# Turbo thoughts...



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

So i have a 1.8 liter cruze. Am i correct in thinking that the 1.4 is just a de-stroked 1.8? or vice versa( the 1.8 is a stroked 1.4) If i am correct then can i assume that the stock 1.4 turbo setup would bolt right up to the 1.8 liter?


----------



## boats4life (May 28, 2011)

No, it's a different block... The layout is entirely different and it would be kinda awkward. The exhaust manifold bolt pattern may or may not be the same, but there's still the new intake and intercooler design that would need to be made. When we finally meet up, we'll compare and contrast our engine bays, lol.


----------



## InsaneSpeed (May 7, 2011)

The 1.4L is not a destroked version of the 1.8L, it is a version of the Vauxhall/Opel 1.6L or 1.8L. The Exhaust manifold pattern is the same between them, if your really wanting to go turbo on your 1.8L, find a turbo off a Vauxhall/Opel ASTRA 1.6L, it looks about the same as the 1.4L turbo, a little bigger, has the correct exhaust manifold pattern, and you could then make the 1.4L Intake work as it bolts up in the same position. This would be an intermediate swap, and if you can get the down pipe from the 1.6L, you would have a great start to your exhaust and probably with some modifications using the 1.4L intercooler parts, MAP sensor and the solenoids following the GM diagrams, you could probably create a very factory looking conversion and could then be tuned by Trifecta, he would really have to work at it but could possibly make it run all off the computer without the need for aftermarket controllers. If you need any help, just ask, I can help you find the parts needed and talk to Trifecta to see if he would want to tackle this with you or us.
Thanks,
Steve
Insane Speed Motorsports


----------



## CHEVYCRUZE RS (Mar 29, 2011)

Wow that sounds exhilarating lol! I'll keep you in touch Steve, thanks!


----------



## boats4life (May 28, 2011)

As usual, Steve will take care of everything, lol.


----------



## A&J Cruzin (Aug 8, 2011)

can the 1.8 handle the forced air?...would you have to lower the compression?..is the motor built well enough for it?...why did you save money on the non turbo...then spend a ton on a turbo set up??...


----------



## InsaneSpeed (May 7, 2011)

The 1.8L is a stout motor, it should easily handle 10 to 15 lbs. of boost all day, maybe more if running e85 or Meth injection. The 1.8L has the potential to make way more power than the 1.4L, also, the 1.6L guys over seas are getting great results out of them.
Thanks,
Steve


----------



## InsaneSpeed (May 7, 2011)

boats4life said:


> As usual, Steve will take care of everything, lol.


Thanks Boats, I try.
Later,
Steve


----------



## A&J Cruzin (Aug 8, 2011)

ahh...good thing to know..usually they make the motors different.depending if they are going to have forced air or not...


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

And thank you steve for all the insight, i will definitely be looking into all this. Sucks that it couldn't be the way i assumes it. Would be much easier. And also thank you for answering AJ Cruzin's question. I have a few friends back home that is huge into Cobalts and are starting to read up on the cruze as their next attempt. They all told me the same thing, the 1.8 has more potential. I don't mind the dirty work but Steve you said the magic words with Factory Looking conversion. I will definatly be in touch with you.


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

Oh so it is possible to turbo the 1.8L. Sheez, i kept getting hated on for wanting to lol.


----------



## doreo (Oct 21, 2011)

now the question is would it be more reasonable to super vs turbo? i know over in sonic land it seems the super may be a little more logical/cheaper


----------



## OnlyTaurus (Mar 20, 2012)

I never understood why companies/people supercharge 4 cylinders. Turbos are cheaper and WAY more effective.


----------



## Kinmartin0789 (Feb 18, 2011)

maybe this is the thread to find out, does anyone know the average boost the stock turbo is pushing? im guessing 6lbs?


----------



## OnlyTaurus (Mar 20, 2012)

~12lbs.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

OnlyTaurus said:


> I never understood why companies/people supercharge 4 cylinders. Turbos are cheaper and WAY more effective.


Torque is my guess, and it's a simpler design. No oil and cooling lines, no extra exhaust plumbing.

Sent from my Bulletproof_Doubleshot using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

Superchargers have instant torque. The engine spins the S/C and pushes in more air the faster it turns. No waiting to generate enough exhaust velocity to spin the wheel like a turbo-supercharger. The downside is that in cruise the supercharger typically doesn't disconnect, and is drawing power that could otherwise be used to propel the car forward.


----------



## OnlyTaurus (Mar 20, 2012)

There are oil lines. And why take away engine power to make some. Atleast with a turbo its using wasted energy(exhaust).

A supercharger is easier to install, but way more expensive. Turbos always beat superchargers. one put a turbo on the 1.8 and other puts a supercharger. Supercharger may have the holeshot, but turbo will blow past it not long after.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

OnlyTaurus said:


> There are oil lines. And why take away engine power to make some. Atleast with a turbo its using wasted energy(exhaust).
> 
> A supercharger is easier to install, but way more expensive. Turbos always beat superchargers. one put a turbo on the 1.8 and other puts a supercharger. Supercharger may have the holeshot, but turbo will blow past it not long after.


The L67s I've worked on extensively are root type superchargers that bolt directly to the intake manifold and are internally oiled. Then again, I'm sure as a GM tech you know this, lol. Oil changes on those are ridiculously easy, and last I heard, Mobil 1 full syn 5W-30 is a suitable supercharger oil. Just use a fluid pump to get the old oil out, and re-fill. Stuff lasts a long time in there too. The SC is also on its own belt, so there isn't an issue of increased belt wear on the main belt. 

The SC might also be cheaper, but don't quote me on this. Torque is a pretty big advantage for a daily driver. Lots of people complaining about a lack of lower RPM power with A/C on in hot weather with the 1.4T. The motor builds good power at higher RPMs but can struggle with lower RPMs. It's easy with the manual because I can launch at a higher RPM, but autos don't always fare as well. You almost have to throttle-brake it to build boost before taking off. 

Then you need to ask yourself why just about all turbos also require intercoolers (additional plumbing and parts) whereas root superchargers just get bolted right to the intake manifold.

For daily power, I'd prefer the SC. For max power and just plain going fast, I'd prefer the turbo. For fuel economy, I'd also prefer the turbo. However, we don't live our miles 1/4 mile at a time. We want to take off at the green light, merge into busy traffic safely, and have the power to pass people on the highway. 

The question of "which is better" cannot be asked until you answer the question of "for what purpose?"


----------



## GFO_Hoffi (Jun 5, 2011)

So next thing is... what is the diff between 1.8 euro model as i have and 1.8 u have..?
one asked for tune on hes euro 1.8 but thoose selling in here is only for US models..`?
our in europe have 141 hp stock , but yes over time ill see if i can get some more out 
btw u really need some euro partners cause most cars over here are eighter Diesel or 1.8 gasso


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

GFO_Hoffi said:


> So next thing is... what is the diff between 1.8 euro model as i have and 1.8 u have..?
> one asked for tune on hes euro 1.8 but thoose selling in here is only for US models..`?
> our in europe have 141 hp stock , but yes over time ill see if i can get some more out
> btw u really need some euro partners cause most cars over here are eighter Diesel or 1.8 gasso


Sounds like a slightly different tune on the 1.8 in Europe. Different tunes, and different requirements across the Atlantic.


----------



## OnlyTaurus (Mar 20, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> The L67s I've worked on extensively are root type superchargers that bolt directly to the intake manifold and are internally oiled. Then again, I'm sure as a GM tech you know this, lol. Oil changes on those are ridiculously easy, and last I heard, Mobil 1 full syn 5W-30 is a suitable supercharger oil. Just use a fluid pump to get the old oil out, and re-fill. Stuff lasts a long time in there too. The SC is also on its own belt, so there isn't an issue of increased belt wear on the main belt.
> 
> The SC might also be cheaper, but don't quote me on this. Torque is a pretty big advantage for a daily driver. Lots of people complaining about a lack of lower RPM power with A/C on in hot weather with the 1.4T. The motor builds good power at higher RPMs but can struggle with lower RPMs. It's easy with the manual because I can launch at a higher RPM, but autos don't always fare as well. You almost have to throttle-brake it to build boost before taking off.
> 
> ...


I agree with that yes, and the last sentence/question I agree with even more.

I'm still going to side with the turbo, however, mainly because they are more efficient. S/C's have instant torque, yeah, but we've already established that max boost is achieved around 1850rpm with the turbo(our GT25 size, i think.) Using this as an example, I'm not concerned about torque at idle/take-off when full boost is only 1.5 seconds away. Fuel economy is optimal with a turbo as long as you're not using it(staying in vacuum), as opposed to a supercharger its always forcing the air, and robbing engine power regardless.

I think superchargers should be used for large dispacement engines, because the extra pulley is nothing a V8 engine can't rotate with minimal issues, and some serious numbers have been established with supercharged V8's.

Turbos are for small displacements. Power is not an issue, heck they've made 1200+hp on a 4g63 2.0L engine by using a turbo, who needs a supercharger lol. Fuel economy is optimal. Funner to drive, BOY/BPV sounds great with manual transmissions, I just like the concept of turbochargers better. That's me though


----------

