It’s amazing how cheap diesel can be when there is actual demand for it!

(By the way, I do live in Europe.)

Robert is right.
Thanks so very much for joining our world.
We all welcome your input.

I want to avoid showing my incompetence so will not get between you two.
However, as for the hybrids in Europe…its because of the diesel availability.
I still believe that once allowed, they will be successful in the US.

And as far as I am concerned…a shout out for bringing on the turbos.
There is always room for more.
But again, keeping them sized correctly with the correct car will be important.

Looking forward to more of your writing.

christe:

Thank you for responding to the post. You may be interested to note that you are the first GM employee to ever do so. Congratulations, and duck!

Seriously…

1. Tongue was planted firmly in cheek when I riffed on your phrase “the enthusiast in me.” But it does imply that you have to channel your inner enthusiasts, rather than living the dream. In general, you’re right: I find that most PR flacks in this industry are not what I’d call car enthusiasts. But that’s me. Your mileage may vary.

2. Yes, obviously, it’s true that the 2.0-liter turbo Ecotec recommends rather than requires premium. I think it’s a distinction without a difference. Do you need to use premium? No. Regular will do– but it reduces power to avoid predetonation. And if it’s no biggie, why does GM recommend it? And can you blame buyers for following the manufacturers’ recommended guidelines for operation?

In any case, I’ve amended the text as follows: “…turbo-charged engines’ [manufacturer-recommended] preference for premium fuel (currently .25 per gallon more expensive than regular)…”

3. The “headline writer” whose question you didn't answer– "Why not turbo (almost) everything?”– could be you. Quip quibble aside, the point remains. Your text says “here’s why we should” go turbo, not why we shouldn't. Not the same thing. 

4. Not sure why you're bringing up my failure to acknowledge that turbo-diesels don't run on premium fuel– especially when you blog post implied blown oil burners are a European thing. In any case, to suggest that A) I don’t know that diesel is mostly a single grade fuel and B) I was factually incorrect because my premium fuel objection didn't apply to oil burners is disingenuous. Do you really want me to put “diesels excepted” in parenthesis?

5. As far as the your “part-throttle not full-throttle” argument is concerned, many of our commentators have already pointed out that the amount of boost summoned, and revs required to do so, and resulting mpgs, depends on the size of the engine vs. the weight of the vehicle. If you think a turbo-four Camaro would spend most of its time lolly-gagging at part throttle, or that the turbos wouldn’t spool like crazy from a standstill (sucking down REGULAR gas), I challenge you to prove it. [NB: hyper-milers are not representational drivers.]

Now you could tune the blown four for mpgs (as your boss the Car Czar suggested in New York). But the resulting loss of accelerative urge could kill sales. Engine efficiency can’t be seen in isolation. If Honda (for example) can make a normally aspirated car in the same class as a turbo-four Malibu that gets as good or better mpgs, a blown four will get blown out of the water. 

6. “…yet interestingly in Lausanne and Geneva earlier this month, I saw zero hybrids in three days. Go figure.” Rest assured, I will contemplate the full implications of this remark.

7. “Ask the bigger question: will marginally higher maintenance costs outweigh the fuel economy improvements and associated fuel cost savings? Even considering the the added purchase cost? The answer depends on the vehicle, the driver and the driving cycle.” See? You DO know how to raise the important points. Too bad this wasn’t included in the original blog post.

8. Again with the hair-splitting. I know a freelancer isn’t an employee, but c’mon. Sigh. Text amended. But while we’re on the subject, if you care to share, what is your journalistic background? No diss. Just curious.

Again, thank you for engaging in this online conversation. I’m extremely grateful for your testicular fortitude, for running the gauntlet of TTAC’s Best and Brightest. Let’s do this again.

It’s ironic that you think it’s “kind of creepy” that someone who works as a writer in the auto industry—even as PR guy—is a car enthusiast; kinda like finding it “kind of creepy” that a chef might like food, or that Chauncey might love the three-point line. Also, the “headline writer” quip was puzzling; we know exactly no one that has a headline writer for a blog. Do you?

As to your objections regarding turbocharging:

• You claim that turbos need premium fuel. That’s only partially true, but mostly not true . . . at least not with modern engine management systems. Take the engine in question, the 2.0 turbo Ecotec. Premium is recommended. But premium is not required or “needed” as you wrote.

• If you’ve ever filled up a diesel here, you’ll find that there is typically only one grade available; there is no “premium.” Most turbos in this country are diesels (heavy light-duty trucks), still, though that may change in the next decade as more gas turbos come to market.

• You’re right that turbos are most efficient when you don’t actually use them (to their full potential, which to be fair is what I think you were intending to mean). The problem, again, is your conclusion, that this makes them bad. Ask yourself this: what percentage of your driving is actually done at full throttle? Even the most leadfooted among us knows that once up to speed, your engine is loafing, most likely spinning between 2,000 and 3,200 rpm. This is part throttle (i.e. inefficient), which means that unless you’re calling up full engine power, which is maybe 10% of the time, you’re driving around with a smaller, more fuel-efficient engine. This is especially true in the U.S., where most consumer driving is actually suburb to suburb (things get worse in the city, no question/argument; yet interestingly in Lausanne and Geneva earlier this month, I saw zero hybrids in three days. Go figure.)

• Higher maintenance costs? Likely, especially if you actually change the oil at recommended intervals with recommended blends. But again, you may have the jumped the gun on drawing the right conclusion. Ask the bigger question: will marginally higher maintenance costs outweigh the fuel economy improvements and associated fuel cost savings? Even considering the the added purchase cost? The answer depends on the vehicle, the driver and the driving cycle.

Finally, and for the record, I am not, nor have ever been, an employee of AutoWeek. Did you ask AutoWeek? Did you look at the masthead? Puzzling that you must have googled my name to find two articles I wrote as a freelancer many years ago and concluded from only two stories that I was an employee.

To paraphrase Daniel Patrick Monihan, “You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.”

Chris Terry, GMnext.com

Ain’t that the truth. If we kept up with small incremental improvements, cars would have been fast without the guzzle…

The difference is in how the calculations are made. In europe and other parts of the world, they use the research octane (RON) to determine the octane rating. In the us and canada, we get our figure by avering the ron and motor octane number (MON). This results in us fuels recieving a rating 5 points lower, though the is little difference between both fuels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating#Measurement_methods

It can be the best of both worlds. A traditional V8 for traditional fans, and a turbo’d inline six for those who live by the snail. A modern-day Supra. How cool would that be?

The reason people buy Camaros with base engines is because the rest of a given modelmaker’s lineup is styled to look boring and ugly. The Ford Focus, Chevy Cobalt, Toyota Corolla, and just about all of the other vehicles currently built have nothing attractive or interesting about them. They all look the same.

If you style the Cobalt to look like the Camaro I would buy one right off the bat, but they’ll never do it. Thus, we get turbo-4 Camaro where an attractive Cobalt would attract a lot more buyers.

@ Improvement Needed
heck, a small four cylinder without a turbo is more than enough for ‘any’ passenger vehicle… No doubt a Russian Trabant with only 2 cylinders will even get the job done, Comrade.

The new engines are supposed to do a great job of adjusting to the octane level.
I thought the “ping” is gone.
But my trailblazer really needs the mid grade, or it pings all the time.

As others have stated, fuel economy depends heavily upon how you drive it. Put it to the floor and it will guzzle gas like a small V8, but my mom gets 30mpg…

Premium fuel is not necessarily a requirement for normal operating, although it generally improves performance. Turbo engines with high compression ratios and/or big turbos and/or poor control systems do necessitate premium fuel. However many don’t (most of my Saabs didn’t, only the high performance Mitsubishi TD04 Aero I have now does), and many modern non-turbo cars do due to high compression ratios.

Check it out

http://www.saab.com/main/GLOBAL/en/ttid/index.shtml

I would find it very hard to resist would it be available in NA.

Funny I was just reading a thread on another forum yesterday about the Mazdaspeed3 and owners were complaining about the awful fuel economy they get, we’re talking high teens.

GM needs to design smaller, lighter cars that can adequately use a turbocharged four cylinder engine. Not stuff them in beasts designed for and that would be better off with V8s.

A four cylinder Camaro, turbo or not, is not going to sell very well. It’s also going to tarnish the car’s image with it’s fanbase, the very base GM is depending on to buy it.

Ford has the right idea with the Mustang. Turbo V6 and two new V8s. No four cylinder in their halo muscle car. They already make four cylinder cars for that.

I was hoping Ford’s new ecoboost tech next year would be a good thing.
I was also under the impression they would be regular, not premium.

But diesels still are a GOOD turbo plan, I presume. I think every new one coming this fall will be turbo.

The Ford info:

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/06/detroit-2008-ford-launches-ecoboost-gas-turbo-direct-injection/

Fuel economy improvement though? I remember when I had my Audi TT I got ~30 mpg a couple of times when I was driving around with something fragile in the back, but damn when I put my foot into it and that fait whistle from the turbo started the gas gauge looked like a reverse tachometer.

a small four cylinder turbo is more than enough for ‘any’ passenger vehicle
heck, a small four cylinder without a turbo is more than enough for ‘any’ passenger vehicle…
[this is assuming said passenger vehicle is under 4000 pounds]…

Once CAFE stopped incrementing up we got back into horsepower wars and weight bloat.

The only thing different this time is that batteries, electric motors and electronic controls have advanced enough that various forms of hybrids are now in the mix. Everything else being done, even displacement-on-demand (aka cylinder deactivation) is a refinement of the solutions pioneered in the late 1970s and into the 1980s before everyone took their eye off the efficiency ball. Even direct injection is an old technology brought back into play primarily due to regulatory requirements.

Still, you can drive turbo engines fairly conservatively without using much boost, such as in slow traffic where four idling cylinders wastes less gas than six or eight. Keep the boost for when you need it, such as in passing or merging.

Presently owning cars with both turbos or superchargers, I think right now I prefer the former, if only because they actually seem more transparent in their maintenance for us–change the engine oil and coolant and you’ve serviced the turbo as well. The damned s/c in my Toyota works OK, but it has a separate lube system that always seems to mysteriously lose oil and is a PITA to keep topped up.