• Aug 31, 2010
Straight from the "No Surprise" department comes word from GMInsideNews that all of General Motors mid-size offerings will come equipped with four-cylinder engines as the only available powerplant.
GM has made it clear for the last few years that a large part of its future product strategy is to downsize its engine line-up in preparation for the new 2015 CAFE standards. The shift has already begun with the introduction of the 2011 Buick Regal, available with either a 182-horsepower direct injected 2.4-liter or a turbocharged 2.0-liter putting out 220 hp and 258 pound-feet of torque.

The next model to go all-four-banger will be the next generation Chevrolet Malibu, slated to arrive late next year and likely packing – to begin with – the same 2.4-liter four. A range of direct injected engines, both naturally aspirated and turbocharged, are in the works, so the General won't be hurting for options, but expect the V6 to stick around for GM's larger offerings, including the next Impala.

[Source: GMInsideNews]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 84 Comments
      • 4 Years Ago
      I think there will be a big increase in SUV sales in the future, unless they have to use 4 cylinders too.
        • 4 Years Ago
        There will always be a market for 3-row people haulers of some sort, but I don't see BoF SUVs ever getting back to their glory days. The unibody CUVs are getting better and better, so that'll be that.
        • 4 Years Ago
        . . . why would any car enthusiast get into an suv just because it has a V6 or V8? They are so heavy and bulky that they need bigger engines just to get moving and their stopping ability?. . .forget it.
        martynGB
        • 4 Years Ago
        I had a Mazda MX6 GT in 1988 0-60 7.2 secs, one of the fastest sedans available in US at time. i4 2.2L Intercooled Turbo. Would outrun just about any v6 and some v8 US sedans at the time and would certainly out corner them. Electronically adjustable shocks, 4 wheel independent suspension, McPherson strut system. Hard to get a better car for the money. I could keep up with a Camaro, Firebird and once you got to a corner at 90mph those big cars had no chance.
      • 4 Years Ago
      And so it begins--the mad downsizing of engines for 2015.

      Hey, as long as it's got decent mileage & pickup, I don't care.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Who Knew, the CEO of Hyundai was right. Few months ago he said that midsize segment will pretty much stop offering V6's.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Anyone who looked at the CAFE numbers knew that this and downsizing cars is the future of the US automarket.
        • 4 Years Ago
        @Alex

        Uhh... that 2.3L DI-Turbo 4-cylinder had the fuel economy of a V8. It was a failure from the beginning.

        I remember when I drove my old Mazda3 with a 2.3L I4 that averaged 21 MPG, worse than my girlfriend's (at the time) 3.0L V6 from her Honda Accord. Mazda really does suck at actual fuel economy figures, with any engine that is larger than 2-litres. And please don't give me EPA ratings, as more than 75% are voluntary numbers from the OEMs.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Hyundai has been right on many things. The fact they are turning this steering issue into news is a bit overdone.

        They have 2 complaints. The 2005-2007 Corvette had hundreds of complaints of the Active Handling Errors (myself included) which would lock up your front right wheel while driving at 40+ MPH. Didn't hear the media burning GM at the stake for that one.

      Aznmaster
      • 4 Years Ago
      I wonder if this includes the CTS where GM thoroughly bred its 3.6 world engine. I do not think it would be best for Cadillac to slip into 4-cylinder territory so soon, however I would not be completely surpsrised. I do know when GM did testing with the Pontiac Solstice GXP, using the turbo'd 2.0 Ecotec, they did manage to squeeze more than 320 horses out of the engine so hp, and torque should not be a problem.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Yeah, they didn't get it. Makes sense though, I based my post on the types of comments I read every day on yahoo news stories. Made by real people who are real serious.
      • 4 Years Ago
      I don't see what all the fuss is about, it's not like the average midsize family sedan needs 270 hp anyway. What I can see is people complaining about four cylinders being down on power and anyone who's driven one as rental car can attest. Can't they just move the V6 upmarket and charge more for it? I think people should at least have the option.
      • 4 Years Ago
      BoneHeadOtto is right. In modern bigger, heavier, cars a turbo 4 is going to strain harder than a V6. Often, the turbo 4s end up producing similar mileage to a V6 and often require premium fuel.

      The Mazda CX-7 4WD with the turbo 4, for example, is rated at 17/23 MPG. The larger, heavier, CX-9 4WD with the 3.7L V6 is rated at 15/21. 2MPG isn't that big a penalty for a larger, roomier vehicle. And the CX-7 require premium. The Acura RDX 4WD with the turbo 2.3L four is rated at 17/22 while the larger, heavier MDX with the 3.5L V6 is rated at 16/21. Both require premium. All mileage numbers come from fueleconomy.gov

      Granted, all of these are SUV/CUVs and not mid-sized sedans, but the same principle applies. Small turbo 4s may produce V6 type power, but being a 4 cylinder doesn't mean it will get better mileage.
        • 4 Years Ago
        GM knows how to tune a car and an engine.

        In SUVs, it often doesn't make sense to downsize the engine because inline-4s (which are almost always developed for cars) have to work hard to get the same performance that a v6 or v8 can produce all day every day. But this is because SUVs are real heavy, and they don't exactly cut though the air, rather, they're big and obtuse. In cars, the story is much different, they're lighter and don't have nearly the wind restistance. For instance, the Honda Ridgeline at 70 mph has about 1000 newtons of drag, a Hyundai Elantra has about 300 newtons. ( I calculated these figures on a computer in my physics lab), the inline 4 in the Elantra works a lot less hard than the v6 in the ridgeline. Presumably, modern sedans that cut through the air won't suffer much from less cylinders.

        And remember, modern engines are getting moar and moar power.
        The V6s in Modern Cars are really fast. A modern V6 engine that displaces 3.5-3.7 liters is a really fast engine often making about 250-300 horsepower. That's more than all but the highest output v8s from the 60s. Modern V8s are about as fast as the high output V8s of the late-60s. A modern inline-4 engine is more than capable.
        • 4 Years Ago
        I'm still up in between on this:

        But to take your numbers a bit further:

        Toyota Rav 4 - 4x4 and V6 (269hp) is rated at 19 and 26. That's with an older 5 speed auto. Throw a 6 speed auto in there and I'm sure it could get 19 and 27.

        Also, I agree that in some cars that a V6 could be more efficient in certain trims. I don't understand that they don't make a multi displacement V6. Like a 3.3 liter 280hp and run it on 4cyl in an eco mode on like 183hp.

        In highway it should approach the 35mpg that some of the more efficient 4cyl cars but when you want passing power it can run all 6 cylinders.

        I think this is much less complicated than a hybrid system and probably cheaper than a turbo setup and wouldnt require premium fuel.

        I do love a good turbo engine though. As long as it can run on standard fuel and get good gas mileage (I think the new Sonata Turbo is supposed to be rated only 1mpg lower than base 4cyl engine).

      • 4 Years Ago
      a 4 banger turbo and you are only getting 220hp. there are so many other cars out there that cost cheaper, and you can probably get better output with a turbo engine. even the regular engine... Yawn. Im tired of these American companies putting inferior things compared to the competition. i understand a buick is for old people, but put some more beef in the engine
        • 4 Years Ago
        SRT-4 was a performance car which i will admit, pretty damn good car. But look at this if a buick is supposed to be a step down from a caddy, wouldnt you think for that price you get a car that that has a little more power it in? and i do agree im tired of seeing cars with a 2.5 liter engine where you are getting sub 200hp power, or a 3.0 liter V6 engine where you are only getting 221hp. It may sound crazy, but if ford can stick a 3.5 liter V6 in the fusion but only get 262hp why not stick the 3.7 from the Mustang you get 305hp, and everyone is happy
      • 4 Years Ago
      Offering only four-cylinder engines in a mid-size is a good idea for fuel economy, if like Hyundai you offer a turbo four with V6 power but almost the same economy as the I4. Unfortunately, GM is offering engines with four-cylinder power and six-cylinder fuel economy. The Regal gets 19 city, 30 highway with its naturally aspirated four, which is inexcusable even taking into consideration its heavy curb weight. (And this thing is direct-injected!) Compare that to turbo four's from Audi and Hyundai (not to mention naturally aspirated ones from any number of carmakers), or for that matter to the naturally aspirated I6 in the bigger, heavier, and much faster BMW 528i, which gets 22 city, 32 highway.
      • 4 Years Ago
      GM could have replaced the 3.6 [252hp@6300, 251ft-lbs@3200] with the 2.0T [250hp@5300, 260ft-lbs@2000-5500] (keeping the 6t70 transmission)

      GM could have added a middle-child version to the Malibu. 2.0t [250hp@5900, 222ft-lbs@1650-5500] coupled to the 6t45

      and the base could have been the direct injected 2.4 [182hp@6700, 172ft-lbs@4900] with the 6t40 transmission.


      Maybe GM will offer a 150hp base [2.2 perhaps], 225hp middle [regular fuel 2.0t, or very light pressure 2.4 turbo], 300hp top end. [tuned 2.0!]
      • 4 Years Ago
      Been in the biz 60 yrs,consider the 2.4 GM,s best ever,just got my 3rd one.
      • 4 Years Ago
      When you say "Next Impala", it makes me wonder if it will continue on the W platform.
        • 4 Years Ago
        The last Impala was the full size "bubble body" in 1996. The downsized FWD fiasco started a decline that makes me sick to see once proud and meaningfull names go to hell. If you have to make these things, at least rename them to something more appropriate like "rollerskate" or "pisante" for Gods sake. I will forever remember what real cars were. We had compacts in the fifties and sixties, "Falcon", "Corvair", ....this ain't new...
    • Load More Comments