: I want 2014 Malibu 2.0t torque



Dave3283
06-05-13, 10:26 PM
Malibu to have 295 ft lb out of the box....think GM will tune my ATS - will pay.
Can't loose straight line run to a Malibu.

Rifle and rucksack
06-05-13, 10:56 PM
Wow, I believe that's more than the 3.6! W.t.h!

73JPS
06-05-13, 11:08 PM
Actually the same torque as a Lotus Esprit V8 3.5L Twin Turbo... there was a time when this was a super car...

Hoosier Daddy
06-05-13, 11:16 PM
Peak HP or peak torque don't matter as much as the area under the curve, especially for turbo motors where the curves are artificially manipulated by computer.

romanats
06-06-13, 12:44 AM
get a tne from BNR you will be all set

73JPS
06-06-13, 12:48 AM
Peak HP or peak torque don't matter as much as the area under the curve, especially for turbo motors where the curves are artificially manipulated by computer.

Please 'splain. Most specifically the part about "especially for turbo motors where the curves are artificially manipulated by computer". I just know the Esprit V8 feels like it has a boatload of useable torque, a ton of pull, and some 0-60 spec of under 5 seconds. I will add that in driving the opposite of the spectrum, a rotary engine @ 158 lb/ft peak torque, I was never left wanting for performance with that engine either, because the torque (or at least from a feel perspective, the "pull") never seemed to peak.

This is not a challenge: I honestly don't fully appreciate/understand the practical aspects of torque figures.

donavo
06-06-13, 01:11 AM
Malibu to have 295 ft lb out of the box....think GM will tune my ATS - will pay.
Can't loose straight line run to a Malibu.

wait....GM can tune the ATS? if u pay them, theyll tune it and cover any damage caused?

73JPS
06-06-13, 01:21 AM
wait....GM can tune the ATS? if u pay them, theyll tune it and cover any damage caused?

Seriously????

Hoosier Daddy
06-06-13, 01:39 AM
Please 'splain. Most specifically the part about "especially for turbo motors where the curves are artificially manipulated by computer". I just know the Esprit V8 feels like it has a boatload of useable torque, a ton of pull, and some 0-60 spec of under 5 seconds. I will add that in driving the opposite of the spectrum, a rotary engine @ 158 lb/ft peak torque, I was never left wanting for performance with that engine either, because the torque (or at least from a feel perspective, the "pull") never seemed to peak.

This is not a challenge: I honestly don't fully appreciate/understand the practical aspects of torque figures.
Okay. A peak torque figure includes the specific RPM it was achieved at. Same for HP. But unless you have a CVT, you have to go thru a range of RPMs to accelerate your car. The average amount (over time) during that range of RPMs determines how quickly you accelerate. So a car producing exactly X over that range will win over one that starts very low but peaks higher than the first provided the average is higher. So its the area under the torque and HP curves for the RPMs used that really matter. To project which of two cars would win a contest (all other things being equal), you need to determine just what RPMs would be used during the accelleration. If multiple gears are involved, it get more complicated because the starting RPM can change after each upshift and the optimal ending RPM may change too because essentially you want to shift when the overall torque for the next higher gear matches the torque of the current geat and that will change for each gear because the torque curve for that gear is the engine torque curve multiplied by the gear ratios involved.

A naturally aspirated engine designed to propel a car using a traditional transmission will naturally have a very pronounced horsepower and torque curve. By varying the boost, a turbo motor can be designed to have a flat or pretty much any shape curve the designers want. And in fact, the ATS, Buick, and Malibu 2.0Ts work that way. The ATS is programmed to produce maximum torque over a VERY wide portion of the power band. It does that by using a turbo that can produce the high torque at low RPMs and then throwing away the excess torque at higher RPMs. The flat power band is why the 2.0T is so much more satisfying to drive than either of the naturally aspirated engines.

mikesul
06-06-13, 09:04 AM
That 295# of torque is just like the Buick Regal GS, must be the same engine set up the same way.

Stevo Supremo
06-06-13, 12:38 PM
Its still fail wheel drive, he'll be spinning his tires by the time you've pulled a car length on him.

Siren05
06-07-13, 09:38 AM
For example my STI LAYS down 400awtq from 2700 rpm thru 5500rpm on my street tune.
We turned it down for the track. As I run 100% all the time on the track.

b4z
06-12-13, 11:02 PM
Just checked the latest update to the ats order guide which was 6 days ago.
Ats still at 260 torque. Ats has the LTG motor. Does the 14 Malibu have the GS motor or are they all the same now?

M5eater
06-13-13, 09:10 AM
Just checked the latest update to the ats order guide which was 6 days ago.
Ats still at 260 torque. Ats has the LTG motor. Does the 14 Malibu have the GS motor or are they all the same now?

While the press release's don't specify an origin for the increase, considering that this was a very fast MY revision. You can bet it's software related.

I could see this might go both ways.

On the one hand, there's likely no reason they couldn't give the ATS the same power bump(there by crushing the 328i's 'lowballed figures') but on the other hand, wherein the Malibu is strickly a commutter, the ATS is supposed to be a fine sports sedan. The LTG in the ATS already has a bit of lag and a non-linear feel. Adding more torque might exasperate the issue.


There's also the fact that the LTG in the Malibu is the top-trim engine. The 3.6 in the ATS however, would be under-mined by the middle-spec engine and would likely endup being slower than the 2.0T.

That reason alone I suspect, will be why the LTG in the ATS remains at 260.

bungee91
06-13-13, 09:54 AM
I believe the CTS with the 2.0T had the same TQ figure as the Malibu, and it certainly isn't the top trim for that vehicle.

M5eater
06-13-13, 10:01 AM
I believe the CTS with the 2.0T had the same TQ figure as the Malibu, and it certainly isn't the top trim for that vehicle.
Nope, but it's also hauling around an additional 200lbs over the 2.0T in the ATS.

roadpie4u
06-13-13, 01:39 PM
Also don't forget that Alpha will underpin the 6th gen Camaro, which will have the LTG as well. As the Camaro turbo will go against the Mustang turbo, GM doesn't want to let the "cat out of the bag" with how capable the LTG is - expect a power bump to over 300hp/tq when that happens.

Then the question is (once the Camaro's numbers come out) what happens to all LTG tunes? Does every car get a bump? Does GM release a "bump tune" via GMPP like they did for the LNF?

And then, what happens to the 3.6L when the numbers become nearly identical?

Time will tell.

Dave3283
06-13-13, 02:07 PM
Here's to hoping for a factory tune option.

Chuck C
06-13-13, 02:52 PM
Here's to hoping for a factory tune option.

If you check the Technical forum, I believe many people are already doing aftermarket software tunes.

M5eater
06-13-13, 03:21 PM
Also don't forget that Alpha will underpin the 6th gen Camaro, which will have the LTG as well. As the Camaro turbo will go against the Mustang turbo, GM doesn't want to let the "cat out of the bag" with how capable the LTG is - expect a power bump to over 300hp/tq when that happens.

Then the question is (once the Camaro's numbers come out) what happens to all LTG tunes? Does every car get a bump? Does GM release a "bump tune" via GMPP like they did for the LNF?

And then, what happens to the 3.6L when the numbers become nearly identical?

Time will tell.

a 300hp LFG could very well happen, if it does, only NVH concerns would remain the underling use for keeping the LFX around. I doubt this will be sufficent.

What I do expect, is that it might live on as an LF3 in a camaro.


If you check the Technical forum, I believe many people are already doing aftermarket software tunes.
Aftermarket tunes void warranties.

He's talking about a $650 package that included a factory backed tune for the LFN in the cobalt ss/solstace/HHR ect, that bumped power 30 ponies and torque 80ft/lbs.

romanats
06-13-13, 04:12 PM
tune is great but can be even better

themacguy
06-13-13, 07:25 PM
As a former LNF owner (SS/TC) with GMS1 installed, I can say the factory power bump was nice. But of course I wanted more!

I got Trifecta Tuned and that made a difference over GMS1.

Important thing to remember with these turbo cars is they like to breathe. Before I Trifecta Tuned I installed an K&N intake and switched out the stock downpipe for a Turbo XS catted d/p. Then I just let the Tune take advantage of those mods. Spooled much quicker and went from 21 psi to 24.

So, Tune off I had GMS1 for about 280 hp and 300 tq. And Tune on I gained about 25 -30 more of each. Noticeable difference. I could spin the tires through 3rd if I wished.

Let the engine breathe...

Traded it in on my 2012 SRX (don't ask). Have it Trifecta Tuned too.

b4z
06-13-13, 08:55 PM
Under no circumstances should GM allow a middle of the road family car to have 35 more tq than their sports sedan that is competing directly with BMW.
I drove the 2.5l and 2,0t back to back and the turbo didn't have the power and feel I was expecting. 35 more tq would probably change my Impression and at $299 mo. Lease I could see myself in one.

wongluk
06-18-13, 07:22 PM
I think the 2.0T engine torque is purposely detuned to minimize comparison with the 3.6 engine

Just like how Porsche detuned their Cayman vs the 911... Car manufacturer do it all the time



Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App (http://www.autoguide.com/mobile)

BNRacing
06-18-13, 09:38 PM
It's the same engine, just a more aggressive tune. GM does the same thing with the regal CXL turbo and the regal GS. Same engine, same ECM, different tune. We can get the CXL to make the same power as a tuned GS.

And yes, you could get a tune from us and make way over that power, but we're also happy to do a small bump to that power.

Stevo Supremo
06-19-13, 06:41 PM
I think the 2.0T engine torque is purposely detuned to minimize comparison with the 3.6 engine

Just like how Porsche detuned their Cayman vs the 911... Car manufacturer do it all the time



Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App (http://www.autoguide.com/mobile)

I think you nailed it, a simple tune to a 2.0 will make a 3.6 seem pointless sans immediate power. I really dont think GM wants there "dime-a-dozen" 3.6 embarrassed by a 4 banger. A few guys at the track with the 2.0 had the same theory.

Dave3283
06-19-13, 09:12 PM
Ya, but since it just a tune they are doing...why not offer a tune package. Only a small percentage will tune. The 3.6 will still be desired by those that believe in displacement. No offense to BNR, but factory tune has peace of mind attached.

----------

Meant to also say...thinking of Dinan, if BMW is the benchmark - go all the way GM.

BNRacing
06-20-13, 11:15 AM
We would be happy to offer that tune to you guys. We have access to all of that stuff, and it would be no problem at all to stuff a 2014 tune into your 2013 ecm.