# 1.8 vs. 1.4T both Manual



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

I don't have either engine but from all the reports in road tests I have seen the 1.4T is by far the better engine and because of the extra torque the engine puts out it will give better fuel economy. The 1.8 does not rate very well compared to the 1.4T.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Since you're looking at the manuals, go with the ECO MT with the driver's convenience package. Of the gas Cruze trims this is the only one that will make you happy. Any other trim and you'll be back here a couple of months after purchase complaining about poor fuel economy. The ECO MT seriously out-performs all other Cruze gas trims on the highway for fuel efficiency. In addition, the 1.4T engine simply drives better than the 1.8 (my opinion - owning both).

Both the 1.8 and 1.4T will perform better on 89 octane than on 87, so you'll be putting the same gas into either.

If you're not stuck on rowing your own gears take a look at the Cruze CDT.

Based on my own experience, here are my best estimates of the ECO MT's fuel economy vs. speed

55 MPH: 55 MPG
60 MPH: 52 MPG
65 MPH: 48 MPG
70 MPH: 44 MPG
72 MPH: 42 MPG (This is the EPA highway estimate for the ECO MT)
75 MPH: 39 MPG (Still above the EPA highway estimate for the LT1)
80 MPH: 35 MPG

The numbers for the LT1 will be lower than the ECO MT and the LS will be lower still. The CDT will be higher by 3-5 MPG at each speed.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

In the right conditions, the Eco will hit 55-56mpg at 60mph. DIC reported for me was 60.3mpg on a 426-mile round trip on the same day going 58-62mph the whole time.


----------



## nuclearsteel (Jan 12, 2014)

I'm a little worried about the ECO mostly because of the rims/tires. It snows here a good bit...I would want to put winter tires on the car. I'm not so sure those rims on the eco as for fitting snow tires! In addition to that...no spare tire? Are you kidding me? What's the difference in MPG 1.4T manual vs 1.4T ECO manual.

I found a 2011 ECO manual with about 27K on it that I managed to talk down to about $12.5K out the door.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

You can add the spare tire to the ECO MT. Follow the link in my sig for instructions (mainly part numbers). The ECO AT doesn't seem to get the additional boost over the EPA that the ECO MT gets. The ECO's wheels are 5x105 17" wheels. All the wheels for the US gas Cruzen are 5x105 and we have members running 16" wheels for winter on their ECO MTs.


----------



## Benner (Sep 28, 2013)

I've been rocking the ECO wheels through the harshest winter we've had in years and no pits or anything. 17 inch snow tires are pretty available depending on manufacturer. However the steel 16's can be had fairly cheap from my understanding


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

nuclearsteel said:


> I'm a little worried about the ECO mostly because of the rims/tires. It snows here a good bit...I would want to put winter tires on the car. I'm not so sure those rims on the eco as for fitting snow tires! In addition to that...no spare tire? Are you kidding me? What's the difference in MPG 1.4T manual vs 1.4T ECO manual.
> 
> I found a 2011 ECO manual with about 27K on it that I managed to talk down to about $12.5K out the door.


I have an Eco. Here's what my car looks like in the winter:










16" Steelies are $200 and you don't have to unmount and re-mount the tires twice a year. Problem solved. 

As for the no spare tire, we have a writeup on what you need to buy to get the spare back there. It involves buying the spare, the jack, and the trunk cover I believe. It's not a huge deal. Definitely worth the hassle to get the 50+MPG the car is capable of. 

The ECO auto won't get anywhere close to the manual. The manual is an entirely different MPG animal compared to the rest of the Cruzes.


----------



## Patman (May 7, 2011)

Yes the Eco manual is the way to go. I have one also. I drive 95% city and I am getting @ 32-34 MPG in the city. I also purchased a spare tire like Obermd did off of E bay. I am yet to put the Eco wheels thru a harsh winter but I think they will hold up fine. Only difference from me, I also had a 1.8 LS and the 1.4 Eco or 2LT is the way to go and the 1.4 has the extra power of the turbo which beats the 1.8 hands down. The 1.8 just does not have the turbo and does not "stack up mileage wise and with the mileage you say you put on Eco is your best choice. 

Let us know what you choose.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

I just saw how many miles you drive every month. 

You'd be silly not to get the Eco.


----------



## nuclearsteel (Jan 12, 2014)

I think if I can get the 2011 for 12K OTD I am going to do it...I know that the 12 and 13's have improvements but my guess is you aren't getting a new one OTD for less than 18K with rebates and GM card, maybe 17K best case. 5K buys ALOT of parts and gas.

Thoughts?


----------



## Mick (Dec 31, 2011)

2011 are the least reliable off the years obviously but I've been pretty lucky with mine. Only 3 issues all covered under warranty. I'd still recommend the 1.4 but it seems like your looking for the cheapest option.


----------



## nuclearsteel (Jan 12, 2014)

I think if I can get the 2011 for 12K OTD I am going to do it...I know that the 12 and 13's have improvements but my guess is you aren't getting a new one OTD for less than 18K with rebates and GM card, maybe 17K best case. 5K buys ALOT of parts and gas.

Thoughts?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

The 1.8, especially MT, seems to be the more reliable of the bunch since the engine has been around a few years before the North American Cruze to get the kinks worked out of it. But I would still pick the 1.4 every time. The drivability in day-to-day traffic is so, so much better - the 1.8 just really shows the car's weight in the 2000-3500 RPM range. 

Realistically...the Eco gets maybe 3-4 MPG more than the 1LT in straight highway driving; ~1 MPG in-town with an 80 lb weight reduction. Test drive one and see if you like the gearing.

I would have no reservations going with a 2011 1.8, but would not touch a 2011 1.4. 2012 1.4 - sure.


----------



## brian v (Dec 25, 2011)

Which ever 1 you decide to purchase OTD we will still like you for your thurough evaluation of the opinions expressed here . 

With all said and done pull the triggger and take a few pics to post up here . We like pics here at the cruze talk ..........


----------



## Chevy Customer Care (Oct 29, 2011)

Hey nuclearsteel! I'm glad to hear you're considering a new Cruze. Feel free to send me a private message if there are any specific questions I can answer for you. Welcome to the forum!

Jackie
Chevrolet Customer Care


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

If you are buying brand new then you already spent more money than what you could have saved purchasing a used car with comparable MPGs to the 1.8 equipt Cruze. I suggest you drive the 1.8 and the 1.4 back to back and see what the pick up and RPMs are at 42 MPH in top gears and 1st gear with a/c on(if you are in a warmer area then the rest of us). Do not fall for the 1.8 and 1.4 are the exact same HP on paper and 1.8 is bigger so it should be more powerful NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENTstatements. This car and it's North American engine lineup does not fall under that same logic. 1.4 will hurt you more in mph if you have a heavy foot. Also take note the dealership will give you a 1.4 with 87 octane where the rest of us to include 1.8 are using 89 and above. My ECO can't stand 87 and will remind me every time I try to get on it to pass someone even after the plugs were swapped out to something better. 

In short the LS will be "cheaper" but remeber this car is not a simple plug and play vehicle when it comes to creature comforts swapped from another car. Fog lights* and Cruise control are just 2 common items people want to add and require the dealership to charge you X amont of hours labor to "unlock" this feature after you installed them correctly if you took the cheaper route of doing it yourself.

*depends on year and month car was made.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Would never ever buy a timing belt engine ever again, in particular one with an interference engine. Can be religious about changing the belt well before the 60K limit, 70 bucks now for this POS belt. But the idler or tensioner pulley can brake or seize at any time without a second warning. 

Not sure if this is even covered under that 100K warranty, but being stranded out in the middle of nowhere in subzero weather isn't compensated for. 

This has to be the most stupidest way to design an engine. 2.2 L Ecotec engine was good where GM spent millions to develop a quiet timing chain. Guide would wear out around 175K, but would give a warning with extra noise, and was easy to change. And at least this area is sealed against the environment with fresh lubricant every oil change. 

When removing a timing belt cover, always find a bunch of crap in there. With bent valves, a cracked head, or holes in pistons, this can really ruin your day. At tad more than 70 bucks.


----------



## Diesel Dan (May 18, 2013)

As pointed out one of the biggest reasons not to buy a 1.8L is the timing belt.
The 1.4L has a timing chain.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

The very first OHC car I owned I bought new in 1978 and I didn't know about having to change the cam belt. When I sold it with 203,000km on it the original timing belt was still on it. Only after I traded it in did I find out about needing a new belt every 100,000 km. Oh well the luck of the ignorant !


----------



## trevor (Jan 9, 2014)

2014 cruze LS with the 1.8 and AT. I am averaging 35mpg and fill up every week (430+ miles a tank). Majority of my driving is hwy at 60-70 mph.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

trevor said:


> 2014 cruze LS with the 1.8 and AT. I am averaging 35mpg and fill up every week (430+ miles a tank). Majority of my driving is hwy at 60-70 mph.


DIC measured or pump measured?


----------



## Bullet (Aug 9, 2013)

In my manual there is the belt chain replacement interval 10 years or 150000 km. I have an 1,8 LT with 5 speed manual gearbox. And I'm very pleased with my car. I intentionally did search for this engine as others here are 1,6 l or 1,4T and the latter one only in hatchback or SW and I wanted sedan. And I thought that turbo is not suitable for my driving style, I'm driving this car in "Easyrider"-style, very carefully. I have a feeling that turbo makes driving too agressive. My gas consumption is about 6,6 litres/100 km. Very good indeed, I think.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

nuclearsteel said:


> I drive right now about 140 miles round trip, 4 days per week, and 1 day about 200 miles, so figure on about 750 miles a week.


With this many miles it would not take long to pay the extra $1400 for the 1LT with the 1.4T. The ECO manual would be the even better car, with this many highway miles. check out the MPG comparisons below. 1LT gains 1MPG city, 2MPG highway over the LS. *The ECO manual gains 3MPG city, 6MPG highway over the LS*. With 750 miles a week the ECO MPG increase is good for over $500 fuel savings a year over the LS. 


Compare Side-by-Side



nuclearsteel said:


> Everyone seems to say the 1.4T is worth the extra money...I guess I'm just not seeing it. I can get a LT1 manual for $16,400 OTD with all the rebates and stuff. The LS I can get for about $15,000 OTD.
> 
> My math tells me it needs to be about 5 to 7 MPG to be worth it, provided the 1.4T doesn't require 89 octane.


That $1400 more for the 1LT also gets you Cruise control, aluminum rims, and many more avalible options, not just the 1.4T.

Most notice a MPG improvement with midgrade or premium, even with the extra cost one usually breaks even or comes out slightly ahead. You only really needs higher octane with the turbo in the heat of the summer so this is not really a big concern.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

Bullet said:


> In my manual there is the belt chain replacement interval 10 years or 150000 km. I have an 1,8 LT with 5 speed manual gearbox. And I'm very pleased with my car. I intentionally did search for this engine as others here are 1,6 l or 1,4T and the latter one only in hatchback or SW and I wanted sedan. And I thought that turbo is not suitable for my driving style, I'm driving this car in "Easyrider"-style, very carefully. I have a feeling that turbo makes driving too agressive. My gas consumption is about 6,6 litres/100 km. Very good indeed, I think.


 No clue how the 1.6 is and if the 1.4 is close to what we have it's not that bad an engine unless you rev it a lot. I guess it all depends on what you consider fast or aggressive as my Subaru is 300+ HP when it runs. My fuelly says 6.5 L/100K for the ECO but it may go up when I get around to putting the new gas receipts in. Subaru 2.5 turbo eats about 13.1 L/100K.


----------



## Bullet (Aug 9, 2013)

Well, the 1,6 engine is quite lazy. The 1,4T should be the same than You have there and this 1,8 also should be the same as You have there in LS-model. You can imagine how the 1,6 is as thinking 20 hp off from the 1,8. Both are without turbo.
I somehow feel this 1,8 just perfect for me, I also have a Range Rover with 3,5l V8, perhaps 165 HP, and it feels also quite similar. No fast acceleration, but still having power enough for normal driving on the road. Though RR is for off-road, small gravel roads and tractor paths mainly and it is a totally different vehicle there. Range takes about 18 l/100 km in winter time, couple liters less in summer.
Now I need to say that I have no any experience from the 1,4T, just my own imagination. I also thought turbo would be more complicated and that for more easy to have troubles after some years, but I may be over-careful here.


----------



## redrocket (Nov 26, 2013)

a buddy of mine had a ls and got 29-30 mpg and i have the 1.4t LT and i consistently get 34-36 mpg. Easy... of course during spring-fall. The **** with winter...


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

Bullet said:


> Well, the 1,6 engine is quite lazy. The 1,4T should be the same than You have there and this 1,8 also should be the same as You have there in LS-model. You can imagine how the 1,6 is as thinking 20 hp off from the 1,8. Both are without turbo.
> I somehow feel this 1,8 just perfect for me, I also have a Range Rover with 3,5l V8, perhaps 165 HP, and it feels also quite similar. No fast acceleration, but still having power enough for normal driving on the road. Though RR is for off-road, small gravel roads and tractor paths mainly and it is a totally different vehicle there. Range takes about 18 l/100 km in winter time, couple liters less in summer.
> Now I need to say that I have no any experience from the 1,4T, just my own imagination. I also thought turbo would be more complicated and that for more easy to have troubles after some years, but I may be over-careful here.


Yes, replacing a turbo is an adventure out of warranty. Did it on the Subaru and I don't plan on having the Cruze long enough to experience that again when the warranty goes. The plus size about it is the turbo makes the 1.4 act/respond like a 2.3 when you get on it especially if you know how to downshift into the power band to pass a few slow moving vehicles. With a tune I would get less gas mileage because I would abuse the extra power. That's just me from history class speaking, others would get different results in the same conditions. I drove both cars and the 1.8 feels like an even slower honda civic with 4 adult passengers compared to my 1.4(with 93 Shell V power and NGK V Power plugs)


Sent from my iFail 5s


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

At 36,000 miles a year, the added conveniences of the 1LT will make themselves felt quite rapidly. Better fuel economy and better passing power make themselves readily apparent. So does cruise control, which isn't available on the LS. Also, not having to spend $1000 on a timing belt change around 80k miles or so mostly pays for the difference. The 1.8 uses a timing belt, while the 1.4T has a timing chain. 

I'd still say get the Eco MT, since that car will easily net you 42-46 mpg, depending on how fast you drive. 6-10 mpg more saves time at the pump, and will break even for you after a year and a half. Assuming you keep the car for 5 years, it's gravy for 3.5 years. More if you keep the car longer.


----------



## MetalMatty (Jan 30, 2014)

I have an LT1 RS 6 Speed and I'm averaging 42-ish MPG right now. Probably between 70-80% "highway". I say "highway" because it's all very hilly, turny backroads. I'm more than happy with 42 average.


----------



## trevor (Jan 9, 2014)

obermd said:


> DIC measured or pump measured?


Hand calculated/pump measured.


----------



## trevor (Jan 9, 2014)

sciphi said:


> So does cruise control, which isn't available on the LS. Also, not having to spend $1000 on a timing belt change around 80k miles or so mostly pays for the difference. The 1.8 uses a timing belt, while the 1.4T has a timing chain.
> 
> .


$1000 for a timing belt? Where?


----------



## Diesel Dan (May 18, 2013)

trevor said:


> $1000 for a timing belt? Where?


Can't comment on the $1k price but to do it right you should replace more than just the belt.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

trevor said:


> $1000 for a timing belt? Where?


Dealer pricing. Every timing belt car I or others in my family have owned, it's been about $1000 to change the belt at the dealer. After doing the timing belt on my old Hyundai, it's a bit of a pain in the rear that I'd rather not go through again.


----------



## Bullet (Aug 9, 2013)

For my Suzuki SJ413JX the belt price was less than 100 euro.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

$400-500's the usual price I've seen, for both a Camry and a Volvo. That included water pump and tensioners. 

I guess a V6 might be more.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

This talk of the turbo failing is the reason I've been looking for a way to make the turbo a lifetime part, not a wear item. 

My search has led me to bypass filtration of the oil. Using a good synthetic oil and bypass filtration, if I am successful in that endeavor, should maintain an oil quality that will prevent all mechanical wear of the turbo, at least as far as oil lubricated components are concerned. I am not the least bit concerned.

Sent from mobile.


----------

