Chevrolet Cruze Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,611 Posts
Does anybody know why GM didn't include the option of having the 1.8L come with a turbo on it?
Probably because it wasn't in the scope of what they were trying to do and wouldn't have had fuel economy numbers as good as the 1.4L Turbo does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
Cost, complexity, packaging, reliability, etc.

That said, I think there will be a definitive trend over the next decade to smaller turbocharged engines, such as the 1.4's in our Cruzes. I can say, as a previous Cobalt LS/XFE owner, the 1.4T is a much better engine than the 2.2L. It's more fun to drive, feels a good bit faster, and delivers better fuel economy (without the use of LRR tires and in a heavier car) than the 2.2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
720 Posts
I've never understood the 1.4L. The power is the same and the fuel economy is the same in the 1.8. Why have two motors covering the same niche. And cast iron blocks are so obsolete. I wish they'd put the Verano motor in the Cruze as an option. I bet it cost less to produce than the 1.4.

I'm really pretty pleased with my 1.8 in the quietness and smoothness even though it doesn't have balance shafts. I visited a Subaru dealer to look at the new Impreza. It wasn't nearly as quiet as the 1.8. I guess a timing belt and hydraulic lash adjusters combine to create the quiet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
I've never understood the 1.4L. The power is the same and the fuel economy is the same in the 1.8. Why have two motors covering the same niche. And cast iron blocks are so obsolete. I wish they'd put the Verano motor in the Cruze as an option. I bet it cost less to produce than the 1.4.
It's true the 1.4 has the same hp as the 1.8, but it has more torque, and starting at a much lower rpm. This makes the 1.4 more responsive, especially around town in traffic. Also the 1.4 allows for better gas mileage than the 1.8 when driven for economy. The small size of the 1.4 means that the weight penalty of the cast iron block is fairly small, although I agree with you about cast iron blocks in general. The 1.8 is cheaper to produce, so it was chosen to help meet the price point of the entry level LS.

The Verano motor would not have met the gas mileage targets for the Cruze, and it may cannibalize sales from the Verano. CAFE standards are such that GM has to sell a whole bunch of high mpg cars like the Cruze, so they can also sell higher profit cars like the Camaro, Corvette and other vehicles that fail to meet the CAFE standard. It's all gotta average out.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,500 Posts
You can always order the 2.0 I need the motor code so I can buy one to put in the wrecked cruze I bought

Sent from my R800x using AutoGuide.com App
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,611 Posts
There are advantages to the cast iron block. For one, you don't have all of the issues that some aluminum blocks do, such as the V8 Northstar motor in its somewhat earlier years. At one point, they used short, fine threaded head studs, which pulled out after a while and caused head gasket leaks. Later, they used longer studs, which still stripped. Then, they used coarse threaded studs, which essentially fixed the problem. Even so, the heads and block are less idiot proof to warping. I overheated the L27 iron block in my 95 Regal at least a dozen times with no adverse effects. Overheat an aluminum block with aluminum heads and you risk dropping a valve seat like they do on the V12 Jaguars all the time.

Edit: just read that the heads on the Cruze are aluminum. Seems the whole thing was actually designed very well.

http://www.chevroletcruzeforum.com/index.php?/topic/315-chevrolet-cruze-fuel-efficient-powertrain-offerings-led-by-technically-advanced-ecotec-14l-turbo/
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,158 Posts
I've never understood the 1.4L. The power is the same and the fuel economy is the same in the 1.8. Why have two motors covering the same niche. And cast iron blocks are so obsolete. I wish they'd put the Verano motor in the Cruze as an option. I bet it cost less to produce than the 1.4.

I'm really pretty pleased with my 1.8 in the quietness and smoothness even though it doesn't have balance shafts. I visited a Subaru dealer to look at the new Impreza. It wasn't nearly as quiet as the 1.8. I guess a timing belt and hydraulic lash adjusters combine to create the quiet.
Cast iron is stronger than aluminum, so strangely enough an iron block just might be lighter than an aluminum block since less material is used. It also retains heat better, which helps fuel economy when short-tripping around town since the engine does not cool as quickly.

And, the 1.4 has more torque than the 1.8. It's 148 ft/lbs compared to 123. The real story is in where the torque is accessed. The 1.4 gets all its torque by 2000 RPM or so. The 1.8 needs to rev above 4000 RPM to get all its torque.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
303 Posts
The 1.4 engine actually has 4 more horsepower than the 1.8. And the 1.4 has better gas mileage ratings. One of my specifications in picking out a Cruze was that it must have a 1.4 engine.
Thats why I got the Picked the ECO... comes standard with M/T, better MPGs and force induction which I have always loved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
990 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Probably because it wasn't in the scope of what they were trying to do and wouldn't have had fuel economy numbers as good as the 1.4L Turbo does.
Probably because it wasn't in the scope of what they were trying to do and wouldn't have had fuel economy numbers as good as the 1.4L Turbo does.

Honestly the difference is like 0.2 - 0.4 mpg...it might add up but i think it's worth it. I'm implementing a turbo for my 1.8.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top