The turbo is supposed to be unveiled in New York, as well as the hybrid, which is now being teased. I wonder what the power-rating will be in these additions? The 198-200HP is actually quite good for a base-four in it's class, and the torque is decent, too.
I'll say that I remember driving 4-bangers in the past, '80s cars, and not only were they slow, but very lumpy and buzzy, thrashy and unrefined, transmitting through the cabin. Some were very sinfully slow, but the first improvement was in the late 80s to 1990 with that "Quad-four" that GM's Oldsmobile put out then (DOHC and 4-valve); I drove a rented Pontiac Grand Am with one, and it was impressive compared to many four-bangers of that time. The Iron-duke four (later Tech-IV) from GM, on the other hand, was pathetic.
Some six cylinder engines, way back when, (in-line of V6) were not exactly tire-smokers, either. I've driven GMs of the '70s with the 250-c.i.d. in line six, and found those anemic, especially off the line. Even the GM V6s, the 231 c.i.d., was sinfully slow in a couple I've either driven, of heard comments about. I've once had the famous Chrysler slant-six, a bullet-proof, durable engine that you couldn't kill, but, these were not so blazing off the line, but seemed to have decent-enough torque to hold at speed. There were some in-line sixes in older cars that had a little bit of pep, especially in some AMC vehicles, but, these were fairly light.
__________________
Pontiac Lives through BMW and Lincoln - via their split grills and attitude!
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Linear Mode
