Chevrolet's Four-Cylinder Future
Chevrolet cars have outsold combined sales of trucks, crossovers and utilities in April, May and June of this year – and are expected to represent 47 percent of the brand’s sales for the first half of 2011. The last time cars led Chevrolet’s sales for three consecutive months was in May, June, and July of 1991. That year, cars represented 52 percent of Chevrolet sales.
“Chevrolet has always been known for building great trucks,” said Alan Batey, U.S. vice president, Chevrolet Sales and Service. “Today, we are in the middle of transforming the brand with a strong lineup of cars that match the appeal of our trucks and crossovers.
“That transformation is clearly bringing new customers to the brand – as passenger cars and four-cylinder engines are driving Chevrolet’s growth this year,” Batey said. “We expect that momentum to accelerate as Chevrolet introduces three new cars over the next two years – the Sonic, Spark, and next-generation Malibu.”
And no, that isn’t necessarily a code-phrase for “our truck sales are in the toilet.” Sales of Chevrolet cars and trucks are up this year. The most interesting part of the PR release quoted above, however, relates to engine choice…
I read this paragraph at least three times, just to make sure it didn’t say “Chevrolet car buyers” — but no, this refers to the whole lineup, with the resurgent four-cylinder (Fre)Equinox leading the way. Chevrolet is on its way to becoming a four-cylinder brand in the same way that Honda, Toyota, and (to a lesser extent) Nissan have always been four-cylinder brands. Credit has to go to the new lineup of Daewoo world-engineered and American-built small cars. With the imminent arrival of the “Sonic” and “Spark”, the trend will only continue.
Chevrolet made a name with affordable six-cylinders, captured the country’s heart with affordable eight-cylinders, and now competes by selling taxpayer-financed four-cylinders. Since the disappearance of the Impala SS, it’s not even possible to get a family-oriented Chevy car with a bent-eight. Depressing, huh? Look on the bright side: the 2.4L engine in the Equinox has almost fifty more net horses than the original 1955 Chevrolet small-block.
More by Jack Baruth
Comments
Join the conversation
cylinders, schmilinders... as long as they can build 'em here, satisfy their customers and make a profit, i'm happy. after all, it was our tax dollars that kept 'em afloat. doesn't mean i have to drive one though...
Call me a contrarian, but I always liked the yester-tech Iron Dukes and Chevy designed [1.8, then 2.0, then 2.2]4 cyl. engines. Remember, after the Vega engine disaster, GM wanted to make sure they steered clear of chance taking. They used a similar method to arrive at the 2.5 as they did for the Chevy II's 4 cyl: they made sure it could be machined on the same line as and share as many parts [pistones connecting rods, etc]as the base V8 to save costs. A cast iron block. No timing belt. None of the potential problems of the Vega engine and the same or better fuel economy. It was that spiritual connection to the II's 4 that fascinated me. Iron Dukes were loud, gruff and you could tell one from a block away when it started. And GM tried to stuff them in ever car they made during the 80s from Xs to As to Ns to pick ups. And while I liked them for their retro quality [they would have been right at home in a Durant....], people would try a Toyota 4 or a Honda and realize what a difference there was between the two. That alone would make or break a sale. I actually fell in love with my father's Oldsmobile: a 1984 Ciera with the 151 Iron Duke and went and found the same combination in a Citation, then an 86 Calais which my brother still runs. And I chose the 99 Cavalier because of it's retro engineering: OHV, connection to the original J, that sort of thing, long running design.That doesn't appeal to many, I'm weird, but the engines got better somehow in a glacial sort of way. Now I have an Ecotec in my current car, an 05 ION [told you I'm weird] and it's the best aspect of the car. That and it's GM 4 speed auto.For that combination alone I'll keep it. And it always gets better than EPA #s old and new #s. Sadly it's of lower build quality than the Cavalier it replaced. +1 for Lordstown. When GM stops meeting even the simplest slob's low standards it's time to move on. They had their chance. Sick as it sounds: I'd love to have another Citation or even an 80 Olds Omega. GMs Edsels.Incredible industrial backstory. I hope the engine in the Cruze is as good as the 2.2 Eco. Seems a bit backward,techwise as it did to me when it was usede in the Saturn Astra: timing belt, cast iron block, fussier servicing requirements..... You'd think that would appeal, but not using a timing belt and having to change it and the water pump and and and every XXXX # of miles was also a factor in my preferring GM's 4s. Low cost to run,parts availability for the long term, so simple any mechanic could work on them. There's a beauty in that primitive engineering that appealed to me, what can I say ? "You like sh**ty cars ?......"