Road tests complain our Turbo Regals are slow

[novadude]

I'm assuming that this is all due to GM torque management and factory tune. Does GM kill the off-idle with the factory tune, or is this a consequence of the small displacement engine. It seems to me the car is very strong (for what it is) between 2000-4000 rpm, but kind of dead above and below. Does the tune fix this at all?

I am extremely impressed with the way this thing runs in the mid-range. The power just doesn't feel "linear" throughout the whole rpm range. Is this normal for a turbo car? This is my first vehicle that wasn't naturally aspirated. I'm seldom go WOT, so for me, the turbo 2.0 seems much better for passing, etc than the 3.8L V6 in our old car. Just curious what a tune does for the way the car feels at WOT from a stop.

 

[CXLTsouth]

Yes the tune really wakes the car up but idle-2k rpms are still a little sluggish due to the turbo not spooling yet, thus the car relying on the NA power.

Trust me when I say the lack of power is much more prevalent with the Auto, I barely noticed the lack of power with the manual transmission vehicles.

The car will always drop off power up top due to the BW K04 turbo we have, power starts dropping off at 5.25k rpms and continues dropping.

A tune will help with power/torque drop off, but its still going to drop off, no way around it but get a better breathing turbo if you want power all the way to redline.

I requested a tune with more power in the 1k-2k rpm range myself 2 days ago from Vince@Trifecta.

Vince@Trifecta emailed tonight that hes going to get on the dyno and mess with the cam phasers to try and get more tq/hp down low, idle to 2k rpms.

 

[MLecl0001]

I test drove the turbo T01 manual the other day and thought it had more than enough power. Honestly if I could get a GS body on the 2012 220hp Turbo I would, its more than enough power for me. It was easily enough power for me to get to almost 90mph without realizing it, the sales guy had to warn me about my speed. Then again I am coming from a 2003 Mazda Protege5, fun car to drive but woefully under powered. I think the 0-60 is somewhere in double digit range.

So the only reason I am going to get the GS instead of a standard regal with the turbo engine is because I think the GS looks just plain sexy. Carbon Black Metallic, oooohhh man I can not wait.

 

[novadude]

Thanks. I've notice that the intercooler piping, MAF, and throttle body look VERY small, and I'd assume that (as you said), the turbo is a bit tiny too. I'm sure these things hurt top end power (but help down in the 2000 rpm range). I guess it makes sense that 3700 lbs and 2.0L would not have much low end grunt until the turbo spools.

This car would LOVE a high stall converter. I've had experience with a Precision Industries 9.5" 2800 stall speed converter that I installed in a stock-ish 1995 Mustang GT 5.0 AODE that I used to own. Night and day difference.

A higher stall speed would get the rpms up where the turbo spools, and greatly improve WOT performance from a stop. Not holding my breath that someone will offer one for the Aisin trans, and I am not going to get into all that work on this car anyway. 😉

 

[IronEagle]

I don't know why GM would have detuned the LNF for Buick duty except for Cadillac pitching a fit over the Regal T outgunning the base CTS like Chevrolet did back in the 80s when the Regal Grand National/GNX were outrunning Corvette.

Still baffles me though when Hyundai Sonata Turbo and Toyota Camry V6 are rated much higher. Always have to shoot yourself in the damn foot right GM?

 

[Best Auto Mats]

My guess is GM tuned it down so the engine would run forever like most Buick's? They have a gold reputation for having cars that last forever and maybe they tuned it down so the car would last into the 200k miles range.

My second hypothosis is that GM detuned the engine so there would be more value in the fully tuned GS model. My third is that they didn't put all the power to FWD without a HiPer strut system and give Buick a reputation for torque steer.