« Guangzhou Honda Reveals New Proprietary Brand for China: 理念 (Li Nian) | Main | Quebec City and Partners Launch Major PHEV Study »
Chevrolet Malibu LTZ Offered With Four-Cylinder/Six-Speed Automatic Powertrain for Fuel Economy Boost
23 April 2008
GM is offering the Chevrolet 2008 Malibu with an efficient four-cylinder/six-speed automatic combination on LTZ models, pairing a 2.4L Ecotec engine with a 6T40 transmission—a segment first, according to GM. The EPA-estimated fuel economy for this combination is 22 mpg in the city and 32 on the highway.
By comparison, the 2.4L engine matched with the four-speed transmission on the Malibu is EPA-rated to deliver 22 mpg in the city and 30 mpg on the highway.
The 2.4L Ecotec engine uses variable valve timing to optimize power and fuel economy. The engine is rated at 169 horsepower (126 kW), which is comparable to the four-cylinder engines from competitors such as the Toyota Camry, Nissan Altima and Hyundai Sonata. None of those competitors, however, offers a six-speed automatic with their four-cylinder engine, and the Malibu four-cylinder/six-speed combination edges them out in fuel economy (Camry, 21 city/31 hwy; Altima, 23 city/31 hwy; Sonata, 21 city/30 hwy).
Matched with the 2.4L engine is the Hydra-Matic 6T40 six-speed transmission—part of a new family of six-speed automatics that GM committed to developing only a few years ago. (Earlier post.)
Clutch-to-clutch technology and other features are employed to maximize its performance while simultaneously minimizing its overall size. A wide, 6.04:1 overall ratio enables strong launch acceleration, while carefully spaced “steps” between the gears balance performance and fuel economy. The driver can manually tap up or tap down through the gears for more control.
The efficiency benefit of the six-speed automatic comes through the lower operating speed of the 2.4L engine. This reduces fuel consumption and contributes to quieter, more isolated operation. The feeling of performance is heightened with the four-cylinder/six-speed automatic combination, too, as the engine can always operate close to the optimum speed.
April 23, 2008 in Fuel Efficiency, Transmissions | Permalink | Comments (31) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/28401228
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Chevrolet Malibu LTZ Offered With Four-Cylinder/Six-Speed Automatic Powertrain for Fuel Economy Boost:
Comments
these fancy items cost money.. a friend just got hit with a $1500 bill to replace the auto transmission in his 3 year old Ford 500. $1500 goes a long way into paying for a battery pack in an electric... a simpler genset, optimized for one power level has to be cheaper than these fancy new engines also.
Posted by: Herm | Apr 23, 2008 5:14:42 AM
Sorry, but the Altima is more fuel efficient, and that efficiency is standard for all four cylinder engine trim levels.
Posted by: JC | Apr 23, 2008 7:36:03 AM
The altima is better only with the manual transmission...I would say the automatic Altima is "equivalent" to this Malibu in fuel efficiency. I wonder how the Malibu would turn out if it had a 6-speed manual (as the Altima does)?
Posted by: Patrick | Apr 23, 2008 8:35:14 AM
I think Ford has the right idea. Make small displacement direct injected turbo charged engines that perform well and get good mileage. In a few years that will be the comparison and I think people will respond to that well.
Direct injection and turbo charging cost money. The market has already seen the markup for hybrids and knows that the BAS is a stop gap idea. I believe people like comfort and performance at an affordable price. It remains to be seen what fuel economy level is considered acceptable to the buyers.
If I had to bet, I would say the small DI turbo with a hybrid model in the lineup would do it. Make the hybrid PHEV capable and buyers might come back to your showrooms.
Posted by: sjc | Apr 23, 2008 9:03:02 AM
22/32 mpg??? That is lousy! I get about 38/40 with a 12 year old Ford import (Aspire). Embarassing appearance and bare interior, but it goes right by gas stations dependably! It's not sleek , low, or aerodynamic, just has a 3 speed automatic hatchback. What ever happened to those 100+ mpg Volkswagons? This is confusing news that we go from a 1965 Chevy Malibu that got 15 mpg to a newer Malibu that gets 22 mpg with the same driving conditions.
Posted by: Chris Jordan | Apr 23, 2008 9:15:29 AM
Are you kidding with those comparisons? How well do you think that Ford Aspire would do in a crash test? There are concerns in addition to fuel economy. 22/32 using the 2008 EPA estimates is not bad at all for a vehicle of this size/power/safety. Also, the "driving conditions" are not nearly the same. Traffic moves at a much faster pace than it did 40 years ago!
Posted by: | Apr 23, 2008 10:20:08 AM
I had a new 1979 5L V8 Mustang that got about 12 mpg around town. The same Mustang now gets about 17 mpg around town. It has a 4L V6, but more HP and better performance than the old model. The point is, with fuel injection and modern engine technologies we have made progress.
The next time you think 20 mpg is not good mileage, try going out on the road and walking 2 miles. Now multiply that times 10. You can go that far on only 1 gallon of liquid fuel. I find that amazing.
Posted by: sjc | Apr 23, 2008 10:28:16 AM
sjc:
I'm with you on downsized/DI/turbo. Then add idle-stop and a few other 'efficient dynamics' improvements as per BMW, and the Malibu might get something like 28/35.
All these things cost money, but with $3.50 gas and rising, the economic justification is getting pretty strong.
Posted by: Nick | Apr 23, 2008 10:30:43 AM
It's about time. When GM introduced the Malibu with the direct injection 3.6l V6 and the 6-speed auto, the first thought I had was: And why don't you put direct injection into the 2.4l I4 (maybe a turbo) and offer the 6-speed auto, as well as a 6-speed manual. Oh, and shave (hack?) about 600lbs off that car.
Segment first? They're not serious, are they? Ever heard of the VW Passat 2.0T - turbo charged, direct injection I4, 200 hp, with 6-speed DSG automatic or 6-speed manual. I figure, I could match or beat my 1989 Horizon, 2.2l, 3-speed auto, avg. mileage of 30 mpg with the VW - not with the 2.4 Malibu.
Posted by: hansb | Apr 23, 2008 11:19:41 AM
i owned a 93 mustang, 2.3l, 5 speed manual
put out about 100hp and still returned 20+ mpg city, 25+ highway. wasn't very fast but got me around cheap (ah, $1 gas..) point being, seems like something is wrong here...
if you can generate that much power, downsize and use a smaller engine that fits the needs of the car. if you're buying a malibu do you really need 5second 0-60? NO
why not be responsible and drop a 1.5l engine in this car, and (i'm with you hansb) drop the weight.
continual upsizing is ridiculous!
Posted by: marc | Apr 23, 2008 11:36:03 AM
I get a solid 29~30 mpg every day with my 2000 2.0l Focus (manual tranny). What's the breakthrough here? I even like shifting ...
Posted by: John | Apr 23, 2008 12:19:36 PM
It's amazing how people do comparisons here to just show their car gives better mileage!!
Drive what you have if you like it, but don't compare focuses with manuals (or is it Foci?) and Diesel Passats (diesel fuel has 12% more grams in a gallon, and it is the grams of fuel that gets converted to energy) and 1989 Horizons- are these the same cars? Do they seat the same people? Do they accelerate as fast, crash as safely, have the same emissions and have the same top speed and grade capacity?
The only fair criticism here is someone saying that Altima is better (turns out it's a manual trans). Another fair dig is that they ought to offer a 6-speed manual on this. Lots of people drive it (like John here) and like being in charge of the car.
Posted by: carnut | Apr 23, 2008 12:33:09 PM
These may be more like examples than comparisons. If you look at the cars sold, many of them have automatic transmissions. I drive a manual myself, but many like automatic. They are making more efficient transmissions these days and maybe one day it will not matter all that much anyway.
We are trading hardware for energy. If the new cars cost $10 billion more each year ($1000 times 10 million cars sold) and we save $100 billion in fuel over a 10 year life span of the car, we come out ahead.
The U.S. automakers have made statements about cars that comply with the new CAFE laws costing more. What they really mean is that the Japanese already comply and it will cost them more to catch up. It is the up front cost versus total cost of ownership. If the cars costs you $25,000 to buy but costs you $50,000 for fuel in the first 10 years, does that concern anyone...it should.
Let's say now the car costs $30,000 but costs $40,000 for the first 10 years for fuel. Which would you buy? Most people would buy the $25,000 car in the past, but that may be changing. Fuel prices are probably never going to do down from here on out, only up.
Posted by: sjc | Apr 23, 2008 12:56:29 PM
Any one elso notice that this gets better EPA numbers than the "hybrid" Malibu?
Posted by: pauln | Apr 23, 2008 1:16:38 PM
pauln wrote:
> Any one elso notice that this gets better EPA numbers than the
> "hybrid" Malibu?
The 4cyl with the 6spd is rated 22/32 city/hwy while the hybrid is rated 24/32.
So the hybrid is still slightly better in the city. I'd expect that if the hybrid had the 6spd instead of the 4spd transmission it'd pick up a few mpg on the freeway, too.
Posted by: Dave | Apr 23, 2008 1:51:37 PM
I wish people would stop comparing apples to oranges with their so called mpg claims and just compare other 2008 car models with comparable features to this Malibu.
Posted by: garth | Apr 23, 2008 3:19:56 PM
Hey carnut (?) - a Passat 2.0T is a gasser of modern design with turbo and wall guided direct injection - not a diesel! It is thus much more powerful and efficient than an '89 Horizon with throttle body injection and no turbo. The Passat is larger, weighs about 3100 lbs vs the Horizon's 2700 lbs. I'm not comparing the two cars. What I'm saying is simply that the lager car with the new technology will at least match the old, smaller one in fuel consumption - and probably exceed it as I know how to drive. Additionally, the direct injection engine also has much cleaner emissions. (and I don't mean CO2 - I don't give a flying rodent's tail section about global climate change - beyond it's getting warmer because we're heading towards summer).
And I also love to drive my C1500, 2wd, short, 5.7l V8 with 5-speed manual and that averages about 17 - 18 mpg.
Posted by: hansb | Apr 23, 2008 3:47:11 PM
The Altima 4 cyl with a CVT is rated 23/31 FWIW
Posted by: steve | Apr 23, 2008 5:05:05 PM
The one thing that will hit home with Americans is when they drive that low mileage vehicle into a gasoline station and the gasoline that costs more than $5 per gallon totals more than $100 to fill up the fuel tank maybe twice a week. When they start spending $5000-$10,000 per year on gasoline, they will do more than complain about the price for fuel. The one thing that drove it home in the 70s is the "out of gas" sign on the pump. Nothing makes it more real and less possible to deny or avoid.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 23, 2008 5:28:34 PM
Now Chevy needs to put the 6 speed into the hybrid. It would be interesting if it got 34mpg on the highway. For that size car its not bad. Why the hybrid was fitted with the four speed originally is crazy.
Posted by: hampden wireless | Apr 23, 2008 6:11:21 PM
The Malibu only offers a mild hybrid, so its hybrid fuel economy is not that much better than the unassisted ICE.
Posted by: Donal | Apr 23, 2008 6:28:55 PM
GM announced the Cobalt "XFE" this morning. It has a stick shift, engine tweaks, and low rolling resistance tires that increase its highway MPG from 31 to 36. We're going to see a lot more of these kinds of changes in the near future.
Posted by: Cervus | Apr 24, 2008 10:15:37 AM
I agree. They will go for the easy fixes. A different transmission, different tires a streamlined spoiler and so on. Most people can see the difference between one of these and a Prius or Civic hybrid. The U.S. car makes have to do much better. Ford has not come out with any type of hybrid Focus. They have a model that they say can get 35 mpg, but that is highway, downhill with a tailwind :)
Posted by: SJC | Apr 24, 2008 3:01:07 PM
The 80's offered small cars with great MPG, but people refused to buy them, one reason being they wanted to be 'safe' in big cars. Now over-consumptive people don't want to be reminded that they must send their children to invade other countries because they lust after their oil reserves. & don't remind them that 2 billion tons of vehicle produced carbon dioxide is pumped into the air every year. With 9-1-1 behind you & U.S. hating countries everywhere, do you still feel safe?
My little cars averaged 42 & 45mpg for 400,000+ miles & 28 years. My 'unsafe' cycle got 75 MPG. If others had done as I did, we would still be in cheap oil, wouldn't need agressive foreign policies to sate our 'black gold' lust, the Twin Towers would still be standing & the 3000+ TT victims would still be....safe.
I could speak of housing & what is comfortable heating too.
Quit being lustful Americans. Lincoln said, 'The occasion is piled high with difficulty...we must think anew & act anew'. Turn from what pleases you & get what will secure the peace of the world. Less is far more the rewarding path & will cause you to suffer...less.
Posted by: litesong | Apr 25, 2008 2:13:23 AM
I think your right for having your bike and highly efficient little cars. However, your foreign policy analysis is just wrong, litesong. The twin towers were done out of hate and want to destroy the "infidels". You need to understand the middle east more before you make comments like that.
Posted by: jb | Apr 25, 2008 5:17:31 AM
I do not know if they offer the "hollow hybrid" with the 6 speed, but it would still not compare with a Camry Hybrid in economy or performance.
Posted by: | Apr 25, 2008 6:31:26 AM
We are in the middle east because of oil. They want us out of the middle east, so we have terrorism. This connection is not hard to make. We show almost no interest in countries and their problems unless there is something in it for us, like oil. This should be obvious to everyone.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 25, 2008 9:25:34 AM
Everyone (ok not everyone, just everyone complaining) seems to be complaining that GM should be putting the 6-spd auto here and there. Last I heard, GM was having a serious issue with that transmission's production. They're struggling to get enough to put into the fewer models that have that transmission, much less apply it as a given across model ranges. Can't remember the source, but if anyone can confirm this it would be appreciated. (FYI, same problem happened and is still happening with the "high feature" DI 3.6L V6)
Posted by: | Apr 25, 2008 5:44:00 PM
They need BAS+ to get the city mileage closer to 28 and they might have something.
Posted by: SJC | May 9, 2008 8:32:43 AM
GM DESPERATELY NEEDS A QUALITY SMALL CAR. GM SHOULD BUY INTO DAHAITSU. IT IS SOLD IN ENGLAND AND IS RATED AT 45-50 MPG. DAHAITSU HAS BETTER QUALITY THAN GM, TOYATA. OR HONDA!
LINDAY.DOVE@COMCAST.NET
Posted by: LINDA DOVE | Jul 20, 2008 5:49:15 PM
I driva a 1989 Ford Festiva(Carb.), not much to look at but I have gotten 53mpg on a round trip to the same gas pump. Why can't car manufacturers apply all this new technology to a car like this and get it up to 60-65? Has anyone heard of an Atkinson engine, they change valve timing primarily to get better fuel economy but with reduced proformance.
Posted by: Hudson | Sep 15, 2008 8:00:11 AM
