Why does the 2009 Pontiac Vibe continue to use Toyota engines?
Pontiac officially unveiled the 2009 edition of the Vibe hatchback yesterday, and a question has been raised by several commentors about the powertrain lineup. As we all know, the Vibe shares a platform with the Toyota Corolla and all of its derivatives. The question of why the Vibe uses the Toyota engines rather than GM's own Ecotec lineup was raised during the press conference. After all the 2.4L EcoTec as used in the Cobalt is rated at 173hp and yields EPA numbers of 22/32 mpg according to the 2008 EPA tests. That's 15 hp more, and it bests the 21/27 mpg of the Toyota 2.4 in the Vibe GT.
According to a Pontiac spokesman, the deal with Toyota allows GM to provide product performance requirements, and do the styling, final calibration and tuning. The base engineering responsibility falls to Toyota, and they select the major component suppliers and subsystems, including engines. So, as long as GM maintains this relationship with Toyota, they will have limited control over whatever vehicles are produced. When you consider GM's recent products, it may be time for the General to create the next generation Vibe from its own Delta platform instead. Dropping the 260 hp turbo DI 2.0 Ecotec from the HHR SS (and Cobalt SS, and Solstice GXP, and Sky Red Line) into the AWD Vibe might make a pretty sweet alternative to the new Caliber SRT-4 from Dodge.
[Source: General Motors]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Kowell 11:06AM (11/07/2007)
The Vibe would be great using the 2.2L ecotec as a base engine with 2.4L optional and the turbo 2.0L as a sport package. As long as they don't just give us a rebadged HHR.... The Vibe looks GOOD... the HRR looks like CRAP...
Reply
John 11:14AM (11/07/2007)
I only bought one BECAUSE it used Toyota parts/engine. In 5 years, not one single thing has broken/gone wrong. By far the most reliable car I've owned. Say what you want about Toyotas recent fumbles, most of their engineering is still bulletproof, and GM has benefitted from the Vibe being rated as one of their highest quality vehicles for years, because of that connection.
Would more power in the new version be welcomed? Sure, but it needs to hold up to that level.
Reply
J.Crew 11:17AM (11/07/2007)
Yeah, the JV has kind of worn out its usefulness now that GM has got its act together. That plant in California is the only Toyota plant to have the UAW inside. It was Toyotas first attempt at building cars in the USA and wanted to learn about the American worker, while GM wanted to learn more about Toyota and its manufacturing systems. I say the end is near and one should buy the other out of the deal.
People will read this article and slam GM's 4cyl, but there is no reason for this as it is as smooth and powerful with better fuel economy as stated in the article. You can also read up on how the Ecotec works as good as any from Toyota or Honda in the new Malibu per Edmonds Inside Line on their first drive of the car.
Reply
Ligor 11:36AM (11/07/2007)
while I agree the Ecotec is a good engine you can't compare gas milage from teh cobalt to the Vibe
make the switch adn the gas milage will most likel drop to the 21/27mpg levels.
Adam 11:20AM (11/07/2007)
I also bought the Vibe because it was a Toyota platform. I could get a nice looking, cheaper car, that was utilitarian and reliable. That being said, they should have made the 2.4L standard and offered the Camry V6 or TRD Supercharged 2.4L as an option. I think the MPG ratings for these engines is very conservative and think getting higher than that would be easy. Pontiac and Toyota realized that they weren't selling to their intended market the first time around and should have tried harder this time. Us youngins prefer more power and styling. MPG usually takes a backseat.
Reply
1337 12:28PM (11/07/2007)
Well said. A Vibe with a Camry V6 would likely have better fuel economy than the supercharged Ecotec.
blogged to death 11:21AM (11/07/2007)
The ecotec engine is very harsh and noisy compared to much better designed smoother engines from the competition. Then add in the fact as to how the engine is geared...for performance of fuel economy. I'm not sure where these numbers came from but the 2.4 gets 32mpg hwy and 24 city in other cars.
After driving several rental Cobalts and even a Solstice - it's pretty rough and makes me think Ecotractor.
Reply
J.Crew 11:41AM (11/07/2007)
These numbers are based on the new real world EPA tests. Good for GM to be able to make power, fuel economy, and reliability. I have not heard of any issues or recalls on their ecotec 4 cylinders that are in use around the world. They also back up their powertrain with a 5yr 100,000 mile warranty. I used to have an 04 Vibe and it worked well, but that 1.8L was rough and god was it a dog when you needed to pass. I am most of those people stating that the GM engines are rough never spent 2 years driving that 1.8L in a Vibe or Matrix. I would have welcomed the GM powertrains with open arms.
psarhjinian 12:59PM (11/07/2007)
Roughness is rarely an engine characteristic. Usually, it's the acoustic tuning around the powerplant that makes the difference (deadening, mounts, subframes, body type, etc). In the case of the Vibe-trix, we're talking about a big, hollow plastic box with minimal soundproofing. No ICE engine is going to sound good in that environment. Spend some time in a Corolla and this is pretty evident.
Also, keep in mind that the 1.8 in the first-gen Vibe-trix was an older engine than the Ecotec. It's also down nearly half-litre in displacement on the Ecotec 2.2 and more than that on the 2.4.
Comparing it to the European sub-2.0L Ecotecs makes more sense (and the Toyota engine is better). To be fair, the Camry's 2.4 is a better comparison to the 2.4 Ecotec, and the Toyota engine does well there, too.
MikeW 11:23AM (11/07/2007)
The valvematic 2.0 would have been good choice.
But how about a good transmission?
Really, come on. A bad transmission can hobble a good engine.
6 speed double clutch-no
6:1 ratio spread CVT-no
6 speed automatic-no
6 speed stick-no
Reply
Derek 12:02PM (11/07/2007)
Maybe if GM took over production they could put a trans in with decent gearing. I drove an old gen Vibe GT and the engine was turning 3000rpm at 60mph. Blech, completley ruined a good engine/chassis combo.
Who made the decision to make a 6-speed with old-school 4-speed gearing??? I know a 1.8 isn't a torque monster, but at least give me one gear for real world highway cruising.
psarhjinian 1:06PM (11/07/2007)
The transmission in the 2ZZ-GE is the way it is because the engine is pretty torqueless at lower revs, requiring short gearing and (very) frequent shifting.
I'm not complaining--it's a fun powertrain and it's sad to see it go--but you had to shift a lot.
The problem with that transmission is that it isn't geared short _enough_ and the engine falls off the hot cam on every shift. Honda does this better in the K20C (RSX-S), but you still suffer the high revs at cruising speed. Both could have used a (very) tall sixth or seventh gear.
Derek 8:36PM (11/07/2007)
I completely understand gear spacing (and maybe something could be said about the choice of the variable cam switchover RPM) but there is no way to get up on the cam in 6th gear even with that gearing. It would be doing 180mph at redline in 6th and we all now that's not going to happen. So, what's the point of tight gearing in the top gears? To me it just feels like a poseur choice. If you're in 5th or 6th gear you're not racing anyways.
Realistically in that car you're not racing above 80-90mph, you're just on a banzai top speed run, so gear it nice and tight up to 3rd/4th gear and above that start spacing the ratios out a bit to make the car real-world practical. As it is the gearing completely eliminated any interest I had in ever owning one.
MikeW 2:51PM (11/08/2007)
Close ratio gearing (4:1 ratio spread) like 5,8,11,14,17,20 mph / 1K would help to keep the engine operating on 'vtec'
but it does nothing to help highway driving.
A wide ratio dual countershaft 6 speed stick would be more amenable to the real world, 4,8,12,16,20,24 mph / 1K
http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/vvt_31.htm#VVTL-i
Guenther 11:24AM (11/07/2007)
The little Toyota 1.8 liter is old. Its a little slow. It doesn't perform as well in the EPA test as some more modern engines. In this market segment, it's holding 2 Aces, however- Its cheap, and it has a decade of history to show its extremely durable.
Reply
MikeW 11:45AM (11/07/2007)
This is toyota's new 1.8. Roller follower valvetrain, variable exhaust and intake valve timing.
Good engine hamstrung by obsolete transmissions.
It would have been great to have that engine coupled to a 7 speed double clutch with the 'awd' for $20k
jay tee 11:32AM (11/07/2007)
It beginning to boggle my mind a bit... the average engine application for a given Toyota vehicle keeps getting larger and less efficient... First the Tundra (bigger everything, lower fuel economy on the existing V6 and 4.7 V8), then the Highlander (no more 4cyl, and the V6 gets worse fuel economy than before, and worse than many competitors), and now the Corrola/Matrix/Vibe... worse fuel economy than the apparently 'inferior' EcoTEC engines with 'dated' 4spd autos and 5spd manuals... and that interior is nothing to write home about either...
Rather than feeding Toyota's pockets for making a brand spanking new, par-at-best vehicle, why can't GM just make their own small wagon? They apparently have control over the design, and tuning of the car, what is stopping them from making a G5-based Vibe with this style body? Here's hoping for a Delta II based Vibe in a couple years (maybe make it a Chevy or Saturn? does Pontiac really need to sell a car like this beside cars like the G8?)
Reply
MikeW 12:21PM (11/07/2007)
Well Toyota should have used the 6 speed automatic across the board in the Tundra.
It wouldn't be that hard to make the change from 5 to 6 speed auto in the 4.0 & 4.7. Make the axle ratio 4.1 for 4x2, 4.3 for 4x4.
Not that much faster in acceleration, but superior highway mileage.
Then, if toyota can get a shorter reverse gear ratio from the 8 speed automatic, the 8 speed auto can be an exclusive with the 5.7. That would require a taller axle ratio, so 'borrow' Nissan's 3.357. Toyota can get H-rated 275/65 18 tires, so 1-30mph, 2-55, 3-85, 4-110, 5th-130(out of revs), 6-130 (gov.), 7-125(drag), 8-120(drag)
The new Highlander doesn't get that much worse mileage, and the new model is larger/heavier and faster (thank you 2gr-fe).
and the 6 speed auto from the camry/avalon/ES350 would get better mileage than the 5 speed auto (dual range 4 speed auto) but toyota didn't want to spend the money to integrate the four wheel drive into that transmission.
RamSport47 11:36AM (11/07/2007)
Am I the only one that sees Jeep Compass in the D pillar? Yet all of you are saying how beautiful this thing is. If that's the case, how come the Compass is deemed ugly? To me, this Pontiac looks amazingly like the compass except for the Pontiac front end.
Reply
J.Crew 11:58AM (11/07/2007)
The Compass is the ugliest car on the road since the Aztek. It is a frumpy looking turd that does not reflect any of the core values of the Jeep brand. I believe that is the main argument against the Compass and it should be dropped. The Patriot is done well off the same chassis and should be the only Jeep model off of that platform, even if the interior is a tad on the cheap/hard plastic side. Park this Vibe next to a Compass and check out the interior and exterior design. Sure, both are a 2 box designs, but the attention to detail, quality of materials, fit and finish, panel gaps, as well as driveability would be way different. The CVT in the Compass feels like an elastic band and should be avoided.