# Just ordered Trifecta tune



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...thanks! we all will be curious to hear what results you achieve.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

Nice I'm curious what your AFRs will be on the base tune.


----------



## 2011lt1 (Dec 13, 2010)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> Nice I'm curious what your AFRs will be on the base tune.



I order the EZ cable and will be doing a few data log runs. 


this is my first FI car and Im excited to run the tune. one of the reason I bought the cruze was because i knew someone would make a tune to make quick power. plus i wanna run with some gti's and si's lol


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

2011lt1 said:


> I will post a review after I install and run some data logging


Cool.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

2011lt1 said:


> I order the EZ cable and will be doing a few data log runs.
> 
> 
> this is my first FI car and Im excited to run the tune. one of the reason I bought the cruze was because i knew someone would make a tune to make quick power. plus i wanna run with some gti's and si's lol



If I'm right about the Trifecta numbers then you'll definitely surprise them off the line (especially the Si lmao) but they'll both pull past and away. That's if the tune is the 198TQ/160HP I think it is. Does the Cruze have a LSD?


----------



## 2011lt1 (Dec 13, 2010)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> If I'm right about the Trifecta numbers then you'll definitely surprise them off the line (especially the Si lmao) but they'll both pull past and away. That's if the tune is the 198TQ/160HP I think it is. Does the Cruze have a LSD?



I have been running hondas for like 10 years. The si off the line will be tough cause of its short gearing. from a roll the cruze should kill it till the si gets into its power band. 

the gti will be tough cause it has a very flat even powerband but it has super long gears like all vws so off the line should the cruze should win but it will start walking me after like 3 rd gear.

I dont expect the cruze to be fast but I definitely want to surprise people with my 1.4t, 3200lbs sedan that is almost as quick as the sport compacts lol


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

2011lt1 said:


> I have been running hondas for like 10 years. The si off the line will be tough cause of its short gearing. from a roll the cruze should kill it till the si gets into its power band.
> 
> the gti will be tough cause it has a very flat even powerband but it has super long gears like all vws so off the line should the cruze should win but it will start walking me after like 3 rd gear.
> 
> I dont expect the cruze to be fast but I definitely want to surprise people with my 1.4t, 3200lbs sedan that is almost as quick as the sport compacts lol


You'll have a better chance against the Si from a dig. At a roll they will be able to start in their powerband (6K+ lol). If you run into a reflashed GTI then just wave bye bye though. Otherwise the GTI should to better at a dig than the Si will. I think a really good race would be the last gen Spec Vs, V6 Tiburon, or the Kia Forte Koup EX


----------



## Spaceme (Jan 20, 2011)

One of the reasons I decided to get the Cruze with the 1.4L turbo engine was because I knew there would be untapped power in it. I purchased the Trifecta Tune about a week and a half after getting my Cruze. I have not regretted it one bit and you won't either. In addition to the sizable increase in power, you should also notice a 1 or 2 MPG increase in gas mileage. I have seen my highway gas mileage (driving at 55 MPH) go from about 35-35 MPG to 37-38 MPG.


----------



## 2011lt1 (Dec 13, 2010)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> You'll have a better chance against the Si from a dig. At a roll they will be able to start in their powerband (6K+ lol). If you run into a reflashed GTI then just wave bye bye though. Otherwise the GTI should to better at a dig than the Si will. I think a really good race would be the last gen Spec Vs, V6 Tiburon, or the Kia Forte Koup EX



I dont know about the si from a roll. my integra ls gives a rsx type s a run from a roll, but its not very long they start walking me. a stock gti im not worried about but i rode in a flashed one and yes no chance at that lol


----------



## 2011lt1 (Dec 13, 2010)

Spaceme said:


> One of the reasons I decided to get the Cruze with the 1.4L turbo engine was because I knew there would be untapped power in it. I purchased the Trifecta Tune about a week and a half after getting my Cruze. I have not regretted it one bit and you won't either. In addition to the sizable increase in power, you should also notice a 1 or 2 MPG increase in gas mileage. I have seen my highway gas mileage (driving at 55 MPH) go from about 35-35 MPG to 37-38 MPG.




yes im excited and dont think I will be disappointed at all. might curse at it if the gas hits 5$ a gallon but it will hopefully offset with the in gain fuel economy


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

2011lt1 said:


> I dont know about the si from a roll. my integra ls gives a rsx type s a run from a roll, but its not very long they start walking me. a stock gti im not worried about but i rode in a flashed one and yes no chance at that lol


Well the type S and Si are neck n neck performance wise. Same drive train and power. The Si has an LSD where the Type S doesn't. The type S has a 90 pound curb weight advantage. So they should be the same result between the two. The Si however is the only one between the two that got into the 13's(13.9x) on slicks and stock everything else.


----------



## 2011lt1 (Dec 13, 2010)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> Well the type S and Si are neck n neck performance wise. Same drive train and power. The Si has an LSD where the Type S doesn't. The type S has a 90 pound curb weight advantage. So they should be the same result between the two. The Si however is the only one between the two that got into the 13's(13.9x) on slicks and stock everything else.



yea the new si is basically a a2 motor called the z3. but the type s did come with a lsd. the base rsx did not. i know rsx type s could hit 13 with i/h/e and hondata. didnt know a stock si could. I like the new si, the four doors are sweet. I had 03 ep3 si and it was such a disappointment after the 99/00 em1 then in 06 they come out with the best ever, was kinda salty about that. if i had a 06 si i would do a cold air box and reflash and call it a day. they sound so sweet stock


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

2011lt1 said:


> yea the new si is basically a a2 motor called the z3. but the type s did come with a lsd. the base rsx did not. i know rsx type s could hit 13 with i/h/e and hondata. didnt know a stock si could. I like the new si, the four doors are sweet. I had 03 ep3 si and it was such a disappointment after the 99/00 em1 then in 06 they come out with the best ever, was kinda salty about that. if i had a 06 si i would do a cold air box and reflash and call it a day. they sound so sweet stock


Yeah you're correct I forgot the LSD was optional on the type S. Yeah I believe all the Z variants of the K20 are DBW. I'm sure the type S can hit the same numbers it's just the guy that finally did in the FG2 or FA5, I'm sure had a ton of practice before finally hitting it. His video is on YouTube. It's really to bad that Honda is no longer producing the K20. But atleast the next Civic Si will be primed for the Frankenstein swap since it'll have the K24. I love the EM1s as well as the EP3. Their motor of choice just wasn't that great. My Si is I/H/E Tuned. Right now I'm sitting on making a decision. I want to see what GM will offer in the performance trim Cruze. And now that Honda is speeding up the pace on the factory turbo CR-Z I may wait and see what it brings to the table as well.


----------



## Zenman (Feb 13, 2011)

Spaceme said:


> One of the reasons I decided to get the Cruze with the 1.4L turbo engine was because I knew there would be untapped power in it. I purchased the Trifecta Tune about a week and a half after getting my Cruze. I have not regretted it one bit and you won't either. In addition to the sizable increase in power, you should also notice a 1 or 2 MPG increase in gas mileage. I have seen my highway gas mileage (driving at 55 MPH) go from about 35-35 MPG to 37-38 MPG.



I'm surprised your mileage improved. How about your city mileage? Is that better also? I find this hard to believe. I don't know anything about these custom tunes but I just read this on the trifecta performance web site:

"We've been busy tuning and tweaking and managed to get a gain of about 36HP and 54TQ on an otherwise completely stock vehicle. This is a 31% gain in HP and 38% gain in torque!"

How do they do this? Does is shorten the life of the engine/transmission? Wouldn't this greatly reduce the the mileage? Otherwise I'd think Chevy would have just tuned the Cruze this way to begin with. In any case, knowing there are these ways to improve the hp/torque makes me feel even better about picking up a Cruze this week.


----------



## Zenman (Feb 13, 2011)

Nevermind, I just read the other thread about tunes. I'm disappointed to learn that the tune requires 91 octane fuel. Now I can understand how the fuel economy can improve even with the modification.


----------



## Bossy70 (Feb 25, 2011)

Please update us when you have results/feedback. I just picked up my 2011 LTZ RS yesterday and am very interested in this tune!


----------



## VictoryRed08 (Feb 16, 2011)

Zenman said:


> Nevermind, I just read the other thread about tunes. I'm disappointed to learn that the tune requires 91 octane fuel. Now I can understand how the fuel economy can improve even with the modification.


Vince will can tune it to 87 Octane as well, no confirmed numbers or gains with 87 octane as of yet though.


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

There is little to no point in tuning and keeping 87. In order to turn up the boost you need to supply higher octane fuel to prevent detonation.

You'll get some features like the TCM tuning (quicker shifts + sport mode) but you won't make very much more power as far as I know


----------



## VictoryRed08 (Feb 16, 2011)

shawn672 said:


> There is little to no point in tuning and keeping 87. In order to turn up the boost you need to supply higher octane fuel to prevent detonation.
> 
> You'll get some features like the TCM tuning (quicker shifts + sport mode) but you won't make very much more power as far as I know


When I emailed Vince a while ago he had said that you'd probably notice a difference over stock but you shouldn't expect anywhere near the gains of tuning to 91 octane.


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

VictoryRed08 said:


> When I emailed Vince a while ago he had said that you'd probably notice a difference over stock but you shouldn't expect anywhere near the gains of tuning to 91 octane.


Yeah, he will obviously add all the new features and tighter shifts but as he said, don't expect the same gains. I can't see the turbo being raised more then 2-3psi on 87 but he's the expert as far as I'm concerned. 

For the extra few dollars a week, just use 91...
IMO the car runs better with 89 on the stock tune anyways


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

I wonder what the mileage gained on the tune with 91 is vs a small scale tune on 87? I bet the mileage gained on Vince's tune on 91 will save money in the long run compared to an 87 option.


----------



## VictoryRed08 (Feb 16, 2011)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> I wonder what the mileage gained on the tune with 91 is vs a small scale tune on 87? I bet the mileage gained on Vince's tune on 91 will save money in the long run compared to an 87 option.


We should get an accurate mpg on the Cruze before and after and crunch the numbers.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

Zenman said:


> I'm disappointed to learn that the tune requires 91 octane fuel.


What would you expect from a turbocharged motor with higher boost pressure? Lower octane?


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

montgom626 said:


> What would you expect from a turbocharged motor with higher boost pressure? Lower octane?


But detonation is fun


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...here's a "just for giggles" thought: wonder just how much _more_ HP could be possible using the 'old' military *AVGAS* with *115/145* octane?


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...here's a "just for giggles" thought: wonder just how much _more_ HP could be possible using the 'old' military *AVGAS* with *115/145* octane?



Hmm, has lead? If it was lead free, suspect so much more power that crank would be ruined!!!


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...here's a "just for giggles" thought: wonder just how much _more_ HP could be possible using the 'old' military *AVGAS* with *115/145* octane?


Now, how about water/methanol injection?


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

montgom626 said:


> Now, how about water/methanol injection?


...only on "take-off" (stoplights) and "combat" (street racing) power settings (wink,wink)!

...yep, *115/145 AVGAS* contained LOTS of _tetraethyl_ lead!


----------



## sedanman (Dec 10, 2010)

If you're really seeking so much more power out of this car I question whether you should have bought this car rather than another vehicle instead. I for one enjoy this car's fuel economy and see no need for more power right now.


----------



## 2011lt1 (Dec 13, 2010)

*Trifecta aaaaaaaaaaaaaa++++++++++*

ok so tune is installed. Let me tell you the car is a different monster. is it a race car no. Will it bust the tires free in sport mood with traction control off yes!

the tune completely changed the car around. I actually had him change the sport mood for the trans to the stock trans setting because the sport mood he wrote was a little to aggressive for my liking. the sport mood with the stock shift points is perfect for the new power band. it really pulls from like a 30 mph roll.

in eco mood coming home from work in 60 mph traffic i was hitting 34 mpgs. right now im hanging in the mid 29s, but I have bee running it kinda hard because the torque is awesome. 

this is how chevy should have tuned the car from the factory, but since they wanted to have it run on 87 its was weak. even before the tune I ran 2 tanks of 92 and it ran better. so my conclusion is every one is right 87 sucks for a turbo weather its tuned for or not. 

just got her back from a nice window tint job and should be getting wheels soon then Im posting pics.


anyone who is in there air about the tune. get it it will make the cruze everything it is not right now. which isn't much


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

sedanman said:


> If you're really seeking so much more power out of this car I question whether you should have bought this car rather than another vehicle instead. I for one enjoy this car's fuel economy and see no need for more power right now.


The re-tune improves fuel mileage as well.


----------



## gfxdave99 (Feb 26, 2011)

Has anybody done a tune on an eco? 

I dismissed the whole idea of tuning my car until i read over and over that you get more HP AND the same or better eco.


----------



## 2011lt1 (Dec 13, 2010)

gfxdave99 said:


> Has anybody done a tune on an eco?
> 
> I dismissed the whole idea of tuning my car until i read over and over that you get more HP AND the same or better eco.




so far everything has gone up, power and mpgs. this car was seriously detuned from factory in order to run 87 which resulted in sacrificed power and mpgs


----------



## TSURacing (Jan 1, 2011)

2011lt1 said:


> so far everything has gone up, power and mpgs. this car was seriously detuned from factory in order to run 87 which resulted in sacrificed power and mpgs


I would love to see the cost-benefit analysis on the tune. In power, it is a huge value for hp/$.
The other side of it is the fuel economy gain vs the added cost of premium fuel. I suspect it would probably come out in the wash, but it would be very interesting to see if the tune would actually pay for itself over time just based on fuel economy alone.
I would like to have about 2 calendar years worth of data to account for all seasons. 2011lt1, do you think you could have that analysis to us by Friday  - Sounds like something my old boss would say.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...here's a "just for giggles" thought: wonder just how much _more_ HP could be possible using the 'old' military *AVGAS* with *115/145* octane?


Given the large increase in TQ and the relatively smaller increase in HP offered by tuning the otherwise stock 1.4T, I'd say that even on 91 octane fuel the OEM turbo is being maxxed out (barring small improvements from improving the engine's intake and exhaust plumbing).

To see substancial gains over what Trifecta (or anyone for that matter) is or will be getting with a simple tune, a turbocharger upgrade will be necessary.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

TSURacing said:


> I would love to see the cost-benefit analysis on the tune. In power, it is a huge value for hp/$.
> The other side of it is the fuel economy gain vs the added cost of premium fuel. I suspect it would probably come out in the wash, but it would be very interesting to see if the tune would actually pay for itself over time just based on fuel economy alone.
> I would like to have about 2 calendar years worth of data to account for all seasons. 2011lt1, do you think you could have that analysis to us by Friday  - Sounds like something my old boss would say.


Are we basing our reading on the cost of premium fuel now or adjusting for expected prices a year from now? i.e. $ARM.99 Also are we going to just assume the average of 10K miles per year? I'm sure in two years it should be close to paying for itself. They are about $350. I think we would need about 6 tanks worth of data 3 from tune and 3 from non-tuned using the 1 click method. Also we are at the point in the year when gas blends start to improve so it wont be the most acurate. Especially if we do 6 tanks worth of fill ups split between the two.


----------



## yamahabilly325 (Mar 23, 2011)

Why the Trifecta tune over the JET performance tune; both available for the Cruze? Has anyone had the chance to experience both? Or is anyone familiar with both to decipher the two apart from one another?


----------



## rlhammon (Apr 7, 2011)

TSURacing said:


> I would love to see the cost-benefit analysis on the tune. In power, it is a huge value for hp/$.
> The other side of it is the fuel economy gain vs the added cost of premium fuel. I suspect it would probably come out in the wash, but it would be very interesting to see if the tune would actually pay for itself over time just based on fuel economy alone.
> I would like to have about 2 calendar years worth of data to account for all seasons. 2011lt1, do you think you could have that analysis to us by Friday  - Sounds like something my old boss would say.


I might be up for this...

I'm a Trifecta Tune dealer, and I am picking up my ECO this weekend. I'd have to run a few tanks with 87 octane to get a baseline, then tune the car and run a few tanks with 91 to get a comparison.

Only problem is it's going to cost me $$ for the tune, even with a discount as being a dealer. If the tune doesn't pan out as being worth the cost... well, you all will be better off for it! 

I use the car to commute to work, it's a long commute, and very much the same every day (no real traffic, almost all highway, same route every day... very boring!). So differences day to day are minimal, minus that of weather and other uncontrollable items. I could fill up at the same station (usually do) every time as well. I'm already set up to track my fuel economy with Fuelly.com (in my signature)... so it wouldn't be hard to track it really. Just have to spend the money on the tune.


----------



## Big Tom (Mar 8, 2011)

rlhammon said:


> I might be up for this...
> 
> I'm a Trifecta Tune dealer, and I am picking up my ECO this weekend. I'd have to run a few tanks with 87 octane to get a baseline, then tune the car and run a few tanks with 91 to get a comparison.


Thanks for doing this. Hope it helps sell more product for you. I am really interested in this.


----------



## rlhammon (Apr 7, 2011)

Big Tom said:


> Thanks for doing this. Hope it helps sell more product for you. I am really interested in this.


I said I *might* be up for this... I have to see how much $$ I have to drop to find out, and I'll talk to Vince a bit about it prior to doing anything. He'll have an idea on what we'll see from it based on the other tuned Cruze's he's sent code out for.

I'd like to think there is an advantage here jumping to 91 octane w/ tune vs. 87 and stock. I know on my other turbo car (2.0 L LNF engine) I never saw that to be the case, but then again I drive that one like it was stolen, and never drove it like I will the Cruze.

And as far as selling anything... well, I'm a dealer only because my other car I get tunes for it a lot due to the racing I do. It was the cheapest way for me to go. I have yet to sell a single tune, and while I'm certainly more than willing to help someone tune their car if they are in my area, I'm not looking to make selling tunes a personal profit center. I simply don't have the time to do anything like that.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...to paraphrase Cuba Gooding Jr's quote in the movie "Berry McGuire": _"...show *us* the *DATA*..." (ha,ha)._

...I'm sure all would like to hear what the _"...numbers are..."_


----------



## Big Tom (Mar 8, 2011)

All I want is a trans that shifts when I move tlhe lever and 36 MPG at a steady 70 MPH


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...36 mpg @ 70 mph? 

...in an *Eco* = maybe; in _any other_ model = probably not


----------



## fenix (Mar 30, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...36 mpg @ 70 mph?
> 
> ...in an *Eco* = maybe; in _any other_ model = probably not


i have a 1lt ad was getting 39 at 70 for 50 miles


----------



## fenix (Mar 30, 2011)

i was thinking shoving a built up 350 in it lol i miss my v8


----------



## Skilz10179 (Mar 22, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...36 mpg @ 70 mph?
> 
> ...in an *Eco* = maybe; in _any other_ model = probably not


Why wouldn't you see 36mpg hwy in a non-Eco? Isn't that exactly what they are rated at?


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...I'll re-iterate it again:

_"...the *A6* models struggle to get close to their EPA ratings; the *M6* models seem to easily exceed their EPA ratings."_

...the A6 models only seem to approach their EPA ratings at about 55-60 MPH, drive any faster and thier MPG-numbers fall off like rocks!

...and the DIC numbers are typically too optimistic...and 'way off' right after being reset.


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

Yeah there's no way my 2lt gets above 30mpg at 70mph lol, even with cruise control

On a side note, my tune is being applied April 24th


----------



## Big Tom (Mar 8, 2011)

If the tune would get 2 mpg more I would think about doing it. I'm an old man and the power is not an issue for me.


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

Big Tom said:


> If the tune would get 2 mpg more I would think about doing it. I'm an old man and the power is not an issue for me.


Talk to Vince, I'm sure he can put together an "eco-friendly" tune. Between the optimizations and transmission fixes, I'm sure you'll gain 1-2mpg (asumming you don't raise the boost output)


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

Big Tom said:


> I'm an old man and the power is not an issue for me.


...welcome to the "*MPG-vs.-HP Club*" (  ).

<---that 6BBL (3 x 2300 Holley 2-barrels) setup got about 12 MPG, and the very best was 16.1 MPG...one time! But, it also produced close to 1HP per CID, ie: factory rating: 290HP (ha,ha), but NHRA rating: 320-330HP.


----------



## Big Tom (Mar 8, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...welcome to the "*MPG-vs.-HP Club*" (  ).
> 
> <---that 6BBL (3 x 2300 Holley 2-barrels) setup got about 12 MPG, and the very best was 16.1 MPG...one time! But, it also produced close to 1HP per CID (factory rated at 290HP (ha,ha) , but NHRA rated at 320-330HP).


My 340 with a Thermo-quad, 4 speed with 3.55 rear got 21 on a trip to St Louis one time at 55 mph. Wish I still had that car.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

Big Tom said:


> Wish I still had that car.


...exactly what I keep saying to myself (ha,ha). 330 HP in a 3200 lb car made for some "exciting" driving.


----------



## fenix (Mar 30, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...welcome to the "*MPG-vs.-HP Club*" (  ).
> 
> <---that 6BBL (3 x 2300 Holley 2-barrels) setup got about 12 MPG, and the very best was 16.1 MPG...one time! But, it also produced close to 1HP per CID, ie: factory rating: 290HP (ha,ha), but NHRA rating: 320-330HP.


i just joined that club i had a avalanche 2500 that had a 496 in it and the sound of a big block makes my blood race and i think could probably cure cancer lol


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...*DRAG RACERS' AXOM*: _"...there's no *replacement* for *displacement*!"_


----------



## fenix (Mar 30, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...*DRAG RACERS' AXOM*: _"...there's no *replacement* for *displacement*!"_


i almost had that tattooed on my arm!!!!


----------



## fenix (Mar 30, 2011)

There's an old saying we remember that goes something like, "Horsepower sells cars, but torque wins races." Everyone brags about their humongous horsepower numbers, but when it comes to getting 3,000-lbs or more of steel moving in quick fashion then torque is the answer. Low-end grunt is what makes a street car fun. It's that push your eyeballs back into their sockets and wear a stupid grin on your face kind of deal. A racecar lives its life in the upper rpm, but a streetcar exists on the lower end where objects at rest want to stay put. To get a streetcar from zero to fast in a hurry you need torque and the quickest way to Torquesville is displacement


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...wandering back to the original subject: wonder what MPG benefits the *Trifecta Tune* can produce for those of us in the "*MPG vs. HP Club*" (wink,wink)?


----------



## fenix (Mar 30, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...wandering back to the original subject: wonder what MPG benefits the *Trifecta Tune* can produce for those of us in the "*MPG vs. HP Club*" (wink,wink)?


yeah im wondering 0-60 times


----------



## VictoryRed08 (Feb 16, 2011)

fenix said:


> yeah im wondering 0-60 times


From what I've heard from Vince, the tune shaves 1-1.5 seconds off the 0-60. Pushing it into stock cobalt SS 2.4L N/A territory. Which is pretty huge for the amount of money it costs.


----------



## Skilz10179 (Mar 22, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...I'll re-iterate it again:
> 
> _"...the *A6* models struggle to get close to their EPA ratings; the *M6* models seem to easily exceed their EPA ratings."_
> 
> ...


Yet another reason why automatic transmissions suck...

I wonder if any of the mgp gains from this tune are from engine tuning or if they are just from trans tuning.


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

mostly from trans i'd imagine. i dont think anyone has gotten an "Eco" tune yet, they've all been HP tunes


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

Skilz10179 said:


> Yet another reason why automatic transmissions suck...
> 
> I wonder if any of the mgp gains from this tune are from engine tuning or if they are just from trans tuning.


There is a saying I hear often at the drag strip...

"Automatics win races. 6 speeds impress high schoolers"

Wonder if there's any reasons for that...


----------



## Skilz10179 (Mar 22, 2011)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> There is a saying I hear often at the drag strip...
> 
> "Automatics win races. 6 speeds impress high schoolers"
> 
> Wonder if there's any reasons for that...


Automatics are much better for drag racing once you make a car fast. At the level we're at with our Cruzes, a manual will rape an auto in a race.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...I kinda doubt the superiority of this A6 over any manual transmission as they _currently_ (not)work (sarcasm intended).

...but, yes, automatics are typically better due to consistency of shift points and shifting times.


----------



## 2011lt1 (Dec 13, 2010)

I had gains with the tune. but like shawn said it was from the trans tune. however i didn't like the laziness of the trans with the tune. so i uploaded the stock trans tune and its much better. plus with the extra torque the stock trans tune feels a lot better. the mpg gains have stayed about the same as stock besides the premium gas. but when you nail it what a difference. the motor even sounds better.


Vince just wrote some updates. said he added a little more boost up top which it needed it and smoothed out the throttle. he just sent the file so after i uploaded it ill let you know. 


anyone on the fence about this tune. it is well worth the money. its not a race car, but definitely makes DD in the cruze much more pleasant. its like have a torquey v6 with small displacement mpgs. plus vince's customer service could might just be the best I have ever experienced


----------



## 2011lt1 (Dec 13, 2010)

Skilz10179 said:


> Automatics are much better for drag racing once you make a car fast. At the level we're at with our Cruzes, a manual will rape an auto in a race.




hes right. driven manuals my whole life. the cruze with a tune and 6 speed would give a stock wrx a run for its money. im pissed i didnt wait for the eco to come out.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

^ I'm waiting for the Eco - I won't buy a small car with an automatic!


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

2011lt1 said:


> hes right. driven manuals my whole life. the cruze with a tune and 6 speed would give a stock wrx a run for its money. im pissed i didnt wait for the eco to come out.


Don't know if I agree with the WRX part but yes a retuned Cruze with a manual should be plenty of fun.


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

lol @ running a wrx... maybe from 0-20 but he'd walk all over us after that, even with the new tune. lets chase something more in the high 14 second range... (guesstimating)


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...to get into the high 14's (ie: 14.8 sec, for example) you're gonna need a vehicle matching these numbers:

*_WT = 3200 lbs*
*_HP = _195 hp*
*_ET = 14.8 sec*
*MPH = 91.2 mph*

...per the basic ET & MPH equations:

*MPH = 232*(WT/HP)^(1/3)*
*ET = 5.82*(HP/WT)^(1/3)*


----------



## fenix (Mar 30, 2011)

Blue Angel said:


> ^ I'm waiting for the Eco - I won't buy a small car with an automatic!


i wanted the 6 speed but my fiancée refuses to learn to drive one and she drives it more then me


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...to get into the high 14's (ie: 14.8 sec, for example) you're gonna need a vehicle matching these numbers:
> 
> *_WT = 3200 lbs*
> *_HP = _195 hp*
> ...


So keeping the 3200lbs and fill in 170hp/200ftlb should give us a 15.0sec car on paper?

(wait... does your equation factor torque into it or just power?)


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...those equations (called Constant Power Equations) are strickly ratios of *WEIGHT*-and-*POWER* and their inverse.

...for more information see this thread on Jeff Lucius's STEALTH316 website:

http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-hp-et-mph.htm

...you'll recognize my name.


----------



## CRUISE-CRUZE (Nov 8, 2010)

Keep in mind, technically, adding more HP may get you to the point where are not going to be able to put them to the ground! Without adding the friction coefficient, could lead you to spin and burn the tires to the asphalt without getting the performance you look for.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...currently, about 200-250 bhp is the *limit* for common FWD vehicles.

...so, there's LOT's of "growth" room left for the Cruze.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

CRUISE-CRUZE said:


> Keep in mind, technically, adding more HP may get you to the point where are not going to be able to put them to the ground! Without adding the friction coefficient, could lead you to spin and burn the tires to the asphalt without getting the performance you look for.


That's why I live Honda's non of that pesky torque to break traction lol


----------



## gfxdave99 (Feb 26, 2011)

Has anybody put a tune on an eco yet?


----------



## 2011lt1 (Dec 13, 2010)

shawn672 said:


> lol @ running a wrx... maybe from 0-20 but he'd walk all over us after that, even with the new tune. lets chase something more in the high 14 second range... (guesstimating)




I have ridden in a stock auto wrxx. and the cruze with a tune is just as responsive if not more. 


the cruze on paper is making wrx torque. this new update runs a little more boost up top some hp Numbers went up slightly. it feels like he moved the whole power band further up the rpm range too all the wrx has is awd platform over the cruze. there not much difference in weight..

from a roll close race. out the hole awd always wins but not a total slaughter


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

The WRX may have just slightly more tq than a re flashed Cruze but it also carries that slightly higher tq longer in the powerband for 100 more ponies at the same weight. I'm sorry but you are aiming to high with the WRX. They've been known to hit high 13's stock. You are going to be lucky to see even 14s in a reflashed Cruze. I'm going to say mid to low 15s at best. I honestly don't expect to see those numbers except out of seasoned drivers.


----------



## 2011lt1 (Dec 13, 2010)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> The WRX may have just slightly more tq than a re flashed Cruze but it also carries that slightly higher tq longer in the powerband for 100 more ponies at the same weight. I'm sorry but you are aiming to high with the WRX. They've been known to hit high 13's stock. You are going to be lucky to see even 14s in a reflashed Cruze. I'm going to say mid to low 15s at best. I honestly don't expect to see those numbers except out of seasoned drivers.




im not referring to the new wrx. thats a re-badged legacy wagon. im referring to the 1st gen. a stock wrx is more like 50 hp over a tuned cruze. thats why i said from a roll maybe. 

stock wrx are not running 13 stock, no way, not with the best driver in the world. a tune would be close to 13 and that would be on the driver. the 1st gen wrx stock platform was nice, but its not that great. its the potential the platform has that makes it great


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

gfxdave99 said:


> Has anybody put a tune on an eco yet?


...so far, no one has mentioned doing so here; but, I certainly would like to see the before/after torque/hp plots when somebody does have it done!!!

...and, _some_ GM data shows the *manual* Eco 1.4LT engine is tuned _slightly_ differently than the *automatic* Eco 1.4LT engine:

1.4LT *auto*: 148 lb-ft @ *1850*-4900 rpm
1.4LT *man.*: 148 lb-ft @ *2500*-xxxx rpm


----------



## rlhammon (Apr 7, 2011)

gfxdave99 said:


> Has anybody put a tune on an eco yet?


I'm looking into doing just that. Just picked up the ECO this weekend, so I'm going to drive it a few weeks to get a good baseline (will be at 500 miles by Monday). Not sure how many miles folks needed before seeing that the engine was broke in and mileage settled, but I'll be around 1,000 by the end f the week.

The mileage I put a week should be an indication of why I got the ECO.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...and, _some_ GM data shows the *manual* Eco 1.4LT engine is tuned _slightly_ differently than the *automatic* Eco 1.4LT engine:
> 
> 1.4LT *auto*: 148 lb-ft @ *1850*-4900 rpm
> 1.4LT *man.*: 148 lb-ft @ *2500*-xxxx rpm


This has me wondering also... why would GM reduce the low RPM torque of the manual transmission variant? Maybe to help people who are not good at driving a manual get going from a stop easier? 

I think I figured out the cruising RPM @ 60MPH for the Eco was around 1800 RPM, so that extra torque sure would come in handy when cruising along with the cruise control set... it would reduce the need to downshift going up inclines.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

rlhammon said:


> ...I'll be around 1,000 by the end f the week.
> 
> The mileage I put a week should be an indication of why I got the ECO.


Keep us updated with your mileage and any progress relating to the tune!

I would think by 1000-2000 miles the engine would be getting "broken in" and you could start pushing it a bit - tun'er up and lets see what happens!


----------



## WHITECO (Mar 31, 2011)

Blue Angel said:


> This has me wondering also... why would GM reduce the low RPM torque of the manual transmission variant? Maybe to help people who are not good at driving a manual get going from a stop easier?
> 
> I think I figured out the cruising RPM @ 60MPH for the Eco was around 1800 RPM, so that extra torque sure would come in handy when cruising along with the cruise control set... it would reduce the need to downshift going up inclines.


I found that my Eco didn't really need to shift going up inclines with the cruise on...I was actually surprised with this as I fully expected to have to get into 4th gear to go up hills


----------



## integman (May 2, 2011)

does the tune works with the 1.8 cruze?


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

The 1.8L isn't supported yet according to their website.


----------



## boats4life (May 28, 2011)

I'm waiting for my exhaust before I do the tune... HURRY UP MAGNAFLOW! (sorry, semi-off topic)


----------



## CHEVYCRUZE RS (Mar 29, 2011)

Cant wait to hear the sound of those Magnaflows on the *c r u *_Z _*e. *


----------



## ManthaBurner (Jul 4, 2011)

*Buy the mod!*

Installed my mod in my 6MT 1.4l about a week ago. Amazing! Felt power instantly and power extended past 5k rpm and i also saw mpg increases when driving normally. Maybe running 92 octane helps a little but hwy mpg is up between 10-20%. I know that sounds a little much but under normal highway conditions before mod was 46-50 mpg and after.... 51-57.


----------



## Skilz10179 (Mar 22, 2011)

ManthaBurner said:


> Installed my mod in my 6MT 1.4l about a week ago. Amazing! Felt power instantly and power extended past 5k rpm and i also saw mpg increases when driving normally. Maybe running 92 octane helps a little but hwy mpg is up between 10-20%. I know that sounds a little much but under normal highway conditions before mod was 46-50 mpg and after.... 51-57.


Nice to hear that finally from someone with a manual!


----------



## limited360 (May 6, 2011)

Skilz10179 said:


> Nice to hear that finally from someone with a manual!


yeah I have been on the fence with my manual eco...

I am gonna pull the trigger I think now...


----------



## ManthaBurner (Jul 4, 2011)

limited360 said:


> yeah I have been on the fence with my manual eco...
> 
> I am gonna pull the trigger I think now...


I think the $565 total fee is easily paid for with the long term enjoyment that can be had with the mod. (mod, cable, normal shipping) I say that and I haven't even done any datalogs or post-install work with Vince!
I still drive about the same as I did before the mod but when you want that extra fun it is definitely there! I am planning on doing some datalogs soon, maybe even today and will see what Vince says are the actual gains. I didn't do a baseline but I assume it will be close to what Vince had with the AT. With less parasitic loss through the transmission the gains should be higher.... or so I am told. Either way, dropping into 3rd gear on the highway and having very nice acceleration is something new to the Cruze. Me Likey!


----------



## CHEVYCRUZE RS (Mar 29, 2011)

So tempted......


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

ManthaBurner said:


> I think the $565 total fee is easily paid for with the long term enjoyment that can be had with the mod. (mod, cable, normal shipping) I say that and I haven't even done any datalogs or post-install work with Vince!
> I still drive about the same as I did before the mod but when you want that extra fun it is definitely there! I am planning on doing some datalogs soon, maybe even today and will see what Vince says are the actual gains. I didn't do a baseline but I assume it will be close to what Vince had with the AT. With less parasitic loss through the transmission the gains should be higher.... or so I am told. Either way, dropping into 3rd gear on the highway and having very nice acceleration is something new to the Cruze. Me Likey!


I knew you'd be happy. No one will be disappointed by the reflash. Its the single best mod everyone should get - even if you don't plan on going further with modding.

btw I also saw an increase in fuel economy but I was using 89 before the flash, not 87. So less of a jump to premium...


----------



## cruzeman (Mar 13, 2011)

I was in the middle of possibly buying hemanks radio and now I'm on the fence whether to get tune instead....ughhhh


----------



## limited360 (May 6, 2011)

I am going tuned instead of radio...


----------



## limited360 (May 6, 2011)

Tune and cable ordered... Excited to check it out!


----------



## Spiffster (Jul 18, 2011)

ManthaBurner said:


> Installed my mod in my 6MT 1.4l about a week ago. Amazing! Felt power instantly and power extended past 5k rpm and i also saw mpg increases when driving normally. Maybe running 92 octane helps a little but hwy mpg is up between 10-20%. I know that sounds a little much but under normal highway conditions before mod was 46-50 mpg and after.... 51-57.


51 - 57MPG! Man that is just insane! Is this a result of the increased boost or is the car running leaner? I have a 2012 ECO on order... 50+ is just insane. Thats Prius figures without all that Prius ugly and Prius slow!


----------



## Crewz (Jul 12, 2011)

Spiffster said:


> 51 - 57MPG! Man that is just insane! Is this a result of the increased boost or is the car running leaner? I have a 2012 ECO on order... 50+ is just insane. Thats Prius figures without all that Prius ugly and Prius slow!


I believe it has to do with leaner conditions and the car running cooler with the tune making it more efficient.


----------



## limited360 (May 6, 2011)

Cooler engine is worse for fuel economy FYI


----------



## CHEVYCRUZE RS (Mar 29, 2011)

tune over radio! haha


----------



## ManthaBurner (Jul 4, 2011)

To be honest I think that it is a few factors helping out with my increased MPG. You have to take into effect that I went from 87 octane to 92 for one. Then with the mod, I am assuming because the turbo isn't being held back, it is able to spool higher than it normally would at highway cruZeing speeds.

FYI I don't hypermile on the highway at all. CruiZe control is where its at. usually 71-73 mph.


----------



## wperdigon (Jul 24, 2011)

2011lt1 said:


> I have been running hondas for like 10 years. The si off the line will be tough cause of its short gearing. from a roll the cruze should kill it till the si gets into its power band.
> 
> the gti will be tough cause it has a very flat even powerband but it has super long gears like all vws so off the line should the cruze should win but it will start walking me after like 3 rd gear.
> 
> I dont expect the cruze to be fast but I definitely want to surprise people with my 1.4t, 3200lbs sedan that is almost as quick as the sport compacts lol


I hear ya there, but nothing wrong with taking it easy as well =)


----------



## wperdigon (Jul 24, 2011)

montgom626 said:


> What would you expect from a turbocharged motor with higher boost pressure? Lower octane?


believe it or not, some people yet to understand the concept of power and it's relation to better gas....


----------



## wperdigon (Jul 24, 2011)

2011lt1 said:


> ok so tune is installed. Let me tell you the car is a different monster. is it a race car no. Will it bust the tires free in sport mood with traction control off yes!
> 
> the tune completely changed the car around. I actually had him change the sport mood for the trans to the stock trans setting because the sport mood he wrote was a little to aggressive for my liking. the sport mood with the stock shift points is perfect for the new power band. it really pulls from like a 30 mph roll.
> 
> ...


that's pretty awesome. I am on the fence about doing any engine modifications/reflashing. I see you in philly burbs. Me to in Delco and I just picked up an LTZ RS model.


----------



## wperdigon (Jul 24, 2011)

Blue Angel said:


> Given the large increase in TQ and the relatively smaller increase in HP offered by tuning the otherwise stock 1.4T, I'd say that even on 91 octane fuel the OEM turbo is being maxxed out (barring small improvements from improving the engine's intake and exhaust plumbing).
> 
> To see substancial gains over what Trifecta (or anyone for that matter) is or will be getting with a simple tune, a turbocharger upgrade will be necessary.


I was sorta wondering the same thing. Considering heat playing a major role, has anyone considered a better intercooler for this?


----------



## 2011lt1 (Dec 13, 2010)

with the new up date on the tune. I wouldn't trade this car for anything except maybe the power train and the eco drive line, in the sonics chassis, now that would be a hot hatch!


----------



## 2011lt1 (Dec 13, 2010)

wperdigon said:


> I was sorta wondering the same thing. Considering heat playing a major role, has anyone considered a better intercooler for this?




I pulled the silencer out of the factory intake and it definitely pulls harder through the rpm range. not sure if more power was made but the response of the turbo was increased. it feels like peak torque hits earlier and the top side doesn't fall on its face as much. b

I didn't mess with a after market intake because I didn't want any tuning issues because they don't have the straighters for the maf. 


I/e will help some but not hugh gains like on a wrx or evo


----------



## Reckless (Mar 15, 2011)

wperdigon said:


> I was sorta wondering the same thing. Considering heat playing a major role, has anyone considered a better intercooler for this?


 
ZZP said they were getting 70 degree (F) heatsoak with one pull on the dyno.... they made an i/c and pipe replacement and were getting nearly no heatsoak (they reported only 1 degree change) 

it's definately peaked my interest but at over $1K by the time it gets here.. and I still gotta install it ... dunno how fast that's gonna happen


----------



## TGreyCruze (Feb 21, 2011)

I had a Injen Intake and didnt really notice any power increase but i didnt have the tune on my car, just the intake. Ive gone back to just a drop in filter with the silencer removed. The intake was wayyy too loud for normal driving atleast for me. As we speak i can sometimes hear the BOV and very little spool which is just perfect going to a high flow filter and silencer removed only. I dont know installing the tune from trifecta will make the turbo sound louder or not. Have you noticed your turbo spooling louder or BOV sound is more noticable after the tune?. Im not sure how it will effect sound for daily driving. 





2011lt1 said:


> I pulled the silencer out of the factory intake and it definitely pulls harder through the rpm range. not sure if more power was made but the response of the turbo was increased. it feels like peak torque hits earlier and the top side doesn't fall on its face as much. b
> 
> I didn't mess with a after market intake because I didn't want any tuning issues because they don't have the straighters for the maf.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2011lt1 (Dec 13, 2010)

TGreyCruze said:


> I had a Injen Intake and didnt really notice any power increase but i didnt have the tune on my car, just the intake. Ive gone back to just a drop in filter with the silencer removed. The intake was wayyy too loud for normal driving atleast for me. As we speak i can sometimes hear the BOV and very little spool which is just perfect going to a high flow filter and silencer removed only. I dont know installing the tune from trifecta will make the turbo sound louder or not. Have you noticed your turbo spooling louder or BOV sound is more noticable after the tune?. Im not sure how it will effect sound for daily driving.





it did get louder. not boost so much, just a little more bark


----------



## jrwgti (Nov 20, 2011)

Zenman said:


> Nevermind, I just read the other thread about tunes. I'm disappointed to learn that the tune requires 91 octane fuel. Now I can understand how the fuel economy can improve even with the modification.



I understand that higher octane improves fuel economy and horsepower but It is not readily available in the rural area in which i live. So I may think twice about this tune.


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

jrwgti said:


> I understand that higher octane improves fuel economy and horsepower but It is not readily available in the rural area in which i live. So I may think twice about this tune.


You can't get 91/93? I've never been at a gas station that only had 89 and 87...


----------



## Skilz10179 (Mar 22, 2011)

shawn672 said:


> You can't get 91/93? I've never been at a gas station that only had 89 and 87...


I was just about to say the same thing, I've never seen a gas station that didn't offer premium fuel. Every gas station in my area has at least 93 octane, some even have 94 octane. 

BTW, the higher octane isn't what gets you better fuel economy, its what allows higher boost levels without detonation which is how the tune increases power.


----------

