How the Cruze should have been powered.

[dwightlooi]

Cruze LT / LTZ

• 2.0 Liter Inline-4*
  
• DOHC-16v (Intake & Exhaust VVT)
  
• Direct Gasoline Injection
  
• 170 hp @ 6300 rpm
  
• 152 lb @ 4300 rpm
  
• 23 MPG (City) / 35 MPG (Hwy) w/6T40 6-speed automatic
  
• Regular Unleaded (87 Octane)
  

Cruze ECO

• 1.5 Liter Turbocharged Inline-3**
  
• DOHC-12v (Intake & Exhaust VVT, Idle Stop Control)
  
• Direct Gasoline Injection
  
• 170 hp @ 6200 rpm
  
• 150 lb @ 1600~5600 rpm
  
• 28 MPG (City) / 40 MPG (Hwy) w/6T40 6-speed automatic
  
• Regular Unleaded (87 Octane)
  

Cruze SS

• 2.0 Liter Turbocharged Inline-4***
  
• DOHC-16v (Intake & Exhaust VVT)
  
• Direct Gasoline Injection
  
• 270 hp @ 6300 rpm
  
• 228 lb @ 2200~6200 rpm
  
• 22 MPG (City) / 32 MPG (Hwy) w/6T70 6-speed automatic
  
• Premium Unleaded (91 Octane)
  

* Naturally aspirated version of the DI 2.0T engine (LNF)

** Turbocharged 3-cylinder based on halving the DI 3.0 HF V6 (LF1)

*** DI 2.0T engine (LNF) retuned with lower boost & higher compression ratio (~10.2:1)

Edited October 2, 2010 by dwightlooi

[regfootball]

Love it, Dwight.

Really though, all GM really had to do was buy the next gen focus powertrains from ford. They nailed it. 2.0 base with real power, and a kick ass turbo. Simple. Good. Done. GM really blows chunks on simple stuff sometimes.

On the Eco actually, why not just a nice turbo 1.6 4, DI, CVT. ?

[hyperv6]

Whose to say GM is done yet?

[smk4565]

Can't argue much with those choices, but GM doesn't really have them in the stable yet, and GM loves to pull engines from the parts bin. I do think 270 hp is a bit much for a small front driver though, that might torque steer all over the place.

[loki]

it's just sad the 1.8 seems so gutless on paper compared to the 1.4Turbo.

[67impss]

We think a lot alike on the power-train issues but like reg I like the CVT with the eco model but with your I3 turbo. I think the flat torque band would be both frugal and wicked fast with that combo.

[dwightlooi]

Love it, Dwight.

Really though, all GM really had to do was buy the next gen focus powertrains from ford. They nailed it. 2.0 base with real power, and a kick ass turbo. Simple. Good. Done. GM really blows chunks on simple stuff sometimes.

On the Eco actually, why not just a nice turbo 1.6 4, DI, CVT. ?

Because a three cylinder engine has 25% fewer valves and cylinders. At the same displacement, frictional losses is about 10~15% lower. This equates to better fuel economy. In addition, because a 3-cylinder does not have two pistons at the top and bottom of their travel at the same instance, there is no need for a segregated exhaust and twin-scroll turbine when you turbocharge it. In general, if you are after fuel economy, a 3 is better than a 4 of the same capacity.

[regfootball]

Whose to say GM is done yet?

well, 2 new engines and neither of them are right for the job, three strikes and you're out.

why come out of the gate with 2 misses? sounds like classic old GM.

meanwhile, Ford comes to bat with the right stuff.

[dwightlooi]

We think a lot alike on the power-train issues but like reg I like the CVT with the eco model but with your I3 turbo. I think the flat torque band would be both frugal and wicked fast with that combo.

Personally, I don't think much of CVTs. This is one of those things which sounds good on the surface, but whose economy gains did not ever pan out. The typical CVT is basically two clamping pulleys sandwiching a metallic belt or chain. The problem is that it takes a relatively strong external force application on the pulley halves to prevent the chain/belt from slipping. In most instances, the parasitic losses from the powerful hydraulic pump needed to work those pulleys is equal to or more than the efficiency gains from having infinite ratios. Plus, the ratio spread of a typical CVT is less than that of a conventional automatic or dual-clutch transmission.

Case and point: Check out the Fuel Economy numbers of the CVT and conventional automatic versions of the the Ford 500 and/or Audi A4. The CVT version is did not have better mileage numbers.

[regfootball]

We think a lot alike on the power-train issues but like reg I like the CVT with the eco model but with your I3 turbo. I think the flat torque band would be both frugal and wicked fast with that combo.

I wonder if a start stop system could be added to that also

Edited October 2, 2010 by regfootball

[dwightlooi]

Can't argue much with those choices, but GM doesn't really have them in the stable yet, and GM loves to pull engines from the parts bin. I do think 270 hp is a bit much for a small front driver though, that might torque steer all over the place.

This is why the torque is reduced to 228 lb-ft from 260 lb-ft we see in the Cobalt SS. The reduced boost level and increased static compression also increases fuel economy at cruise when the engine is operating in vacuum.

[regfootball]

Personally, I don't think much of CVTs. This is one of those things which sounds good on the surface, but whose economy gains did not ever pan out. The typical CVT is basically two clamping pulleys sandwiching a metallic belt or chain. The problem is that it takes a relatively strong external force application on the pulley halves to prevent the chain/belt from slipping. In most instances, the parasitic losses from the powerful hydraulic pump needed to work those pulleys is equal to or more than the efficiency gains from having infinite ratios. Plus, the ratio spread of a typical CVT is less than that of a conventional automatic or dual-clutch transmission.

Case and point: Check out the Fuel Economy numbers of the CVT and conventional automatic versions of the the Ford 500 and/or Audi A4. The CVT version is did not have better mileage numbers.

i had a 500 6 speed.

i am unsure about comparisons on the 500, but the freestyle with CVT was said to have exceptional real world mpg which was higher than what i consistently got with my 500.

the CVT's in those vehicles were bad though. I would not use them as the best example.

Nissan's CVT's are tuned for performance, they are now quite good but they still get good mpg.

Where the CVT has the advantage is like on the new Subarus.......they actually drop the rpm's SUPER LOW at highway speeds....that's how real world owners are getting 35-40 mpg out of those AWD vehicles on highway trips. The 6 speed manual on those vehicles run the rpm about 500 or more rpm higher at 70+ mph. The legacy will probably be my next car.

I think the CVT once the resources are applied to them can be tuned and matched to the tranny to spread that top ratio out a lot more to really drop those highway revs down for the brainless cruising part of the drive. That's where you gain the mpg.

Can't argue much with those choices, but GM doesn't really have them in the stable yet, and GM loves to pull engines from the parts bin. I do think 270 hp is a bit much for a small front driver though, that might torque steer all over the place.

Cobalt and HHR SS don't really have any torque steer problems. Not from when i tried them.

Edited October 2, 2010 by regfootball

[fightingbee]

On the Eco actually, why not just a nice turbo 1.6 4, DI, CVT. ?

As long as they do it right next time.

The VTi trans some Saturn VUEs and IONs for a while probably has the shortest typical lifespan of any ATX out there. GM is lucky they didn't put that thing into any better selling models or it would have been a fiasco.

[Drew Dowdell]

well, 2 new engines and neither of them are right for the job, three strikes and you're out.

why come out of the gate with 2 misses? sounds like classic old GM.

meanwhile, Ford comes to bat with the right stuff.

The 1.8 is not new. It's the 1.8 out of the Astra.

The 1.4 is not new. It's a 1.4 liter from 2003 from Opel that was Turbocharged for this application.

[regfootball]

The 1.8 is not new. It's the 1.8 out of the Astra.

The 1.4 is not new. It's a 1.4 liter from 2003 from Opel that was Turbocharged for this application.

both are new to chevy in north america. neither was the best engine to introduce a new ground up vehicle for a damaged brand. ford is getting it right. the 1.4 with turbo is new. don't try to mask it.

As long as they do it right next time.

The VTi trans some Saturn VUEs and IONs for a while probably has the shortest typical lifespan of any ATX out there. GM is lucky they didn't put that thing into any better selling models or it would have been a fiasco.

GM always seems to have issues with new technologies and reliability.

Edited October 3, 2010 by regfootball

[Drew Dowdell]

Everyone always seems to have issues with new technologies and reliability.

Fixed.

If you believe that you originally wrote, I have a first generation Avalon 6-speed to sell you, or an early build Tundra V8, or a 2004 Accord 5-speed auto, I'm all out of electronic gas pedals that fit Toyota vehicles at the moment, some guy came by and bought them all in cash.

I'm told the Volvo with automatic pedestrian avoidance will be in next week, the Mercedes one went out of stock and we never got new ones in.

[daves87rs]

Dwight...like the choices.

Reg, they are working on a line of engines like Ford.....but Ford was ahead in the development game. Hence, you also have to take in account that whole lack on money Gm had going on for a while.

Seriously, you really want to delay a new compact and keep the Balt out even longer to wait for the engine set? While the 1.8 and 1.4 are not going to set the world on fire, both are tried and true engines. (What Drew was trying to say)

These new engines should be in the refreshed set on Cruzes......

[hyperv6]

well, 2 new engines and neither of them are right for the job, three strikes and you're out.

why come out of the gate with 2 misses? sounds like classic old GM.

meanwhile, Ford comes to bat with the right stuff.

The reviews by normally anti GM press who have driven the cars tend not to agree as they find them suited for what the car is.

Also I head no complaints from a friend who drove one. But they only drove the cars what do they know?

In time they will need to improve these cars and with new Ecotec engines coming I feel they may better address the car in the future. We will see lighter, smaller and more powerful engines in this line. GM has release new cars only to update them a year or two later. TPI did not come out in the 84 Vette but did in the 85.

I suspect the GM money shortage is why the Ecotec is a little behind but soon to catch up.

I do agree the SS cars even with 315 FT LB do not have much of an issue with Torque Steer. There is a little put but nothing that darts to the ditch or pulls out of your hands. The key to the SS is the GMPD tuning on the suspension. That is where they improved the cars the most not just the HP. They have new parts under the nose for a reason and they really work well.

Edited October 3, 2010 by hyperv6

[smk4565]

While rehashing the engine out of the failed (in the USA) Astra s a weakness, I actually don't think engine is the Cruze's biggest problem, it is price tag. And once they sell them to rental agencies, the resale value is going to drop on them, especially compared to a Corolla or Civic that hold value fairly well.

The Cruze may turn out to be a big hit, but I remember reading in late 2003 how the Cobalt was going to go toe to toe with the Civic and Corolla, and it would be a savior to GM. That didn't pan out, and the Cruze might buck the GM small car trend, but price tag and engine are chinks in it's armor that the 2011/2012 Elentra and Focus are just waiting to crack. Not to mention a new Civic is around the corner.

[regfootball]

Why didn't gm simply put the existing 2.2 in the cruze as a base engine ......... Mated to a 6 speed ...... Already e85.......I keep hearing so many apologies I feel like I am in an AA enablers group........You shud change your avatars to 'cleopatra' ( queen of denial)......

Really you can apologize for piss poor decision making all u want...... I don't see ford fusion having the same battery issues as Malibu hybrids.....

Edited October 3, 2010 by regfootball

[dwightlooi]

The reviews by normally anti GM press who have driven the cars tend not to agree as they find them suited for what the car is.

Also I head no complaints from a friend who drove one. But they only drove the cars what do they know?

In time they will need to improve these cars and with new Ecotec engines coming I feel they may better address the car in the future. We will see lighter, smaller and more powerful engines in this line. GM has release new cars only to update them a year or two later. TPI did not come out in the 84 Vette but did in the 85.

I suspect the GM money shortage is why the Ecotec is a little behind but soon to catch up.

I do agree the SS cars even with 315 FT LB do not have much of an issue with Torque Steer. There is a little put but nothing that darts to the ditch or pulls out of your hands. The key to the SS is the GMPD tuning on the suspension. That is where they improved the cars the most not just the HP. They have new parts under the nose for a reason and they really work well.

Torque steer occurs for two of reasons on FWD cars. These include:-

• Unequal inertial between the left and right driven wheels (unequal length half-shafts)
  
• The steering axis is usually not on the centerline of the wheel, but slightly offset inboard and at some caster.
  

Both car be tackled somewhat. Eg. most high torque FWD cars which do not have horrible torque steer uses equal length, mass compensated half-shafts. Also certain suspension geometries like the Hiper Strut in the Buicks or the multilink fronts in Audis try to push the steering axis closer to the centerline of the contact patch. For the most parts, dry pavement torque steer can be quite well controlled up to 250~300 lb-ft. However, that is not to say that torque steer is no longer a problem. The ugly head rears itself when one wheel momentarily loses traction. This can happen in a cornering situation, in the wet or simply when wheel spin occurs during hard acceleration. Because it is practically impossible to guarantee that both wheels will lose traction at the same time under all conditions, it is practically impossible to prevent one wheel from applying accelerative force while the other doesn't or doesn't apply the same amount. When that happens, the steering tugs. The only way to completely eliminate the problem is for the drive wheels and the steering wheels to be separate.

Having said that, the reason you drop torque is not solely to cope with torque steer. It is also to gain fuel economy and produce an engine with a more linear power delivery. By dropping maximum torque, you are also dropping maximum boost. This in turn allow you to use a higher static compression which benefits fuel economy. In addition, because it takes the turbo less time to take the pressurized volume to a lower peak pressure, response is improved and turbolag is reduced.

[hyperv6]

Having said that, the reason you drop torque is not solely to cope with torque steer. It is also to gain fuel economy and produce an engine with a more linear power delivery. By dropping maximum torque, you are also dropping maximum boost. This in turn allow you to use a higher static compression which benefits fuel economy. In addition, because it takes the turbo less time to take the pressurized volume to a lower peak pressure, response is improved and turbolag is reduced.

I think most here know how companies deal with torque steer.

I have to point out that the last part of your statement is not true in the case of the LNF Turbo 2.0 Ecotec. They did lower the Compression to 9.2 from the average of 10:1 that most Ecotec's see.

But the engine with a change to a 3 bar T MAP and a flash of the computer increses HP and torque while delivering 1-2 more MPG. The gain on torque in the 5 speed Solstice alone is 260 to 340 FT LB. Boost jumps from 15-17 PSI to 22-25 PSI. Torque remains as flat as Kansas and HP is also very linear. The only thing that limited the torque in the FWD was the old 4 speed and 5 speed transaxles they used. Even the auto Solstice got 225 FT LB.

I did not believe such a gain was possible but I have found the MPG gain true as well as many others I know with this this kit also finding the same. My auto 2.0 went from 235 HP and 225 FT LB in to 290 HP and 315 FT LB. My daily drive is 12 miles city and short 80 MPH highway burst getting 23.5 to 24. This is a 1-2 MPG gain. THe highway driving also saw a gain of 2 MPG with an average of 31 seen. These numbers have been repeated time and time again. THey are not from a fuke drive in economy driving mode. The highway MPG was set the cruise at 70 MPG and go.

Per Bill Duncan of GMPD their it is a true confirmed gain. He stated the gain is mostly due to the fact the car has a very flat increase torque curve and the extra Torque gets the vehicle to speed faster. This provides more off trottle driving. When one is off the gas no gas flows in the DI system and gains in MPG are much greater.

I am not looking to pick an argument here and your general statment may be true in many cases but it is far from a blanket statment to all engines. The only reason I bring it up here is due to the fact we are speaking about the Ecotec. Also having the increase in MPG, HP and great amounts of torque confirmed here by the GM Ecotec driveline engineer.

I think Bill's a reliable safe source of info as his title is

GM Performance Division

High Performance Vehicle Organization HPVO

Powertrain Group

Design System Engineer

Vehicle Performance Center

He is based in the Vehicle Performance Center in Warren.

Also to be fair the gains on this engine were a suprise to the GM engineers too. They did not expect the gains but said they did learn a lot on tuning this engine.

I think with the VVT, Turbo system and DI GM is still at the start of the learning curve with this. This engine was a GM engine but also a lot info came form Saab and a lot of engineering in the engine came from the Lotus engineering group.

There are times even good engineers learn something new.

Edited October 3, 2010 by hyperv6

[dwightlooi]

I have to point out that the last part of your statement is not true in the case of the LNF Turbo 2.0 Ecotec. They did lower the Compression to 9.2 from the average of 10:1 that most Ecotec's see.

But the engine with a change to a 3 bar T MAP and a flash of the computer increses HP and torque while delivering 1-2 more MPG. The gain on torque in the 5 speed Solstice alone is 260 to 340 FT LB. Boost jumps from 15-17 PSI to 22-25 PSI. Torque remains as flat as Kansas and HP is also very linear. The only thing that limited the torque in the FWD was the old 4 speed and 5 speed transaxles they used. Even the auto Solstice got 225 FT LB.

I was thinking more along the lines of 10.2:1~10.7:1 compression and 11.8~13.2 psi. This increases the off-boost static compression by about 1 full point. Plus, regardless of how responsive the LNF already is, that any turbocharger will reach 13 psi sooner than it reaches 17 psi is refutable. The effects are also compounded by the fact that with a lower boost level, the intercooler becomes smaller. A smaller intercooler in turn reduces the amount of pressurized volume and further reduce the lag time it takes to bring the plumbing and IC volumes up to boost.

As far as better fuel economy with retuned LNFs it may not be from the increased maximum torque. The reason I say this is that you typically do not accelerate at WOT all the time in daily driving. What may also be at play is the revised fuel map. When you go from premium recommended to premium required, you have more leeway to play it less safe. In general many stock maps dump fuel for safety and run richer than they have to. This actually produces a little less power than a leaner mixture, but it also runs a cooler. If they lean up the map a bit, especially the part throttle mappings that'll probably affect MPG numbers more than maximum boost which is not always reached when you "ease" the car away from a stoplight or onto the freeway.

In the C55, I have the map retuned with a leaner mixture and a few degrees of advance in the base timing. Only 7~8hp was gained (at the wheels), but mileage at 65 mph steady went from 24.0 to 25.2. No boost was involved and with measurements starting at 65mph on cruise control, any increase in torque is not at play here.

[regfootball]

Torque steer occurs for two of reasons on FWD cars. These include:-

• Unequal inertial between the left and right driven wheels (unequal length half-shafts)
  
• The steering axis is usually not on the centerline of the wheel, but slightly offset inboard and at some caster.
  

Both car be tackled somewhat. Eg. most high torque FWD cars which do not have horrible torque steer uses equal length, mass compensated half-shafts. Also certain suspension geometries like the Hiper Strut in the Buicks or the multilink fronts in Audis try to push the steering axis closer to the centerline of the contact patch. For the most parts, dry pavement torque steer can be quite well controlled up to 250~300 lb-ft. However, that is not to say that torque steer is no longer a problem. The ugly head rears itself when one wheel momentarily loses traction. This can happen in a cornering situation, in the wet or simply when wheel spin occurs during hard acceleration. Because it is practically impossible to guarantee that both wheels will lose traction at the same time under all conditions, it is practically impossible to prevent one wheel from applying accelerative force while the other doesn't or doesn't apply the same amount. When that happens, the steering tugs. The only way to completely eliminate the problem is for the drive wheels and the steering wheels to be separate.

Having said that, the reason you drop torque is not solely to cope with torque steer. It is also to gain fuel economy and produce an engine with a more linear power delivery. By dropping maximum torque, you are also dropping maximum boost. This in turn allow you to use a higher static compression which benefits fuel economy. In addition, because it takes the turbo less time to take the pressurized volume to a lower peak pressure, response is improved and turbolag is reduced.

it's probably a lot easier to just ease up a bit on the throttle when you are driving. problem solved.

I think most here know how companies deal with torque steer.

I have to point out that the last part of your statement is not true in the case of the LNF Turbo 2.0 Ecotec. They did lower the Compression to 9.2 from the average of 10:1 that most Ecotec's see.

But the engine with a change to a 3 bar T MAP and a flash of the computer increses HP and torque while delivering 1-2 more MPG. The gain on torque in the 5 speed Solstice alone is 260 to 340 FT LB. Boost jumps from 15-17 PSI to 22-25 PSI. Torque remains as flat as Kansas and HP is also very linear. The only thing that limited the torque in the FWD was the old 4 speed and 5 speed transaxles they used. Even the auto Solstice got 225 FT LB.

I did not believe such a gain was possible but I have found the MPG gain true as well as many others I know with this this kit also finding the same. My auto 2.0 went from 235 HP and 225 FT LB in to 290 HP and 315 FT LB. My daily drive is 12 miles city and short 80 MPH highway burst getting 23.5 to 24. This is a 1-2 MPG gain. THe highway driving also saw a gain of 2 MPG with an average of 31 seen. These numbers have been repeated time and time again. THey are not from a fuke drive in economy driving mode. The highway MPG was set the cruise at 70 MPG and go.

Per Bill Duncan of GMPD their it is a true confirmed gain. He stated the gain is mostly due to the fact the car has a very flat increase torque curve and the extra Torque gets the vehicle to speed faster. This provides more off trottle driving. When one is off the gas no gas flows in the DI system and gains in MPG are much greater.

I am not looking to pick an argument here and your general statment may be true in many cases but it is far from a blanket statment to all engines. The only reason I bring it up here is due to the fact we are speaking about the Ecotec. Also having the increase in MPG, HP and great amounts of torque confirmed here by the GM Ecotec driveline engineer.

I think Bill's a reliable safe source of info as his title is

GM Performance Division

High Performance Vehicle Organization HPVO

Powertrain Group

Design System Engineer

Vehicle Performance Center

He is based in the Vehicle Performance Center in Warren.

Also to be fair the gains on this engine were a suprise to the GM engineers too. They did not expect the gains but said they did learn a lot on tuning this engine.

I think with the VVT, Turbo system and DI GM is still at the start of the learning curve with this. This engine was a GM engine but also a lot info came form Saab and a lot of engineering in the engine came from the Lotus engineering group.

There are times even good engineers learn something new.

hey tell em to put the engine in the malibu and regal......

[daves87rs]

Why didn't gm simply put the existing 2.2 in the cruze as a base engine ......... Mated to a 6 speed ...... Already e85.......I keep hearing so many apologies I feel like I am in an AA enablers group........You shud change your avatars to 'cleopatra' ( queen of denial)......

Really you can apologize for piss poor decision making all u want...... I don't see ford fusion having the same battery issues as Malibu hybrids.....

Well, if GM hadn't dropped the ball for so many years, we wouldn't even had to talk about this in the first place.

I'm not aplolgizing for a damn thing. I'm just telling you the way it is reg. Limited resources and all. I can't still get my head past all the whining everyone has about the engine, considering not a soul has driven one yet.

Most people could care less how fast it is, they just want dependable and good MPGs. That's it.

And no, the 2.2 will not work for the new upcoming ratings, topped with the fact that it would be no better than this current line........

[loki]

dwight, has there been any recent press about HCCI in a "large" 4 cylider from GM? it must have been before the volt announcement that i remember last. didn't they get upto ~40% of engine load running it?

you think they're still working on that alot? think there's a good chance the next engine upgrade for this or anything else that's DI'd already could be one of those hcci engines?

[hyperv6]

I was thinking more along the lines of 10.2:1~10.7:1 compression and 11.8~13.2 psi. This increases the off-boost static compression by about 1 full point. Plus, regardless of how responsive the LNF already is, that any turbocharger will reach 13 psi sooner than it reaches 17 psi is refutable. The effects are also compounded by the fact that with a lower boost level, the intercooler becomes smaller. A smaller intercooler in turn reduces the amount of pressurized volume and further reduce the lag time it takes to bring the plumbing and IC volumes up to boost.

As far as better fuel economy with retuned LNFs it may not be from the increased maximum torque. The reason I say this is that you typically do not accelerate at WOT all the time in daily driving. What may also be at play is the revised fuel map. When you go from premium recommended to premium required, you have more leeway to play it less safe. In general many stock maps dump fuel for safety and run richer than they have to. This actually produces a little less power than a leaner mixture, but it also runs a cooler. If they lean up the map a bit, especially the part throttle mappings that'll probably affect MPG numbers more than maximum boost which is not always reached when you "ease" the car away from a stoplight or onto the freeway.

In the C55, I have the map retuned with a leaner mixture and a few degrees of advance in the base timing. Only 7~8hp was gained (at the wheels), but mileage at 65 mph steady went from 24.0 to 25.2. No boost was involved and with measurements starting at 65mph on cruise control, any increase in torque is not at play here.

Lag in the tuned LNF is not a real issue. in fact what little we have helps in traction. Even in Comp mode the front tires lose traction even at part throttle.

13-17 FSI comes up very fast and is seen in noral driving. I also have hit over 20 PSI not even at WOT. I have my anunciator light set to come on at 20 PSI. I see a solid red light in good acceleration but not WOT.

As for how the increase in MPG happened I don't Know. I can only tell you what Bill Duncan the GM engineer told me. We trade E mails and and calls on things that he has help me on with my set up. No offense to you but since he was the lead engineer on this set up and put this kit together from start to finish I will have to yeild to his opinion. I would think no one else would know more on why than he.

Keep in mind I see a great increase in torque in this set up at just over 2000 RPM. You really have to relearn to drive the car as with the increases they give it the car becomes a much different car to drive.

I have driven a lot of Turbo's over the years and the only one that I can compare to this is the Calaway Vette.

The thing to keep in mind the Eco has a greater future and will continue to get more funding. This engine will be the one GM makes more of than any other.

I suspect as the new engines come on line the Cruze and other GM cars will get updated. GM could have held the car till a new engine was on line but the need for a Cobalt replacment was much greater. THis engine will buy them some time and I have yet to see any bad reviews on the 1.4 Turbo. Like stated before this class in not all about HP unles they add a SS badge.

[hyperv6]

it's probably a lot easier to just ease up a bit on the throttle when you are driving. problem solved.

hey tell em to put the engine in the malibu and regal......

I suspect we will see a higher HP Turbo in the Regal GS and the Malibu will get a Turbo but I suspect we will see some of the new Eco stuff in it. That may be part of the delay. The car looks ready but is still off a little while. Could they be waiting for the better engines?

The need to replace the BU is great but not as great as the Cobalt. The present Bu is still selling and they can use the 6 speed in it vs the Cobalt 4 speed tranny was last built in July. They have closed the plant and sold the equipmnent. The HHR is getting the last trannys from the plant.

Edited October 3, 2010 by hyperv6

[daves87rs]

I suspect we will see a higher HP Turbo in the Regal GS and the Malibu will get a Turbo but I suspect we will see some of the new Eco stuff in it. That may be part of the delay. The car looks ready but is still off a little while. Could they be waiting for the better engines?

The need to replace the BU is great but not as great as the Cobalt. The present Bu is still selling and they can use the 6 speed in it vs the Cobalt 4 speed tranny was last built in July. They have closed the plant and sold the equipmnent. The HHR is getting the last trannys from the plant.

No, the Bu needs up update...quick. The new Fusion just trashes it. Though I still like the current Bu myself....

[hyperv6]

No, the Bu needs up update...quick. The new Fusion just trashes it. Though I still like the current Bu myself....

I am not saying the BU is not in need of an update..the soner the better.

What I am saying is the Cobalt was in much much greater need to replaced on several levels that they may have released the car before the engine updated were available. The Cobalt needed replaced 5 years ago and could not be delayed anylonger since the platform had parts going out of production the like transaxle. The new engines improvments were not anounce till a few months ago and suspect they will be in the new cars comimg like the new Bu.

GM has often has new engines first and car later or car first and new engine later if things were just not times right. It looks like the new engine and the new Bu are close and they may just be doing them together? Just a guess.

[Robert Hall]

I am not saying the BU is not in need of an update..the soner the better.

What I am saying is the Cobalt was in much much greater need to replaced on several levels that they may have released the car before the engine updated were available. The Cobalt needed replaced 5 years ago and could not be delayed any longer

Um, the Cobalt was only starting it's 2nd model year this time 5 years ago (came out for MY '05)..

[hyperv6]

Um, the Cobalt was only starting it's 2nd model year this time 5 years ago (came out for MY '05)..

Yes a refreshed rehash of the Cavlier that preceeded it that already was long in the tooth. The Delta platform was not all that removed from the J Body. You can change the name but they still were very much alike. The Delta hardly caught up with the compitition when it came out and was old just a few years later. Then they did little to update it. GM did not reach forward enough and the Cobalt was old very early in it's life.

Edited October 4, 2010 by hyperv6

[MyerShift]

I like it all, just unsure about public reception of a three potter in such a "large" car.

[vonVeezelsnider]

No, the Bu needs up update...quick. The new Fusion just trashes it. Though I still like the current Bu myself....

I'd agree except that the 'bu walks all over the fusion in terms of design inside and out. It's just a handsomer car- the Fusion interior is really high quality but it's a bit... bland and utilitarian compared to the Malibu.

[hyperv6]

I like it all, just unsure about public reception of a three potter in such a "large" car.

I often wonder how the 5 cylinder may have hurt the Colorado just because it was a 5 cylinder in the eyes of the public. I know it was a better engine and more powerful than my 4.3 but the image of the odd number and no marketing to support it may have hurt the truck.