2.5L engine for the 2014 Cruze Eco?

[dwightlooi]

Should GM reverse course on displacement reduction and put a 2.5L engine on the 2014 Cruze Eco?

Is the Cruze 1.4T an improvement over past GM efforts and is it a decent engine for a well executed small car? Absolutely. This, however, doesn't change the facts that downsizing displacement and adding a turbocharger does not result in better fuel economy numbers than doing the opposite. The Cruze 1.4T is basically bottom of the pack in fuel economy and horsepower:-

• 2012 Cruze Eco -- 1.4L Turbo (6-spd automatic) -- 26 / 39 MPG (EPA); 138 hp / 148 lb-ft
  
• 2012 Civic HF -- 1.8L NA (5-spd automatic) -- 29 / 41 MPG (EPA); 140 hp / 128 lb-ft
  
• 2012 Focus SFE -- 2.0L NA (6-spd automatic) -- 28 / 40 MPG (EPA); 160 hp / 146 lb-ft
  
• 2012 Hyundai Elantra Blue -- 1.8L NA (6-spd automatic) -- 30 / 40 MPG (EPA); 145 / 130 lb-ft
  

[Worst] [Best]

I am not making this up. Feel free to look up the numbers @ fueleconomy.gov which has all the official EPA numbers.

Contrary to popular beliefs -- downsizing displacement is an ineffective means of improving fuel economy. A more effective path lies in increasing displacement, adopting Atkinson Cycle and going to as few cylinders, as few camshafts and as few valves as you can get away with while meeting your performance and refinement objectives.

The money GM spent on the turbocharger and intercooler for the 1.4T is better spent on adding direct injection, a 2.5 liter aluminum block and an Atkinson Cycle camshaft. The Malibu's 2.5L with an Atkinson Cam if you will, which actually cost less than the 1.4T. Output will be around 140 hp / 134 lb-ft. But fuel economy will be better than the Honda, Ford and Hyundai 1.8~2.0 liter engines -- all of which beat the 1.4T. GM can do even better if they go to 3-cylinders and/or a SOHC head, but I am keeping it simple and drawing from the existing parts bin.

The new engine will look like this:-

Ecotec 2.5 FXE

Configuration: Inline-4

Operating Cycle: Atkinson-Miller Cycle

Aspiration: Naturally Aspirated

Fuel Injection: Direct Gasoline Injection

Valvetrain: DOHC-16v w/ intake & exhaust VVT

Displacement: 2457 cc (Static); 1843 cc (Effective)

Bore x Stroke: 88 x 101 mm

Compression: 15.0:1 (Static); 11.3:1 (Effective)

Power Output: 152 bhp @ 6000 rpm

Torque Output: 144 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm

Redline: 6300 rpm

Fuel Requirement: 87 Octane Unleaded Gasoline

Estimated Fuel Economy: 30 (City) / 43 (Hwy) mpg (Cruze Eco chassis w/ 6-spd Automatic)

Edited August 22, 2012 by dwightlooi

[NeonLX]

Yes. I dislike heavy cars with small displacement engines that need to have their guts revved out all the time.

Edited August 22, 2012 by NeonLX

[dwightlooi]

Yes. I dislike heavy cars with small displacement engines that need to have their guts revved out all the time.

To be fair, the 1.4T does not need to have its guts revved out all the time. It makes 148 lb-ft just below 2000 rpm. It simply isn't as efficient as similarly powerful 1.8~2.0 liter engines from the competition.

The idea here is not to make the Cruze higher performance. The idea here is that a 2.5 liter Atkinson cycle engine may be a more economical powerplant that a turbocharged 1.4L or a 1.8 liter Naturally Aspirated Otto cycle engine.

[Drew Dowdell]

There is a different engine coming to replace the 1.4... a new 1.6T

[G. David Felt]

I think a DI 2.5L 4 banger would be a hit in the Eco car.

[regfootball]

There is a different engine coming to replace the 1.4... a new 1.6T

this is exactly what is needed. more go juice and i don't think it will lose much if any mpg.

[Drew Dowdell]

MPG is actually expected to go up as the new 1.6T will be gaining direct injection and possibly another cog in the auto.

[regfootball]

sign me up, that is the perfect powertrain........

[ehaase]

There is a different engine coming to replace the 1.4... a new 1.6T

nsap on GMI says that Sonic, Equinox, and Malibu are getting the 1.6T, and the Cruze won't. I hope that's not true, but I have read nothing of Ford putting the 1.6EB in the U.S. Focus.

[Drew Dowdell]

That is.... Unlikely.

Edit: Let me amend my post. It is entirely possible that those will be the first vehicles to get the 1.6t and the Cruze gets it later. But the 1.4t will be replaced soon. It is an Iron block engine of older design with its first generation going back to 1996. They don't currently have a direct injection version of the Family-0 in production, but they've fiddled with the design enough that it is possible.

Keep in mind that the 1.6T is rumoured to have close to 200hp and lots of low end torque, so this would be a range topping engine in the Cruze rather than an Eco replacement. The 1.6T is just part of a family of engines that are coming out, so expect other displacements, including one that just happen to also be 1.4 litres, to be possible.

Edit 2: The 1.6T makes 221 ft-lb at 1700rpm. If they made it a 2.0T, that would be in VW diesel territory for torque.

[daves87rs]

I think a DI 2.5L 4 banger would be a hit in the Eco car.

+1

[regfootball]

US Fusion will get the 1.6EB but no one really knows if the Focus will get it.

[dwightlooi]

That is.... Unlikely.

Edit: Let me amend my post. It is entirely possible that those will be the first vehicles to get the 1.6t and the Cruze gets it later. But the 1.4t will be replaced soon. It is an Iron block engine of older design with its first generation going back to 1996. They don't currently have a direct injection version of the Family-0 in production, but they've fiddled with the design enough that it is possible.

Keep in mind that the 1.6T is rumoured to have close to 200hp and lots of low end torque, so this would be a range topping engine in the Cruze rather than an Eco replacement. The 1.6T is just part of a family of engines that are coming out, so expect other displacements, including one that just happen to also be 1.4 litres, to be possible.

Edit 2: The 1.6T makes 221 ft-lb at 1700rpm. If they made it a 2.0T, that would be in VW diesel territory for torque.

Again, this was never about getting more power, more torque and/or more performance. This was about delivering the a similar level of power as the 1.4T, 1.8 and 2.0 engines used by cars in this segment with the greatest level of fuel efficiency. And, why the answer may be completely the opposite of the move to reduce engine displacement and add forced induction.

If the idea is to produce the same level of power as a 1.6T with 200 hp, again a 2.5L engine with a Miller Cycle Camshaft and a turbocharger may be a more economical solution. Bigger displacement, not smaller. Lower specific output, not higher. You take a low boost, high compression 2.5T that normally makes 250~270hp drop a miller cycle camshaft on it. You end up with a more efficient 200hp engine than a 1.6T.

[Drew Dowdell]

I'm not disagreeing with your methods, I'm simply pointing out what GM is already working on.

[ponchoman49]

Would be nice to see a 2.5 liter 197 HP engine option for the top trim Cruze 2LT and LTZ models for a much needed power boost. The 1.4T is a bit lacking in the heavier larger tired trim levels.

[hyperv6]

What this is all about is more Power, more Torque, more Efficiency, less noise , less harshness and not have to redesign the entire engine to control cost.

The engine is not broke but they do need to do some updates to keep with the other new engines on the market.

In time they will have to move to a new engine and technologies but for now they need the major money in revamping the lines they have not gotten too since the Chapter 11.

[smk4565]

GM needs a 1.6T, that could get them up to 160 hp, rather than the 138 hp of the 1.4T. The 1.4T is okay for a base engine, but they need something else to offer. Especially with Hyundai having a 200 hp turbo 4, Civic has a 197 hp, Ford has the Ecoboost, etc. It is as if GM's small cars are only there for CAFE purposes so they can keep selling Silverados. Sort of what led them to trouble in the 90s.

[hyperv6]

The Cruze is getting a much larger revamp than many expect and I wouls expect to see more engines or engine changes to come.

We already know the Diesel is on the way for more MPG and I would expect more power, MPG and less weight.

WHile some expect only a new front nose on the car many Americans forget that this was an old car when we got it so the changes I expect will be greater.

Also the small cars are a help to sell more trucks but the new GM has to learn and live with the ability to compete and make money on the small car lines. The day may not be far off that they can rely on truck sales only to support them. With the middle east falling appart as it is this will effect the world oil markets and prices. We may see Euro like gas prices sooner than most thing.

Besides the Cruze is not and has never been marketed as a performance car. MPG is what people look for here and comfortable drive. Sales have proves that it works. Do we really need a SS Cruze?