Comments on: Pontiac G8 to use four-cylinder engine?

By: svt3246

svt3246 — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:16:35 +0000

the pussification of GM continues…sad really…

By: lamboz get a life

lamboz get a life — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:09:10 +0000

Funny Tripleoneindiot, when I was at the New York Autoshow, you could not get into the new Pontiac G-8. Again proven that you are so full of ****.

By: CleanGTO

CleanGTO — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:05:00 +0000

Offer a V8, and everyone whines and moans about CAFE regulations and gas mileage…offer a 4-Cylinder and there not enough balls for you…there can be no double standard folks. Some compromise is necessary, just as it’s necessary to offer multiple engines. Ergo, you’ll have to make your own decisions as to which is more important, gas mileage or horsepower. Nothing’s changed.

By: autonut

autonut — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 03:01:31 +0000

As much as I am fan and owner of Hondas, New TSX did not look better to my eye and Mrs. noted that you need cameras to change lane. Fit 2009 not as cute as the current one, although hood and grille are huge improvement. The side of the car looks like it was in accident with those A pillars. I believe it is mechanical masterpiece, especially engine, the looks need to get used to. I did not get in to G-8, but it has great exterior. BMW 1 series had Bungle goofs all around it: small car has very thick doors that look stupid (interior was good). Q7 with diesel engine was as impressive as Tiger panzer but with good mileage. Did they really lost the war?

By: tripleonefive

tripleonefive — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:58:46 +0000

Yea thats why the Civic resale is so high bc its in the repair shop lol
Unlike a Tempo and GM products lol
I was in NY this weekend and went to the auto show. I got into the G8 and slammed the door and a guy said “that door sounds like a tin can” Ha ha I replied’ “what do you expect” It was great ! The interior was not great and was a mix of meduim and very low quality material but anyone who drives GM is accustomed to that anyway
The Malibu sucks and is not better inside then the Accord or Camry. The Acura RL looks better in person. The Genesis, the Gen coupe and The new Jag were HUGE disappointments along with the 135i

By: autonut

autonut — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:13:09 +0000

jjt, i can’t believe you drove a Civic, I though you’re allergic to the brand. Why need for ride to repair shop? I drove Civic for 6 years and only had to replace tires and exhaust after 5 years.

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 21:43:10 +0000

would that not make the G8/2?

autonut: when i drove a civic, I was concerned about who could give me a ride to the repair shop.

By: autonut

autonut — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 19:01:48 +0000

I saw G8 in auto show yesterday. One reason to buy it – it is the best looking GM car. If you live in the south or on left coast and snow does not affect you, it is one of the most beautiful cars on the road today. It my opinion, of course.

By: jdasch1

jdasch1 — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:13:44 +0000

rental car with dents and dings is what I see for this cars future.

By: purdue

purdue — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 02:22:44 +0000

I was in a G8 today, and a buyer with his new G8 followed me out of the lot.

They are much nicer in person than I thought they’d be.

By: Classic-auto

Classic-auto — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 21:57:47 +0000

Why would you buy a G8 if its offered in a 4 banger. I think I would Buy a G6 or G5 instead.

By: DeansterTJ

DeansterTJ — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 20:19:31 +0000

Well, ain’t that some ****. So much for the mighty G8.

By: jjayc08

jjayc08 — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:45:05 +0000

autonut- I’ll leave the debate to government dictating our lives to someone else, however as you stated what CAFE and the NHTSA embodies is those changes that people want to see in their vehicles. Unfortunately though, they have no clue how to properly enact those changes. They’re politicians, some with experience in automotive fields, but for the most part the people who pass those guidelines and requirements are not engineers or automotive designers.

While they enact 500 pounds (they don’t require the weight, but it’s difficult not to with the necessary equipment) of safety and emissions equipment, they make those vehicles of the past less safe, as a vehicle with more weight is going to enact more damage on a lighter car. They also end up making requirements for future vehicles more stringent, as they have to put up with heavier cars and more deadly accidents. The result? More and more safety equipment.

Consider that a lighter cars makes all cars around it safer. Instead of resulting in never ending legislation to get safety ahead of more fatal accidents, it results in cars gaining more weight and putting vehicles around it in more danger.

By: autonut

autonut — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:27:40 +0000

johnny, there has to be some progress in engine development. If you look at engines of 70’s, 80’s & 90’s there were growing up in output per liter of volume (even in ‘80). My 79 320i had 2.0L 109 hp engine. You get that output from Honda Fit (current model) with 1.5L engine. Is Honda engine more complex? You bet, is it more reliable, you bet. Now with development in hybrids and diesels the complexity will go up, but holefully reliability will follow. As much as everyone (me primarily) is bitching about domestic cars, their cars are very reliable compare to junk of ’80s and ’90s. Their problem is that other manufacturers did not stand still either.
jjayc08, per our constitution our governmental agencies can not dictate our lifestyle and I don’t believe it does. We are talking bureaucrats who probably could not hold job anywhere else. Founders were very bright people and protected us from them via constitution. Those agencies are merely reflecting the will and mood of congress and President (I think to a lesser degree). When congress get scared or panders to some interests(special or not so special) it enacts legislations that make government react certain way. EVERYBODY wants safe cars for their children if not themselves. Everybody wants clean air, except Bucky with no teeth – he lives off the land and has it already, except when he passes gas. What CAFE and NHTSA states is national reconciliations of those wants.

By: ottacontrol

ottacontrol — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:32:26 +0000

So bro i am gonna smoke ur 700 cc f150 this is what it will be like in 2020

By: Jon Luc

Jon Luc — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 07:19:14 +0000

Johnny Canuck, I’d had to admit it, but I actually agree with you on this.

By: jepc

jepc — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 03:41:49 +0000

In Europe the VW Passat is available with a 1.4 engine, does 36mpg (European cycle), and does 0-60 in about 10 seconds. The engine delivers 122hp, the car weighs 3000 lb (G8 weighs 3900lb) and is 188 inches long (G8 196in). With gas costing close to $4 per gallon (in California) combined with CAFE, I think the US has no other option than downsizing engines or using clean Diesel engines.

By: jjayc08

jjayc08 — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 02:04:36 +0000

autonut- If that was a reference to what I had said about CAFE, CAFE does have an indirect effect on vehicle size and weight. The NHTSA fosters and administers CAFE, so while the NHTSA advocates better highway safety and more safety equipment, CAFE is on the opposite side of the spectrum, advocating lower weight, smaller vehicles and better fuel economy. That leads to even more weight partly because many CAFE regulations correlate with standards passed by NHTSA, more weight to achieve lower emissions, more weight for safety, but that leads to worse fuel economy ratings.

You figure that most foreign vehicles without the need for all these fancy gadgets, like full curtain airbags and deploying hoods usually average about 30 mpg for a mid size hatchback. Not saying that safety features such as the ones mentioned are bad, but maybe whats better is if we have lighter vehicles, less damage, easier to handl and less costly to repair. While we’re at it, make drivers a little more educated and responsible in the process concerning keeping their drivers liscence or permit- we don’t need more drivers to be taxed for better programs, we just need a better system and more responsible thinking, although the last half of that can’t quite be changed by any NHTSA or CAFE regulations.

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:21:55 +0000

Small displacement high output engines are going to be nothing more than warranty nightmares. The kind of horsepower/litre numbers they’re proposing used to be reserved for only the most sophisticated high performance street or racing engines not that long ago. Most people aren’t even remotely interested in what’s under the hood, but when they’re told a synthetic oil change is going to cost $100 and premium fuel is required they’re likely to start being.

Maybe I’m wrong, and 150hp/litre on regular fuel with 10,000 mile oil change intervals are possible, but I’ll bet manufactures are going to cover their asses by insisting on a calendar service schedule as opposed to mileage. And when the first guy comes in with cooked turbos after only 3000 miles of rush hour stop and go traffic the dealer’s going to say ‘well, our records show you were due for an oil change 5 months ago. Sorry, now that’ll be $2500′.

Let the games begin.

By: autonut

autonut — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:09:35 +0000

Horsepower is deceptive. On paper the car with most HP and torque looks like a winner. Then you drive something like Mini or Civic and who cares about horses? Those low powered cars deliver great pickup without any fuss, handle great and the whole experience is lovely.
When I was a kid I owned used ‘Vette for 3 months. That all I could stand it for. It did not handle that well, especially in a rain, it was noisy, all panels were rattling at about 80 (speed limit was 55) and all I could score only retarded chicks. BMW with less then half horsepower was much more of a car.

By: bigp

bigp — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:00:33 +0000

well an little more horses would not hurt like 285 just under the 3.6liter v6 with 304 it will work just do it

By: autonut

autonut — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:35:02 +0000

Cadillac of 80s was the biggest GM mistake, trailing only after Lutz co-chairmanship or whatever he does. 8-6-4 did not exactly worked in any of the modes.

By: broadrun96

broadrun96 — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:26:17 +0000

Does no one here realize this idea, multiple gears with lower power numbers, is already in VERY heavy use. All those of you who think Mack, Volvo, Freightliners, etc have been running more power and bigger engines then street trucks have no clue, it’s all about keeping the engine where it’s happiest. Esp with the new DSG-type and autos coming in the next few years, 7-9 speeds in a manual would be a nightmare to engineer within a standard spacing behind the engine.

By: zoomzoomr

zoomzoomr — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:59:20 +0000

Why don’t they just resurrect Cadillac’s displacement on demand engine.. then they could call it the Pontiac G8-6-4!

By: autonut

autonut — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:00:55 +0000

BTW, 4 cyl turbo not only gets 260 hp but also 260 lbs of torque as low as 1800 rpm. That’s as good or better as Ford’s latest and greatest V6. I guess we did learn something from Swede’s (guess were 2L direct injection turbo has it’s roots).

By: autonut

autonut — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:58:12 +0000

Seriously, you either did not know or forgot history. CAFE regulation came in response to fuel crises of ‘73, ‘77 and ‘79. We always like massive cars until oil hit the fan. i remember standing in gas lines in 77 and 79. I used to tease old fashion Italians guys by offering to trade my Corolla for coupe DeVille convertible. Some were seriously considering my offer since they could only drive from one gas line to another. Fast forward 30 years and we got Ecalade with the same mileage and more heft. What did we learn in 30 years? Meanwhile European toy cars grew in size and relying on diesel get 30+ mpg city almost 50 highway (BMW 7 series).

By: corvette

corvette — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:47:21 +0000

so how long until all our cars have 15-speed trans.

By: Seriously

Seriously — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:22:39 +0000

jjayc08 you hit on one of the prime points that caused the underpowered cars of the 70s and 80s. Cafe regulation by people like Nader who believe if you want safety you need more government. A number of the changes in ‘78 that affected the safety side of CAFE added weight to cars and continues to do so today. Automakers have been able to increase the fuel mileage on their vehicles as weight was added by government regulation due to safety. But with the new standards derived from flimsy science and eco-speculation based on undeveloped technology of the future the manufacturers are in a corner. To produce to the standard, the consumer will be the sacrificial lamb and will not be given the cars that we want. And also heavy vehicles aren’t the danger, it’s just not politically correct to not be green anymore. Lives saved in single vehicle accidents(tree, telephone pole, neighbors house) due to increased mass of the vehicle far outweigh the debate for everybody’s car to be a import econo box. It’s just un-American.

By: jjayc08

jjayc08 — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:48:27 +0000

I think GM’s statement about the 1.6 liter was a little over rated, but with the planned technology from Ford with their ecoboost engines, something similar will surely come out of GM. Even if it did get 200 horsepower, I’d be a bit weary of torque, and it isn’t all that much in the first place.

The future of automobiles should be lighter, smaller and using space better, but I seriously doubt that will happen… CAFE, safety boards and government will keep that from happening. Safety should be first, but don’t forget the heavier the vehicle, the less safe to others it will be.

golf4me- That’s also a small part of the reason why V-6’s in trucks don’t fair much better than their V-8 counterparts.
I don’t think the S2000 is the greatest comparison. Well, the class it’s in is, but I’ve heard their naturally thirsty, for one reason or another. Can’t think of much other to compare, not to make the Ferrari-Vette comparison but it’s about the most similar considering displacement and size…

Seriously- I could. Maybe not on a 2.0 liter four banger, but on a larger four cylinder possibly. GM has the technology, but most importantly I don’t think people will get over this being a full sized car, with a four cylinder.

manertm- For the most part it is, and higher revs mean higher fuel consumption.

By: golf4me

golf4me — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:04:10 +0000

AmericanMade, yeah, last Vette I had for the weekend averaged 21mpg in mixed driving, and I was in it a lot too. On the stretch from PHX to LA, I got 29.3 mpg, which was with the flow of traffic as I didn’t have a detector, about 80mph avg. Again, better than my 3 series w/2.5l motor over the same stretch. It was also the 4sp auto, not the newer 6sp. From what I’ve heard about the S2000, they get about 20mpg in regular use…YMMV of course!

By: Seriously

Seriously — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:00:19 +0000

Does it matter how many of these that they see or just produce to affect the CAFE points. I can’t see production numbers to be significantly high on the G8 with this engine.

By: manhertm

manhertm — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:45:41 +0000

snork, I think an 8 or 9 speed transmission is meant to keep the revs down. Having more gears means less time revving in a certain gear to attain performance.

By: AmericanMade

AmericanMade — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:44:41 +0000

golf4me,

Interesting stuff. I didnt think the Vette would get better milage (real world) than an S2000 but when you think about it, it does make sense….

By: golf4me

golf4me — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:42:05 +0000

The key to keeping a small displacement engine in the powerband in a relatively heavy vehicle is more gears to make up for lack of torque, so I see the logic in this. If they put a small motor, especially a charged version, with less optimal gearing, it will actually be less efficient, because it’s overworked, and constantly out of it’s most efficient speed. Corvette is a perfect example of this, it gets better real world mileage than an S2000, even though it’s heavier and the engine is 3x as big. If you switched their drivetrains, the reverse would be true. The answer to this equation is torque, and smaller engines simply need more revs for more torque, and by then it’s less efficient. Too bad they have to go through all that trouble for 2-3 mpg, but that’s physics for ya.

By: AmericanMade

AmericanMade — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:35:28 +0000

Wow a 1.6L in a G8, seems alittle small…but hey if they still offer the V6 and V8 why not…