1.4 for the Cruze....

[daves87rs]

And since I'm on a oil kick, I figured I'd ask the question:

What do you think the factory fill for that 1.4 turbo is going to be Mobil 1?

[NOS2006]

Most likely Mobil 1. Just a guess though.

[daves87rs]

Agreed. That baby is going to put out some heat....

[dwightlooi]

Agreed. That baby is going to put out some heat....

Given that it is designed for Economy and the oil is going to have to endure the pretty hot turbocharger circuit... my guess is either the 0W-20 or 0W-30 Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy Formulas.

[regfootball]

70 dollar oil changes like VW's? negates the fuel savings IMHO.

[dwightlooi]

70 dollar oil changes like VW's? negates the fuel savings IMHO.

Note really... $7 per quart x 4 quarts = $28 for the oil. About $20 more than cheap oil.

The labor is the same. Plus, that EPA mpg rating helps sell cars -- advertising that you use crappy oil does not.

Plus, the oil change interval is probably somewhere between 7,500 and 15,000 miles which you cannot achieve with cheap petroleum bases.

[daves87rs]

70 dollar oil changes like VW's? negates the fuel savings IMHO.

Nope...With synthetic becoming more mainstream, it should get cheaper.

Worst case, the is a 5qt jug of Supertech Syn oil for 17.50......

[daves87rs]

Given that it is designed for Economy and the oil is going to have to endure the pretty hot turbocharger circuit... my guess is either the 0W-20 or 0W-30 Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy Formulas.

It might still be able to do that on 5w30....

[dwightlooi]

It might still be able to do that on 5w30....

Well... the thinner the viscosity, the lower the amount of internal drag on the engine from moving the oil around -- which translates to better economy and also a few extra horsepower all else being equal. Ideally, you want the thinnest oil which offers adequate film strength for the bearings and cam lobes in the engine. Most modern engine designed with economy in mind are designed to use 5W-20 these days... most Honda engines and Ford engines are now 5W-20. The 0W-20 is basically the same 20 viscosity oil but with better start-up protection and winter flow rates.

Modern Synthetics and tight engine tolerances also means that drain intervals are a few times what they used to be. The current Honda Civic for instance designed for 10,000 miles between oil changes on conventional 5W-20 oil or 15,000 miles on 0W-20 synthetics. This is from a company who has a reputation for building engines which easily run for over 200,000 miles spending no unscheduled time in the shop so I am pretty sure the thin oil and long drain intervals have been thoroughly proven.

Edited February 24, 2009 by dwightlooi

[Drew Dowdell]

70 dollar oil changes like VW's? negates the fuel savings IMHO.

At the dealer?

10 dollars/quart plus $10 oil filter plus $20 labor?

[pow]

70 dollar oil changes like VW's? negates the fuel savings IMHO.

VWs have free maintenance for 3 years.

If VW is any indication, the Cruze's 1.4 turbo will be filled with dino oil from the factory... followed by reports of sludge, a TSB requiring synthetic oil, and then finally an extended warranty.

[Drew Dowdell]

I thought GM filled everything from Ecotecs to HF3.6s to LS-whatevers with Mobile one these days.

[pow]

I thought GM filled everything from Ecotecs to HF3.6s to LS-whatevers with Mobile one these days.

Only high-performance GM engines (Vette, CTS) use Mobil 1... the rest (Ecotec, front-drive V6, even Escalade's 6.2) still use regular oil.

[pow]

About the Cruze, I believe the global 1.8 VVT will be the base US engine. The 1.4 turbo will be the more powerful, more fuel efficient option.

[RjION]

Whats the point of two engines in the 140hp range? So far the Cruze is not on my list for a new work car.

[67impss]

<!--quoteo(post=473438:date=Feb 23 2009, 11:25 PM:name=regfootball)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (regfootball @ Feb 23 2009, 11:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=473438"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->70 dollar oil changes like VW's? negates the fuel savings IMHO.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Nope...With synthetic becoming more mainstream, it should get cheaper.

Worst case, the is a 5qt jug of Supertech Syn oil for 17.50......

Supertech Syn oil Works well in Roadmaster

[PurdueGuy]

Whats the point of two engines in the 140hp range? So far the Cruze is not on my list for a new work car.

They may have similar peak outputs, but I would guess the powerband and fuel economy differences will show why both are there.

[daves87rs]

Supertech Syn oil Works well in Roadmaster

It's not bad for the price....

About the Cruze, I believe the global 1.8 VVT will be the base US engine. The 1.4 turbo will be the more powerful, more fuel efficient option.

That could be strange to the customers then...

[daves87rs]

<!--quoteo(post=473448:date=Feb 23 2009, 09:26 PM:name=daves87rs)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (daves87rs @ Feb 23 2009, 09:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=473448"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It might still be able to do that on 5w30....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Well... the thinner the viscosity, the lower the amount of internal drag on the engine from moving the oil around -- which translates to better economy and also a few extra horsepower all else being equal. Ideally, you want the thinnest oil which offers adequate film strength for the bearings and cam lobes in the engine. Most modern engine designed with economy in mind are designed to use 5W-20 these days... most Honda engines and Ford engines are now 5W-20. The 0W-20 is basically the same 20 viscosity oil but with better start-up protection and winter flow rates.

Modern Synthetics and tight engine tolerances also means that drain intervals are a few times what they used to be. The current Honda Civic for instance designed for 10,000 miles between oil changes on conventional 5W-20 oil or 15,000 miles on 0W-20 synthetics. This is from a company who has a reputation for building engines which easily run for over 200,000 miles spending no unscheduled time in the shop so I am pretty sure the thin oil and long drain intervals have been thoroughly proven.

It's funny you say that.

I've been considering switching my Ecotecs from the 5w30 to the 0w30.....

[RjION]

They may have similar peak outputs, but I would guess the powerband and fuel economy differences will show why both are there.

They are so close to HP and torque that the one providing the best fuel economy should be installed as standard giving other people the chance to have more hp and torque. For myself a DI 2.4VVT would get me to look closer at the Cruze, right now it does not warrant stopping at a Chevy store for a look see. Yes I know they are not at the stores yet.

[daves87rs]

They are so close to HP and torque that the one providing the best fuel economy should be installed as standard giving other people the chance to have more hp and torque. For myself a DI 2.4VVT would get me to look closer at the Cruze, right now it does not warrant stopping at a Chevy store for a look see. Yes I know they are not at the stores yet.

That would have to be a high end model there...

[PurdueGuy]

That would have to be a high end model there...

Not that high end, since the engine's been around for a while. I wouldn't mind seeing a larger/more powerful ecotec in the Cruze as well, but GM's trying to boost their mpg #s.

[RjION]

Not that high end, since the engine's been around for a while. I wouldn't mind seeing a larger/more powerful ecotec in the Cruze as well, but GM's trying to boost their mpg #s.

Give me the engine, keep the heated seats, keep the heated mirrors, keep the stabilitrack, keep the DIC, keep the sunroof, keep the leather, start letting people option cars the way they want them. I'll start with the

[vonVeezelsnider]

They are so close to HP and torque that the one providing the best fuel economy should be installed as standard giving other people the chance to have more hp and torque. For myself a DI 2.4VVT would get me to look closer at the Cruze, right now it does not warrant stopping at a Chevy store for a look see. Yes I know they are not at the stores yet.

From what I understand the 1.4 delivers more torque at a much lower RPM which makes a big difference over the 1.8L.

[ZL-1]

From what I understand the 1.4 delivers more torque at a much lower RPM which makes a big difference over the 1.8L.

If the torque curve is closer to being flat then it makes a big difference

[RjION]

From what I understand the 1.4 delivers more torque at a much lower RPM which makes a big difference over the 1.8L.

Ok great stick that in as the standard engine and give the rest of us the DI/2.4L VVT option.

[vonVeezelsnider]

Torque Comparo from GM Press Release on Cruze

1.8L I4: 123 lb-ft @ 3800rpm (est.)

1.4L I4: 148 lb-ft @ 1850rpm (est.)

Horsepower Comparo from GM Press Release on Cruze

1.8L I4: 136hp @ 6300rpm

1.4L I4: 138hp @ 4900rpm

And the current ratings on the Cobalt 2.2L Ecotec

155hp @ 6100rpm

150 lb-ft @ 6900rpm

Basically the 1.4T has just as much torque as the Cobalt and at a much lower RPM. The 1.4T is only down by 15 HP but again peak RPM is much lower. The 1.4T will be just as good if not better in terms of power than the 2.2L VVT Ecotec it replaces.

http://green.autoblog.com/2007/08/28/abg-driving-impression-opel-astra-1-4l-turbo/

Edited January 25, 2010 by vonVeezelsnider

[Robert Hall]

Anyone know how the Cruze compares to the Cobalt in size and weight?

[vonVeezelsnider]

Anyone know how the Cruze compares to the Cobalt in size and weight?

Cruze

Dimensions – Exterior

Wheelbase: 105.7

Overall length: 178.5

Overall width: 70.7

Overall height: 58.2

Curb Weight: 2899lb (LT) 2832lb (LS)

Dimensions – Interior

Headroom: 39(front) 37(rear)

Legroom: 42(front) 36.5(rear)

Shoulder room: 54.7(front) 52(rear)

Hip room: TBD

Passenger volume: 95 cu ft.

Cargo volume: 15 cu ft.

Cobalt Sedan

Dimensions – Exterior

Wheelbase: 103.3

Overall length: 180.5

Overall width: 67.9

Overall height: 57.1

Curb Weight: 2793lb (LT) 2780lb (LS)

Dimensions – Interior

Headroom: 38.5(front) 37.7(rear)

Legroom: 41.8(front) 33.7(rear)

Shoulder room: 53.0(front) 51.4(rear)

Hip room: 49.5(front) 49.6(rear)

Passenger volume: 87 cu ft.

Cargo volume: 13.9 cu ft.

So the Cruze is a couple inches shorter and a hundred pounds heavier but there is an increase of 3 inches of interior legroom, 1cu ft. of trunk space, three inches of width, ten cubic feet of overall interior space. Overall a much more efficient use of space in a car almost the same size. That and the fact that the deceptive factor of the lower power which doesn't take into account peak RPM, I think this will be much better to drive than a Cobalt.

Furthermore even though the new Focus bests the Cruze by ten horsepower it has less torque than the Cruze and a less flat power band than the 1.4L. The Cruze will probably be better on gas 1.4L vs 2.0L Focus but GM needs something to compete with the optional 2.0L Ecoboost in the Focus. It's also worth pointing out that the Curb weight of a current-gen 2.0L euro-Focus is 2950lbs. I would say that most Cruzes will have the 1.4 since it's standard on LT and LTZ and optional on LS- it should be the standard engine with a more powerful one around ~180-190hp available. The Cruze may not be as flashy as the new Focus but I still think it's just as good if not better.

Edited January 25, 2010 by vonVeezelsnider

[Drew Dowdell]

Torque Comparo from GM Press Release on Cruze

Horsepower Comparo from GM Press Release on Cruze

And the current ratings on the Cobalt 2.2L Ecotec

Basically the 1.4T has just as much torque as the Cobalt and at a much lower RPM. The 1.4T is only down by 15 HP but again peak RPM is much lower. The 1.4T will be just as good if not better in terms of power than the 2.2L VVT Ecotec it replaces.

http://green.autoblo...tra-1-4l-turbo/

Add to that a capable 6-speed auto and there should be a significant performance boost over the Cobalt. No wonder it'll do almost 40mpg.

[RjION]

Good but I still want the DI/2.4L VVT not a non DI 2.2

ECOTEC LAF DI/2.4L VVT

182 hp (136 kW) @ 6700 rpm (gasoline)

172 lb·ft (233 N·m) @ 4900 rpm (gasoline

Edited January 25, 2010 by RjION

[vonVeezelsnider]

Good but I still want the DI/2.4L VVT not a non DI 2.2

ECOTEC LAF DI/2.4L VVT

182 hp (136 kW) @ 6700 rpm (gasoline)

172 lb·ft (233 N·m) @ 4900 rpm (gasoline

I can't tell without looking at the torque graphs for the 2.4L and 1.4L Turbo but I venture to guess that you might get more usable torque in day to day ops due to the RPM at which it is available. I say this because the Pre-DI 2.4L engines have a steep torque curve rather than a flat one.

The one thing that bugs me about most new GM engines (not counting 1.4T) is the fact that the torque numbers are lower than the horsepower numbers. The general rule of thumb is that it should be the other way around. This goes for the 2.4DI, the 3.0DI etc...

Edited January 25, 2010 by vonVeezelsnider

[daves87rs]

Add to that a capable 6-speed auto and there should be a significant performance boost over the Cobalt. No wonder it'll do almost 40mpg.

Looking forward to that!

[67impss]

I can't tell without looking at the torque graphs for the 2.4L and 1.4L Turbo but I venture to guess that you might get more usable torque in day to day ops due to the RPM at which it is available. I say this because the Pre-DI 2.4L engines have a steep torque curve rather than a flat one.

The one thing that bugs me about most new GM engines (not counting 1.4T) is the fact that the torque numbers are lower than the horsepower numbers. The general rule of thumb is that it should be the other way around. This goes for the 2.4DI, the 3.0DI etc...

And that's been happening since they started to use 6spds if I recall correctly

Edited January 27, 2010 by 67impss

[vonVeezelsnider]

And that's been happening since they started to use 6spds if I recall correctly

Well with the exception of the 1.4T... and the 1.6T which has 180hp and 235 lb-ft.