issue
Hmmm Ill have to look for it bc LLN wont post it and Im not like Commo so Ill wait untill its official
Im giving you fair warning Prepare your lame excuses now

If it is the camshaft then it is an issue with the engine not the platform. Such an obvious discrepancy would never be posted even by LLN and their all too hasty at times staff.

GM is not in the habit of building engines that break despite your biases.

But we will have the wait and see. It may be too new or “thin” to even report as a rumor.

this is it buddy: http://www.lemonauto.com/complaints/toyota/toyota_tundra.htm

Tastes great. Less filling. It’s about time the automakers started taking lessons from the breweries. Problem is I never have been much for lite beer.

lol oops sorry

me neither johnny

The VW 1.4L TSI twincharged motor is awesome and pumps out 170PS

Now if they could just get 300hp out of the LNF, this engine would be very practical indeed in some of the larger midsize + sedans.

I agree that 300hp should be the target output for these large sedans. Less might be sufficient for grandpa, but in order to appeal to a broader market the cars have to be fun to drive too. That said, if a turbo four can do the job of a v8, there’s no reason to waste the gas. I’d love to see more of this type of development…

Hmm…it’ll be interesting to see what GM makes out of this one.

The bull**** Lutz was producing during NYC car show clogged Hudson bay. I would imagine GM had few mules to test turbo 4 in larger cars for a while now: Saab 9-5 comes to mind.

FINALLY a good use of SAAB.

The major draw back to turbos for me is the lag. I hate that elastic feeling they can give you.

Granted, turbo’s have greatly improved over the years but they’re still crap and turbo power is still boyracer bull****.

I have a turbo 4 in my 2006 A4. There is no lag and I would hardly call it a boyracer car. Power is very linear. Not to mention 32+ MPG.

http://malibu.thingzforyou.com/

howsmydriving, you should share your wisdom with Audi, M-B, BMW & Volvo. They keep on building those pathetic cars and selling them.

How could these sedans post numbers in the low 30’s when the Cobalt SS with the same engine and a 3,000 lb curb weight gets 30MPG highway?

The LNF has an amazing torque ‘curve’. From 1800 RPM to almost redline, it’s a nice and flat 260 ft-lbs. It’s compression ratio is 9.2 combined with a moderate pressure turbo; This means it has minimal turbo lag. GM already has Stage I & II kits which get the LNF up to 300 HP with minimal hassle. Also, with 300 lbs less over the front wheels, this car will also have much better handling and braking.

GM drivetrain performance data (this is a goldmine for any enthusiast)
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2008/08car.htm

Yeah from all of the reviews of the Cobalt and HHR SS turbo lag on this is pretty much non existent. This engine utilizes a twin scroll turbocharger and electronically controlled bypass valve, giving it power at very low RPM’s. Motortrend got the Cobalt to do 60 in 5.5 seconds and this still achieves 30mpgs, just like scottns said you get both now a days. And for turbo’s being boy racerish, umm I guess the Buick Grand National was boy racerish and so are the BMW’s and Mercedes and Audi’s that use biturbos, and what not right???

As far as cars go, V8’s are good for balls out racing/modifying. As for the other 99% of your driving life, Turbo 4’s fit the bill perfectly. Anyone complaining about Turbo Lag should learn to downshift. Congratulation, you just learned how to drive.

Trivia question: What was the first mass-produced turbocharged automobile?
Answer: The Chevrolet Corvair Monza, 1962.

Oldsmobile Cutlass Jetfire, 1962

Hey Global_lightning, you got any links on the Stage 1 and Stage 2 kits for the LNF? I’ve checked everywhere and even read there isn’t anything out yet for the LNF. I know they have GMPP stage kits for the LSJ though. Thanks! I’d appreciate it.

Global_Lightning, it was not the first, really. It was introduced at the same time as the Olds F85 Turbo Jetfire. And they were the first Turbocharged Passenger Vehicles. They had been using them in Commercial Trucks in Europe for awhile before that.

And I have always wanted a ‘65+ Corvair Corsa Turbo.

All GM’s past turbo cars were among the fastest in the world!!
GMC SYCLONE
GMC TYPHOON
PONTIAC TURBO TRANS AM
BUICK GRAND NATIONAL GNX
BUICK T-TYPE

It seems like everytime GM puts a turbo in there vehicles, it’s Godly fast. I would never underestimate a GM vehicle with a turbo, even with a 4 cylinder. Just look at the Buick Grand National GNX. It was a heavy car with a Turbo 3.8 V-6. Did 0-60 in 4.6 seconds or lower, and beat the Vette in it’s day.

The turbo rocks on my A4. It gives that power boost when needed, and there’s no lag. Great fuel economy, to boot. GM should embrace this concept to give thier smaller enigines a power kick. Good fuel economy is nice, but not when the car performs like a brick. The sporty feeling you get from a (good) turbocharged engine, combined with the satisfaction of acheiving decent fuel milage, is priceless.

Let’s not do this.

1115: There is a rumor going around that the apostrophe is to indicate possesive, not plural.

187out: my stepfather had a grand national.

GNS’s are badass ass cars, even today.

jjt thats fancy talk for janitor Take it easy its a car site
If you had taken your plurals and possessives as serious in real life as you do on this board you would have a better career