Prescription for the Cruze

[dwightlooi]

I propose the following changes to the Cruze Powertrain lineup:-

Cruze SS

Specifications

Base Price: $29,950

Vehicle Layout: Transverse Front Engine, AWD

Engine: 2.0 liter Inline-4 w/dual VVT and direct injection

Compression Ratio: 9.2:1

Aspiration: Honeywell-Garrett MGTX-2860RSD dual scroll turbocharger @ 18.4 psi

Air-to-water aftercooler

Power Output: 320 bhp @ 5600 rpm

Torque Output: 300 lb-ft @ 2600~5600 rpm

Redline / Rev Limit: 5600 / 6350 rpm

Transmission: GM Hydramatic 6T75 6-speed Automatic (Standard)

Aisin AF40 6-speed manual (Optional)

Axle Ratio: 2.77:1 (Automatic); 3.83:1 (Manual)

Drivetrain: AWD; Differentials: Open (Front), Biasing Helical (Center), Electronic/Haldex (Rear)

40 (F) / 60 ® torque split (default); Up to 30 (F) / 70 ® ~ 50 (F) / 50 ®

Curb Weight: 3,450 lbs

Wheelbase: 105.7 in

Length x Width x Height: 181 x 70.7 x 57.6 in

Acceleration 0-60 mph: 4.8 sec

Quarter Mile: 13.2 secs @ 102.5 mph

Braking; 60-0 mph: 112 ft

EPA city/hwy economy: 18 / 28 mpg

Fuel Requirement: 91 Octane Unleaded Gasoline

Cruze Hybrid (Replaces ECO)

Specifications

Base Price: $22,500~24,500

Vehicle Layout: Transverse Front Engine, AWD

Engine: 1.4 liter Inline-4 w/dual VVT and port fuel injection

Electric Assist: 15kW Belt Alternator Starter; 115.2V Lithium Ion Battery pack (0.5kW/h)

Aspiration: Honeywell-Garrett MGT-1548D - dual scroll turbocharger @ 11.8 psi

Air-to-air aftercooler

Power Output: 162 bhp @ 5000 rpm (combustion) + 15hp @ 2,200 rpm (electric)

Torque Output: 170 lb-ft @ 2000~5000 rpm (combustion) + 79 lb-ft @ 1000 rpm (electric)

Redline / Rev Limit: 5000 / 6500 rpm

Transmission: GM Hydramatic 6T40 6-speed Automatic

Axle Ratio: 2.89:1

Drivetrain: FWD; Differential: Front (Open)

Curb Weight: 3,300 lbs

Wheelbase: 105.7 in

Length x Width x Height: 181 x 70.7 x 58.1 in

Acceleration 0-60 mph: 8.0 sec

Quarter Mile: 16.4 secs @ 87 mph

Braking; 60-0 mph: 122 ft

EPA city/hwy economy: 37 / 50 mpg (LT/LTZ)

Fuel Requirement: 87 Octane Unleaded Gasoline

Cruze LT / LTZ

Specifications

Base Price: $18,500 ~ 22,500

Vehicle Layout: Transverse Front Engine, AWD

Engine: 1.4 liter Inline-4 w/dual VVT and port fuel injection

Compression Ratio: 9.2:1

Aspiration: Honeywell-Garrett MGT-1548D - dual scroll turbocharger @ 11.8 psi

Air-to-air aftercooler

Power Output: 162 bhp @ 5000 rpm

Torque Output: 170 lb-ft @ 2000~5000 rpm

Redline / Rev Limit: 5000 / 6500 rpm

Transmission: GM Hydramatic 6T40 6-speed Automatic

Axle Ratio: 2.89:1

Drivetrain: FWD; Differential: Front (Open)

Curb Weight: 3,100 lbs

Wheelbase: 105.7 in

Length x Width x Height: 181 x 70.7 x 58.1 in

Acceleration 0-60 mph: 8.3 sec

Quarter Mile: 16.6 secs @ 86 mph

Braking; 60-0 mph: 122 ft

EPA city/hwy economy: 28 / 40 mpg (LT/LTZ)

Fuel Requirement: 87 Octane Unleaded Gasoline

Cruze LS

Specifications

Base Price: $16,500

Vehicle Layout: Transverse Front Engine, AWD

Engine: 1.8 liter Inline-4 w/dual VVT and port fuel injection

Compression Ratio: 10.5:1

Aspiration: Natural

Power Output: 136 bhp @ 6300 rpm

Torque Output: 123 lb-ft @ 3800 rpm

Redline / Rev Limit: 6300 / 6500 rpm

Transmission: Aisin AF40 6-speed Manual

Axle Ratio: 3.94:1

Drivetrain: FWD; Differential: Front (Open)

Curb Weight: 3,050 lbs

Wheelbase: 105.7 in

Length x Width x Height: 181 x 70.7 x 58.1 in

Acceleration 0-60 mph: 9.5 sec

Quarter Mile: 17 secs @ 84 mph

Braking; 60-0 mph: 121 ft

EPA city/hwy economy: 26 / 36 mpg

Fuel Requirement: 87 Octane Unleaded Gasoline

Basically, this is what we are doing:-

• Add 320hp AWD SS model -- gives the platform credence against the WRXes and Lancer Evos of the world.
  
• Switch to a slightly bigger turbo and a taller final drive on the 1.4T -- improves fuel economy
  
• Replace the Eco model with an eAssist equipped mild Hybrid
  

going to a slightly bigger turbo and switching to the 2.89:1 final drive ratio the Malibu uses with the same transmission.

[hyperv6]

AWD For $29K? I really don't see that happening unless it is comprimised in quality. But then again even if it was a Haldex system Who would pay that much for a Cruze?

Save the AWD for the Regal and put it on the better car.

[Drew Dowdell]

What's the rear suspension setup in the Cruze? If' it's watts link like the Verano, AWD would be very costly if not impossible without an entirely new rear suspension

[regfootball]

I thought Delta in no way could accomodate AWD.

Also, I think its rather pointless in the Cruze.

What would be perfect is a 220 hp turbo 2.0 or 1.8 along with the lighter weight of the Eco spec model. Maybe 260hp on the Astra / Buick Summer.

Light, fast and FWD simple. Manage the torque steer. GTI and Speed3 are FWD. Make the Regal the AWD car.

I see the appeal of a WRX / Evo clone. But any AWD setup on this chassis doesn't make sense to me unless its a small crossover. Then you aren't raiding trunk space and adding weight to a glorified compact.

Going that far up the hp ladder with a car as mundane as the Cruze and having a Camaro next to it in the showroom is rather odd.

I didn't flog it, and I am not reckless enough to track race. But when I drove the Eco with its cheaper rear susp bits it really didn't seem second rate to me. Take it on a track and its probably exposed but hey look what they did with the Cobalt SS. I would buy an Eco Cruze before I would buy a used Cobalt SS......

My Cruze powertrains.........

if just two engines....a 2.0 with about 150hp and a 2.0 or 1.8t with like 220hp.

Current Eco works fine with stick and the turbo. If they were serious about hypermiling the automatic I would mate a CVT to the 1.4....and add DI to the 1.4.

e Assist is nice but if it adds too much weight and cost here there is diminishing return. I would say only if it doesn't raise the cost of the car much. We really don't need a Volt clone here.

Edited January 29, 2011 by regfootball

[Drew Dowdell]

I don't think you could do a Cruze hybrid. The Verano is getting that one, it suits the pricing more.

[William Maley]

I don't think you could do a Cruze hybrid. The Verano is getting that one, it suits the pricing more.

What if you did a Cruze diesel? Or would that not make any sense..

[Drew Dowdell]

What if you did a Cruze diesel? Or would that not make any sense..

Dwight?

[dwightlooi]

Dwight?

There IS a Cruze Diesel, they just don't sell it in NA.

The Cruze 2.0 VCDi makes 150 bhp @ 4000 rpm, with 241 lb-ft @ 2600 rpm.

[dwightlooi]

AWD For $29K? I really don't see that happening unless it is comprimised in quality. But then again even if it was a Haldex system Who would pay that much for a Cruze?

Save the AWD for the Regal and put it on the better car.

Well, the Cruze does not have an independent rear, but you don't absolutely need that for AWD. You CAN have an independent front and a live axle in the back with a panhard. Tune it well and it handles reasonably, especially on decent road surfaces -- like the Mustang does.

$29K for an AWD Cruze is actually roughly where it will be. This is $7,000 over the LTZ. $7,000 will handily pay for the cost delta 2.0T engine, the transfer case and the rear diff. All in all, that's about $3000~4000 worth of hardware (selling price not GM's costs). The rest can go to the brakes systems, wheels and the like.

[PurdueGuy]

While I like the idea of Chevy having something along the lines of an EVO, I think it might be more of a jump than the market can handle. The Cobalt SS was a serious performance car, and was what, $21-23k? Considering the Cruze isn't built for AWD anyway, seems like it'd make more sense to go with a ~$25k performance model, then plan to add an even higher performance model when the Cruze is replaced, so they build up to an EVO competitor. Perhaps not even call the Cruze performance model an SS, but have a sub-SS moniker that can be kept on the next model, like how the Impreza has WRX and STI. Have a Sport and a Super Sport perhaps.

[ocnblu]

1. Add a coupe and soft top convertible bodystyle in LT, LTZ and SS with RS availability on LT and LTZ. This would Americanize the Cruze, which currently has a distinctly alien demeanor.

2. Snazz up the styling of the vehicle. Currently, without RS, it is a snoozer, dated.

3. Add the 2.4 as an extra cost option on the LTZ. Put DI on all engines.

4. The SS is a 2.0t FWD with 6 speed manual or paddle shift auto. Evolutionary tweaks to the 2.0, six speed transmissions and the improved chassis of Delta II would be enough to swing it into success beyond the excellent Cobalt turbo.

Edited January 29, 2011 by ocnblu

[hyperv6]

Well, the Cruze does not have an independent rear, but you don't absolutely need that for AWD. You CAN have an independent front and a live axle in the back with a panhard. Tune it well and it handles reasonably, especially on decent road surfaces -- like the Mustang does.

$29K for an AWD Cruze is actually roughly where it will be. This is $7,000 over the LTZ. $7,000 will handily pay for the cost delta 2.0T engine, the transfer case and the rear diff. All in all, that's about $3000~4000 worth of hardware (selling price not GM's costs). The rest can go to the brakes systems, wheels and the like.

I know it has a live rear axle and I know for sure you really don't need it. My point is how smart is it to add more weight and price to a car that is already neat the limit for it's class for such little gain. The numbers in the Cobalt SS are almost as good with less HP and a lot less price.

AWD is better for a car in the 30K range like the Regal. Once you get over $30K you start to get so many more better choices in cars.

My point is how smart is it to even consider a car at this price range in a Cruze. The Cruze is a Chevy tha that is to provide economy and value first and performace second. I see often the folks on the HHR site cry for AWD and how it really needs it but then if you tell them how much it would cost they say are you crazy I would never pay that much. Even the people who love the car would never pay the price for such a system.

The point is there are some limits to the price of this car and AWD passes the limits live rear axle or not. GM has much better homes for such a system like the GS.

I see AWD as a system that needs to be in a car priced to where it is a good system and not just some econ set up. It has to be right all the way around witht he engine too as the added weight and the power it takes to run it make it critical.

When you do a lot of number it is interesting but you also need to keep the marketing end of this in mind to keep it real. Would many here pay over $30K for such a car?

Depending what we get for a Bu it may be a better choice too but I would have to see what kind of car it is first to see if anyone would pay the price.

[SAmadei]

2. Snazz up the styling of the vehicle. Currently, without RS, it is a snoozer, dated.

Big time. Plus, GM has to quit it with this "release it outside of NA for two years to get the bugs out", as it will just lead to tired, dated cars. You could do that in 1960, when most people in NA never saw a photo of a European or Asian car... but not in the era of the Internet. Once the Cruze was shown in Europe, the clock was ticking and the competition was getting ready for it in NA.

Meanwhile, people in NA likely held off buying a Cobalt, hurting sales.

Not only that, but how does Europe or Asian feel about getting to beta-testing cars for two years? If the Cruze had been full of faults, that reputation would have quickly filtered to NA via the Internet, as well.

[regfootball]

Well, the Cruze does not have an independent rear, but you don't absolutely need that for AWD. You CAN have an independent front and a live axle in the back with a panhard. Tune it well and it handles reasonably, especially on decent road surfaces -- like the Mustang does.

$29K for an AWD Cruze is actually roughly where it will be. This is $7,000 over the LTZ. $7,000 will handily pay for the cost delta 2.0T engine, the transfer case and the rear diff. All in all, that's about $3000~4000 worth of hardware (selling price not GM's costs). The rest can go to the brakes systems, wheels and the like.

buff books which the rich kids and gearheads read would read articles saying 'chevy made a WRX competitor but cheaped out and left off the IRS" the thing would be DOA, regardless of whether it had any price advantage. If you are going to play in that land, match the equipment.

Chevy can sell more versions of a 220-260hp FWD turbo that weighs less and costs less than they can that 29k AWD monster that regardless of how good it is would get panned in the press.

If we're gonna add AWD to any vehicle that would need it I would do the Regal GS and call it a GSX.

I am not sure the Evo will survive much longer and the WRX I am guessing doesn't sell in the same numbers it used to anyways.

I don't doubt it could be a nice vehicle. But the media influence and high price would kill the interest in the car before anyone would hit the showroom to look at it.

Spicing up the styling and getting a hatch here and maybe even a coupe would be the best investments to the Cruze line, as well as adding the high perf engine options, and even just something a step above the 1.4 (the 2.4 for example).

Edited January 29, 2011 by regfootball

[ocnblu]

Shoot, yes, add the 5-door hatch to my plan, even though I wouldn't buy one, I think it would sell alright.

[hyperv6]

Shoot, yes, add the 5-door hatch to my plan, even though I wouldn't buy one, I think it would sell alright.

You would think with as well as the Malibu Maxx sold even on a really crummy car they would see that a 5 door hatch would do wonders on the Cruze. With the loss of the HHR it would also fill a need.

[ocnblu]

A Cruze wagon with a high roof, like the old Tercels and Civics might come close to replacing the HHR on a versatility level, but the HHR sold as much on style as it did on space. And the Cruze, even in nifty 5-door, is no match for HHR's style.

[regfootball]

You would think with as well as the Malibu Maxx sold even on a really crummy car they would see that a 5 door hatch would do wonders on the Cruze. With the loss of the HHR it would also fill a need.

Maxx sold better than expected because the 04-07 Bu sedan was so ugly. the maxx was ugly too, at least you got more utility with the Maxx.

I think an HHR2 would be a nice addition. Thing is, it needs to drive nice like the Cruze and it needs to have more volume inside. The current one has good volume, but lacks girth and probably with regards to future competition would need more cargo space.

So if there is an HHR2 it has evolve and get larger and more useful.....despite the fact that the current one worked ok.

ANy new HHR I would hope is not just a regurge of the current one. I'd like to see them emulate some different styling themes.....maybe the late sixties chevy trucks or something.

[pow]

Cruze Hybrid doesn't need 0-60 in 8 seconds. I think something along the line of a Civic Hybrid would be fine, just at a much lower price. Maybe a 1.4L direct-injection, non-turbo eAssist? I would keep the Eco nomenclature. $20,000 max.

[2b2]

A Cruze wagon with a high roof, like the old Tercels and Civics might come close to replacing the HHR on a versatility level, but the HHR sold as much on style as it did on space. And the Cruze, even in nifty 5-door, is no match for HHR's style.

a mini-VistaCruiser >> VistaCruZer!

[ocnblu]

Perfect name for it!

[Carguy]

They need a nice 170HP 2.0L DI I4 for the standard,LS and LTZ models. Then use the 1.4L Turbo version for the ECO and Hybrid versions. And with the 320HP AWD SS as mentioned above and a few styling alterations this could be a wonderful model!

[dwightlooi]

They need a nice 170HP 2.0L DI I4 for the standard,LS and LTZ models. Then use the 1.4L Turbo version for the ECO and Hybrid versions. And with the 320HP AWD SS as mentioned above and a few styling alterations this could be a wonderful model!

Well, let's put it this way... the new Focus 2.0 Di-VCT (29/40 mpg) gets better mileage than the Cruze 1.4T (26/36 mpg) despite having 50% greater displacement. Yes, the Cruze is a good 300 lbs heavier, but that cannot account for 3~4 mpg, especially the highway numbers for which weight has a relatively small bearing*. So, do I believe that a DI 1.8 or 2.0 might have been a better engine for the Cruze over the 1.4T? Yes, I do. In fact, I have always said that displacement is 4th or 5th down the list of what's most important to fuel economy. But that GM has already tooled up and put into production the 1.4T, so changing it out for something else any time soon is not really an option.

What is an option however is running the boost up on the 1.4T a little bit to give it more working torque (~170lb-ft), then going to a taller final drive (Eg. 2.89:1 vs 3.83:1). This will get the 6-speed auto to about 28/40 mpg -- good enough for parity. The Cruze can then shine based on the merits of its refined power train, impressive "quiet tuning" and nice interior.

* Most of the EPA Hwy cycle is done with very little change in speed or elevation. In otherwords, you are basically overcoming drag -- tire drag, aerodynamic drag, powertrain drag, etc. Weight doesn't play a role unless you are trying to change velocity or fight gravity on an incline.

[Carguy]

Well, let's put it this way... the new Focus 2.0 Di-VCT (29/40 mpg) gets better mileage than the Cruze 1.4T (26/36 mpg) despite having 50% greater displacement. Yes, the Cruze is a good 300 lbs heavier, but that cannot account for 3~4 mpg, especially the highway numbers for which weight has a relatively small bearing*. So, do I believe that a DI 1.8 or 2.0 might have been a better engine for the Cruze over the 1.4T? Yes, I do. In fact, I have always said that displacement is 4th or 5th down the list of what's most important to fuel economy. But that GM has already tooled up and put into production the 1.4T, so changing it out for something else any time soon is not really an option.

What is an option however is running the boost up on the 1.4T a little bit to give it more working torque (~170lb-ft), then going to a taller final drive (Eg. 2.89:1 vs 3.83:1). This will get the 6-speed auto to about 28/40 mpg -- good enough for parity. The Cruze can then shine based on the merits of its refined power train, impressive "quiet tuning" and nice interior.

* Most of the EPA Hwy cycle is done with very little change in speed or elevation. In otherwords, you are basically overcoming drag -- tire drag, aerodynamic drag, powertrain drag, etc. Weight doesn't play a role unless you are trying to change velocity or fight gravity on an incline.

Great points all! With the movement to more OHC engines by GM in the past I was afraid they like the imports would lower the axle ratios to much. And that seems to be what they did and it cost them in fuel economy. A larger and slower turning engine OHC or OHV can be more efficient then a smaller and faster turning one. Have they forgot this in their ever increasing attempt to like the Japanese or the Germans? I personally think they have!

[dwightlooi]

Great points all! With the movement to more OHC engines by GM in the past I was afraid they like the imports would lower the axle ratios to much. And that seems to be what they did and it cost them in fuel economy. A larger and slower turning engine OHC or OHV can be more efficient then a smaller and faster turning one. Have they forgot this in their ever increasing attempt to like the Japanese or the Germans? I personally think they have!

In a descending order of effectiveness in terms of improving fuel economy:-

1. Electric Assist / Regenerative energy recovery (Hybrid) -- reuse otherwise wasted energy
   
2. Reduce the Final Drive Ratio -- lowers pumping & frictional losses
   
3. Reduce Weight / Improve Aerodynamics -- reduce energy needed to attain and maintain velocity
   
4. Adopt a higher efficiency combustion cycle (Atkinson, Miller or Diesel) -- improve thermal efficiency
   
5. Reduce the number of Cylinders -- equivalent to reducing cylinder wall friction, plus doing 7 & 8 at the same time
   
6. Reduce displacement -- reduce pumping loses
   
7. Increase compression ratio -- improve thermal efficiency
   
8. Reduce the number of Camshafts -- reduce frictional losses
   
9. Reduce the number of Valves -- reduce frictional losses
   

Edited February 3, 2011 by dwightlooi

[regfootball]

i read somewhere today that 68% of cars sold last year were 4 poppers.

BMW will now have a turbo 2.0 4 popper in the 3 series as a base motor. The six is dying even for BMW.

I read how the Cruze's turbo is integrated into the exhaust manifold. I could understand how that might save some complexity and also keep the turbo cooled with its liquid cooling.

What I am curious to know is if this was also done as a cost saving measure. And if this sort of approach will lead to a wider proliferation of turbos. Especially to replace 6 cylinder cars.

[regfootball]

Car and Driver Cruze Eco first drive

a lot of what they wrote here is similar to what i found in my Cruze Eco review (in C&G reviews section). not really noiser, better driving experience / more fun, they seemed to witness nice mpg. 43.8 mpg (trip computer) at 2500 rpm at 80 mph they say with the A/C on and great mpg. That is progress. That is the whole point.

They sort of made it sound slow, but maybe them dopes weren't shifting right. I thought the Eco was quite zippy especially with the 6 gears and the ability to get it in just the right gear nearly all the time to match the turbo's flat torque band.

Edited February 3, 2011 by regfootball

[Northstar]

Wow, 43.8mpg at 80mph is impressive. Wonder what they'd have gotten at 60mph. 50mpg?

[dwightlooi]

i read somewhere today that 68% of cars sold last year were 4 poppers.

BMW will now have a turbo 2.0 4 popper in the 3 series as a base motor. The six is dying even for BMW.

I read how the Cruze's turbo is integrated into the exhaust manifold. I could understand how that might save some complexity and also keep the turbo cooled with its liquid cooling.

What I am curious to know is if this was also done as a cost saving measure. And if this sort of approach will lead to a wider proliferation of turbos. Especially to replace 6 cylinder cars.

The Cruze's turbo has a water cooled bearing section and a turbine housing that is also the engine's exhaust mannifold. The former is not new, the latter is an emerging trend that is increasingly popular in the last several years.

Watercooled turbos are 30 years old. Every turbo since the 80s have a water jacket around the bearing cartridge. Before this became the defacto standard for turbocharger design, turbos were cooled solely by the oil fed to and drained from the bearing section. This lead to a lot of issues with oil -- especially non-synthetics -- coking on the bearing and causing them to fail. The water jacket basically eliminated oil coking issues even when the engine is driven extremely hard for prolonged periods. This made turbochargers practical and relatively reliable for mass production cars. However, oil coking can some times still happen when the engine is driven very hard then abruptly shut off. What happens then is that oil and coolant stops flowing while the turbo is still glowing red hot and oil carbonizes on the bearings. Some owners put in "Turbo timers" which is an ignition delay device that continues to idle the engine for a few minutes even if the key is out and the car is locked. This helps lead footed drivers preserve their turbo's longevity without having to sit patiently in the car for a few minutes after a hard drive. Since the 1990s some engines -- the VW/Audi 20v 1.8T for example -- incorporate an after-run water pump. This is a small electric water pump that turns on after the engine is shut off which continues to circulate coolant through the turbocharger cooling it down. This makes worry free, hassle free turbos that lasts 200,000 miles a reality.

Recently, a the practice of casting the exhaust manifold and turbine housing as one piece became popular. This actually does not make the turbo perform better or last longer. It does however eliminate the flanges, bolts and assembly work needed to attach the turbo to the exhaust manifold. This saves assembly costs. It is also more compact allowing for tighter packaging or a closer location of the catalytic converter. The turbo in the Cruze is a Honeywell-Garrett MGT-1544. GT-15 is the basic Garrett designation for the small frame, size 15 turbo. The "M" indicates that this is a Manifold integrated version. "44" denotes the compressor wheel's exducer diameter.

Edited February 3, 2011 by dwightlooi

[Carguy]

I still dont see why they have not found a way to use the free energy of the free turning non driving wheels to generate some electrical power. Perhaps store that power in batteries to drive various things like electric power steering,air conditioning ect. With the engine freed up to do no more then drive the car that would improve the efficiency.

[ZL-1]

What's the rear suspension setup in the Cruze? If' it's watts link like the Verano, AWD would be very costly if not impossible without an entirely new rear suspension

It would need a new rear suspension. And a new floorpan as well (to accomodate the driveshaft) I suspect.

[regfootball]

Wow, 43.8mpg at 80mph is impressive. Wonder what they'd have gotten at 60mph. 50mpg?

On the window stickers on the Cruze Eco it says the expected highway range can be up to 50 mpg. I got wood when I saw that.

Combined EPA for the Eco is 33 mpg. Wood, again.

The Cruze's turbo has a water cooled bearing section and a turbine housing that is also the engine's exhaust mannifold. The former is not new, the latter is an emerging trend that is increasingly popular in the last several years.

Watercooled turbos are 30 years old. Every turbo since the 80s have a water jacket around the bearing cartridge. Before this became the defacto standard for turbocharger design, turbos were cooled solely by the oil fed to and drained from the bearing section. This lead to a lot of issues with oil -- especially non-synthetics -- coking on the bearing and causing them to fail. The water jacket basically eliminated oil coking issues even when the engine is driven extremely hard for prolonged periods. This made turbochargers practical and relatively reliable for mass production cars. However, oil coking can some times still happen when the engine is driven very hard then abruptly shut off. What happens then is that oil and coolant stops flowing while the turbo is still glowing red hot and oil carbonizes on the bearings. Some owners put in "Turbo timers" which is an ignition delay device that continues to idle the engine for a few minutes even if the key is out and the car is locked. This helps lead footed drivers preserve their turbo's longevity without having to sit patiently in the car for a few minutes after a hard drive. Since the 1990s some engines -- the VW/Audi 20v 1.8T for example -- incorporate an after-run water pump. This is a small electric water pump that turns on after the engine is shut off which continues to circulate coolant through the turbocharger cooling it down. This makes worry free, hassle free turbos that lasts 200,000 miles a reality.

Recently, a the practice of casting the exhaust manifold and turbine housing as one piece became popular. This actually does not make the turbo perform better or last longer. It does however eliminate the flanges, bolts and assembly work needed to attach the turbo to the exhaust manifold. This saves assembly costs. It is also more compact allowing for tighter packaging or a closer location of the catalytic converter. The turbo in the Cruze is a Honeywell-Garrett MGT-1544. GT-15 is the basic Garrett designation for the small frame, size 15 turbo. The "M" indicates that this is a Manifold integrated version. "44" denotes the compressor wheel's exducer diameter.

thanks.

Edited February 3, 2011 by regfootball

[regfootball]

I still dont see why they have not found a way to use the free energy of the free turning non driving wheels to generate some electrical power. Perhaps store that power in batteries to drive various things like electric power steering,air conditioning ect. With the engine freed up to do no more then drive the car that would improve the efficiency.

I know the Outlander Sport has braking regenerative energy. Your idea for the spinning wheels might be interesting. If you paired regenerative energy plus some bit of solar you could probably power lots of stuff in the car.

[hyperv6]

Maxx sold better than expected because the 04-07 Bu sedan was so ugly. the maxx was ugly too, at least you got more utility with the Maxx.

I think an HHR2 would be a nice addition. Thing is, it needs to drive nice like the Cruze and it needs to have more volume inside. The current one has good volume, but lacks girth and probably with regards to future competition would need more cargo space.

So if there is an HHR2 it has evolve and get larger and more useful.....despite the fact that the current one worked ok.

ANy new HHR I would hope is not just a regurge of the current one. I'd like to see them emulate some different styling themes.....maybe the late sixties chevy trucks or something.

The Maxx was ugly but people liked it because they could haul. I agree with that. Just imagine if it looked good?

As much as a HHR 2 would be I would not hold out much hope on that. It just does not fit the Chevy world vision. The HHR styling is polarizing as it is in the states and overseas few get the 48 Suburban relationship. Besides it would not be bigger because the Cruze is not that big and if it was bigger it would move into the Nox size and GM was bad enough with 3 and 4 version of the same car with other divisions they don't need to start the same crap with in Chevy.

As it is the HHR now is a very good size and can carry a hell of a lot more than you think. It has amazed me at time how much I got in it. I load up my sons 6 foot long Soap Box Derby car tool, lift, dolly and Pop up canopy with no issues. I also with that same load out ran a hopped up Vtech Honda and drove away from him. THe Car is right at 155 pounds alone.

The Cruze hatch would fit the world effort and would take less development money to do. It also would be low risk as if it sells here fine if it fails as it could then it continues on in the other countries. I think it would be a save investment.

Either way the HHR is dead in a month or two and it is time to move on. The retro think has been done to death and people have already moved on with many of the other retro's that were even more popular.

[Drew Dowdell]

I still dont see why they have not found a way to use the free energy of the free turning non driving wheels to generate some electrical power. Perhaps store that power in batteries to drive various things like electric power steering,air conditioning ect. With the engine freed up to do no more then drive the car that would improve the efficiency.

Efficiency. It's still a drag on the engine... it's better to just do regenerative braking and have a larger battery.

[regfootball]

The Maxx was ugly but people liked it because they could haul. I agree with that. Just imagine if it looked good?

As much as a HHR 2 would be I would not hold out much hope on that. It just does not fit the Chevy world vision. The HHR styling is polarizing as it is in the states and overseas few get the 48 Suburban relationship. Besides it would not be bigger because the Cruze is not that big and if it was bigger it would move into the Nox size and GM was bad enough with 3 and 4 version of the same car with other divisions they don't need to start the same crap with in Chevy.

As it is the HHR now is a very good size and can carry a hell of a lot more than you think. It has amazed me at time how much I got in it. I load up my sons 6 foot long Soap Box Derby car tool, lift, dolly and Pop up canopy with no issues. I also with that same load out ran a hopped up Vtech Honda and drove away from him. THe Car is right at 155 pounds alone.

The Cruze hatch would fit the world effort and would take less development money to do. It also would be low risk as if it sells here fine if it fails as it could then it continues on in the other countries. I think it would be a save investment.

Either way the HHR is dead in a month or two and it is time to move on. The retro think has been done to death and people have already moved on with many of the other retro's that were even more popular.

I don't like the Equinox. It's ok, but it's bloated for what I would want in a -compact- SUV. It sits a bit too high, feels heavy, sorta trucky. A new HHR would never tread on that porkiness, even if it were bigger.

If GMC has a Granite, then fine, I just like the trucklet style of the HHR.

I like the Cruze hatch. I like the Astra hatch too. GM better give us one of them.

Something in the vicinity of Rogue-Sportage-Tucson is the right size for the current compact SUV crop IMO.

Edited February 4, 2011 by regfootball

[ocnblu]

You all are blowing my mind.

Edited February 4, 2011 by ocnblu

[dwightlooi]

You all are blowing my mind.

That's not good...

It's hard to be articulate with a blown mind.

[regfootball]

Autoblog Cruze ECO test drive