steve c

The RAV4 has similar torque numbers. No idea what the curve looks like, but to assume a turbo is somehow out of place in one car and denotes inferior "capabilities" yet somehow a perfect fit and denotes superiority in another application is nuts.

Which is the better "sports car" application -- the motor with very little torque at any RPM and very little horsepower outside of the last 20 percent of the revs -- or the one that has a nice fat long torque curve -- with ample torque and horsepower.

rockville

How it is mounted in the car certainly does make a difference. I was reading an old Car and Driver article about the Neon SC recently. They said the 150 hp 2L was thrashy. However, they also said it was the same motor used in the Talon (IIRC). They said in the other car it was much smoother so they suspected the difference was how it was mounted in the car. According to the article the engineers at Chrysler all but agreed.

For reference, when I say how its mounted I don't mean transverse vs longitudinal. I mean the location and quality of the chassis around the motor, the types and location of engine mounts used etc. One of the reasons the Honda Accord motor feels so smooth is the high quality (and presumably more expensive) hydraulic engine mounts it uses.

I have driven a Cobalt. I found the engine to be sufficient. Neither inspiring nor detracting from the car. Completely forgettable. I've also driven a few SAAB 93s They use the Ecotec motor as well. The engines in those cars are quite smooth and refined for an I4. I would happily take the SAAB version of the Ecotec I4 over the 1.8T in the Audi I drove at the same test event. So again, I suspect much of what you feel is the difference in isolation rather than inherent smoothness of the motor.

Chris Stack

There are two separate and distinct aspects at play here when discussing the "thrashiness" of an engine:

1. NVH from the engine mounts.

2. Revving the engine.

No doubt the SAAB engineers went to more effort to isolate from number 1. That's simply a "luxury" vs. an economy car. They MAY have done things like lightened the flywheel or remapped the throttle or whatever to help with number 2 as well, I don't know. I don't believe most reviews are complaining about 1 in regards to the Kappas, but I do think they are bringing up 2.

rockville

You are correct. However, having driven a Kappa (Sky) I am complaining about #1. I really didn't notice a hesitation to rev but it was a green engine and I was respecting the fact that I didn't own the car. I did notice a hesitation to idle down. This is a common emissions ploy. Basically you reduce emissions by holding the throttle open for a moment. My Contour SVT used to do this. A quick mod fixed the problem. However, its harder to do on throttle by wire cars.

All that said, I'm optimistic that #1 will be addressed at least in part when the smaller displacement turbo hits the market. I suspect #2 will also be improved because the fuel is injected into the cylinders directly rather than into the intake port.

steven975

I see your point, but the high revving nature does allow the use of gear ratios that would just be unrealistic on a car that cannot rev high.

and, by the way, the F20C has more torque than any other 2.0L NA motor that comes to mind.

JonBoy

As I said, the Cobalt was fairly quiet (ie, NVH wasn't that bad). It just didn't pick up and rev very well. In other words, it was breathy at the top of the rev range, it didn't like to rev, and it didn't sound happy doing it.

A Civic revs much more nicely, not to mention an Accord. There is no comparison.

rockville

While I like the F20, consider that a Ford Duratec 3L V6 weighs all of 10 lbs more and in Jag trim produces 235hp. Also, the Honda torque is located very high in the rev band. Exactly where you would expect a high RPM screamer to put it. Of course low end torque is also nice.
That said, if I were given the Solstice chassis and told I could have either the F20 or one of the higher power Duratec 3L variants I would go V6 every time.

jimbogxp

Turbo shmurbo. 260 ft-lbs of torque @2000 rpm is 260 ft-lbs of torque whether it is turbocharged, supercharged, or au natural. If the motor has massive turbo lag, then I won't like the motor, but the small dual-scroll turbo supposedly reduced turbo lag to where GM claims it will not even be noticeable and the motor will act like a big 6-cylinder or a small V8.

Don't make me quote the GM press release...

jimbogxp

So low-end torque and sports cars are mutually exclusive.

There must be a lot of very disappointed Ferrari owners.

Maybe the M3 should be retuned to get rid of all of that low-end torque.

jimbogxp

Jimbo sitting in the back of the class with raised arm waving frantically, thinking "Oooooh, call on me! I know this one!"