# My Family Has Two 2017 Cruzes with Two Engine Failures...thoughts?



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Wow that's unlucky. Why didn't they give you rentals if the car is in the shop that long? 

Probably cyl #1. Seems to be the common factor. 

Try running 89-93 oct instead of 87. Small turbo engines shouldn't really be run on regular - they are constantly battling knock or preignition, which can be a piston failure. Also make sure that you run nothing but full synthetic oil in the engines. Ideally, you want one with as low calcium as an additive as possible. 

With it always being cyl #1 though, my thought is that it might be an Ecm tune issue on GMs part - the Malibu 1.5T, which is closely related, was tossing pistons left and right before a tune update was released.


----------



## EricSmit (Dec 21, 2016)

Worth noting, my Cruze with the cracked piston was bought in December. @New Englander do you know the build date of your Cruzes?

A good friend of mine had it happen at 2k miles, mine went around 7k miles, both were 2016 build dates.


----------



## pontiacgt (Jan 12, 2011)

You should have been given a rental. That makes no since you can't drive to do your car. If dealership didn't have any available they should have found you one at a rental car place. Sounds like there may have also been a bad batch of pistons going around.


----------



## sparkman (Oct 15, 2015)

Both of those dealers should have given you a new rental car since both vehicles are under warranty. 

This is why people hate dealers (GM dealers especially) and switch to other brands; the lack of customer service these days is something else. There has been quite a few people on here that have done just that.

All I can say is hang in there. These are still all new designs, they have to work out the bugs yet. I would definitely not go to both of those dealers again.


----------



## New Englander (Jun 6, 2017)

I should clarify, In both cases, we were given loaner cars but because of insurance requirements, we could not use the loaner cars to work. So we weren't walking but weren't working either. In her case, the dealer was fine with arranging a car through Enterprise. In my case, we really had to fight for it. The dealer where I bought the car wasn't interested in helping out because it was on the Tuesday before Memorial Day. They told me that it would be a busy holiday weekend and basically to try driving it until afterwards. Yes, that gave dealerships a bad name since we recently bought two new cars there. GM had to get involved and helped me arrange service with another dealership where a loaner was available.

Unless we were misled, the oil changes were all done requesting Dexos spec oil at a national chain of quick lube stores - different locations. I don't really have a high opinion of those places, but it seems unlikely that lightning would strike twice by having them both put in the wrong spec oil and having it be an issue.

87 octane is always used. We just use a lot of gas and premium isn't budgeted for it. The turbo heat does make sense. I hate the added expense of using premium or midgrade fuel, but maybe that would keep this from happening again. Asking 100 cubic inches and a turbo to work that hard does seem a lot to me. But I also think in old school ways.

I will have to check the build dates. If I remember, the VINs aren't really close, but they were both bought in November.

Thank you for all of the input so far.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> 87 octane is always used. We just use a lot of gas and premium isn't budgeted for it. The turbo heat does make sense. I hate the added expense of using premium or midgrade fuel, but maybe that would keep this from happening again. Asking 100 cubic inches and a turbo to work that hard does seem a lot to me. But I also think in old school ways.


I would step it up to at least midgrade. Many of us found that the car runs a little peppier and may return slightly better MPG as well (since it isn't pulling timing to de-tune itself to compensate for knock). A little cheap insurance for what could be an expensive issue.

It seems that other turbo engines that say they can run on 87 run VERY rich to compensate for knock (part of the reason, for example, they're usually known for not getting great MPG under load - like Ford's 4-cyl Ecoboost engines). GM, apparently, doesn't like to do this.



> Unless we were misled, the oil changes were all done requesting Dexos spec oil at a national chain of quick lube stores - different locations. I don't really have a high opinion of those places, but it seems unlikely that lightning would strike twice by having them both put in the wrong spec oil and having it be an issue.


If you are able to find out what they use, that could be a factor. GM changed the whole Dexos-1 specification - and their own dealer blend of oil - recently to better formulate it for TGDI engines based on low-speed preignition studies.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Not sure about other states, main problem around here with ethanol is getting a good mix, start off with 80 octane and attempt to boost that to 87 with E10. Also ethanol is heavier than gas and will settle to the bottom of the tank where the input to the fuel pump is.

Read nothing about lifting your car and shaking it first to mix it up. Cruze only got top tier 91 octane fuel, yes, it more expensive, but with improved performance and economy and saving your engine, far cheaper in the long run.

Detonation is the key problem, on the compression stroke, piston is going up, creates heat that ignites low octane fuel. Crank inertia moves that piston up, detonation makes the piston go down, result, piston breaks. 

Quick lube? Are they putting dexos in these things? Four bucks more for dexos for a five quart bottle than conventional oil, yet my dealers around here want 40 bucks more! Heck with you, will change it myself. Conventional can't take the heat, congeals and blocks your turbo oil flow.


----------



## New Englander (Jun 6, 2017)

NickD said:


> Not sure about other states, main problem around here with ethanol is getting a good mix, start off with 80 octane and attempt to boost that to 87 with E10. Also ethanol is heavier than gas and will settle to the bottom of the tank where the input to the fuel pump is.
> 
> Read nothing about lifting your car and shaking it first to mix it up. Cruze only got top tier 91 octane fuel, yes, it more expensive, but with improved performance and economy and saving your engine, far cheaper in the long run.
> 
> ...



Jiffy Lube will do a Dexos oil change, but they charge extra for it. The way that our leases are structured, the oil changes using factory spec oil are included in the lease if a fleet provider such as Jiffy Lube, Valvoline, Firestone etc. is used. I believe the fleet provider gets billed $96 for a Jiffy Lube Dexos oil change and tire rotation.


----------



## pontiacgt (Jan 12, 2011)

Dexos should not be anymore expensive especially if its fully synthetic like Mobil 1. Mobil 1 and the other brands that are dexos approved are the same price they were before they were dexos approved. This why i hate these quick lube places. They make it sound like synthetic is like double the price of regular oil and its not anymore. Even if regular oil for 5quarts is 15 and synthetic is 25, the quick lube places double the price of the change which is just weird to me.


----------



## EricSmit (Dec 21, 2016)

I only run 93.


----------



## pontiacgt (Jan 12, 2011)

So the question is what is causing this? Bad piston?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

pontiacgt said:


> So the question is what is causing this? Bad piston?


That's a theory. Tune or something inherent in the engine/intake design causing that particular cylinder to run leaner or hotter than others is another theory. Seems odd that it's #1 in particular, when the Gen 1 1.4T would seemingly break pistons at random when it happened.


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

Not knowing much about the new Gen piston failure, but would seriously use 93 octane and stay away from tunes. As J said sounds like the piston is running lean and or too hot or the knock sensor is not picking up on the detonation. I have gone through the Gen 1 piston failure issue. I moved on.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Little bit of reading about the issues with the Malibu 1.5T:

GM's recommendation has been to avoid synthetic _blend_ oils completely for their propensity to cause LSPI, as well as issuing an engine computer re-tune to reduce conditions that could cause it to happen.

2016 Chevy Malibu 1LT cylinder misfire - Page 6 - Chevy Malibu Forum: Chevrolet Malibu Forums


----------



## EricSmit (Dec 21, 2016)

I was running full synthetic Mobil 1.


----------



## sparkman (Oct 15, 2015)

EricSmit said:


> I was running full synthetic Mobil 1.


Think it had something to do with your tune?


----------



## SilverCruzer (Nov 30, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> I would step it up to at least midgrade. Many of us found that the car runs a little peppier and may return slightly better MPG as well (since it isn't pulling timing to de-tune itself to compensate for knock). A little cheap insurance for what could be an expensive issue.


So I am considering midgrade or higher, but something to consider.

If this is going to happen, will it happen at relatively low mileage? Has there been a modification done to newer builds that will avoid this? Should I just use 87 and see if I can make it past the warranty and then assume my vehicle is not likely to have this issue? I would hate to buy midgrade now just to extend the engine long enough past warranty, then a failure.


----------



## Eddy Cruze (Jan 10, 2014)

I'm not sure but it seems we are seeing more defects and failures in the new next gen CRUZE? I know Chevrolet products have won all sorts of initial quality awards in the last 3 years but the CRUZE is not included, makes one wonder?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

SilverCruzer said:


> So I am considering midgrade or higher, but something to consider.
> 
> If this is going to happen, will it happen at relatively low mileage? Has there been a modification done to newer builds that will avoid this? Should I just use 87 and see if I can make it past the warranty and then assume my vehicle is not likely to have this issue? I would hate to buy midgrade now just to extend the engine long enough past warranty, then a failure.


Honestly, they are so new that we don't really know how the long-term reliability for this particular powertrain will pan out - the new small engine family (1.0/1.4T/1.5T) is a clean-sheet redesign. You probably have some of the higher-mileage 2016.5/2017s out there. It's an all-new engine design, and GM seems to be still investigating the cause of the failures. I have heard rumors that there may be a service bulletin or recall for the LE2 engines in the works similar to the Malibu, along with redesigned pistons, but nothing confirmed yet.


----------



## SilverCruzer (Nov 30, 2010)

Eddy Cruze said:


> I'm not sure but it seems we are seeing more defects and failures in the new next gen CRUZE? I know Chevrolet products have won all sorts of initial quality awards in the last 3 years but the CRUZE is not included, makes one wonder?


Except that Consumer Reports claims they have enough owner survey information on the MY 2016 to call it an "Excellent" with reliability, even after just one year of a new gen which they usually don't do. I had Gen 1. Talk about defective. Other survey respondents to CR survey thought the same.


----------



## pontiacgt (Jan 12, 2011)

Well i have noticed if I use 89 or 93 my mileage is actually about 3 or 4 miles per gallon better. So the extra cost to me is worth it plus the engine definitely runs better to me. Everyone will have to decide for themselves. But you have to remember Gen 1 had some pistons that did this and there was also a lot that didn't have the problem.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

IIRC, the Gen1 problem was a casting problem with the pistons themselves. I don't think there was any change to the engine as a result of the failures. Maybe a change in part suppliers.

But with it always happening to #1 on the Gen2 - something else has to be in play (unless a specific cast goes into that position).


----------



## EricSmit (Dec 21, 2016)

sparkman said:


> Think it had something to do with your tune?


No, I don't. There have been reports of untuned vehicles having issues as low as 35 miles. I've got a buddy that had the issue at 2k miles. I had it at 7700 miles.


----------



## New Englander (Jun 6, 2017)

Neither of our cars have been tuned. Both are bone stock. 

If General Motors built these engines to only survive on 89 or 93 octane, I would think that they should have recommended that. We were cross shopping several different cars and a premium fuel requirement or a 30k service life for an engine would have been deal breakers.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

New Englander said:


> If General Motors built these engines to only survive on 89 or 93 octane, I would think that they should have recommended that.


Welcome to the eternal conflict between sales and engineering. In the Gen1, the 2011-2013 MY had a RPO code that indicated they were designed for 93. But sales had them modify it and the user manual said "regular". However, even then, it didn't damage the engine. The computer did it's job of protecting the hardware at the expense of performance.

Those years will run on 87, but a lot of people find they're happier with 89 and a couple of bucks per fill-up is worth the performance improvement.

You may want to try a 89, especially in hot weather for better performance and perhaps better MPG. But as far as the pistons - something else is going on and you're right in wanting it fixed.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

ChevyGuy said:


> Welcome to the eternal conflict between sales and engineering. In the Gen1, the 2011-2013 MY had a RPO code that indicated they were designed for 93. But sales had them modify it and the user manual said "regular". However, even then, it didn't damage the engine. The computer did it's job of protecting the hardware at the expense of performance.
> 
> Those years will run on 87, but a lot of people find they're happier with 89 and a couple of bucks per fill-up is worth the performance improvement.
> 
> You may want to try a 89, especially in hot weather for better performance and perhaps better MPG. But as far as the pistons - something else is going on and you're right in wanting it fixed.


This.

The fuel used by manufacturers and EPA is a standard fuel not commercially available and happens to be 91 octane. When they state those HP numbers it's usually using that fuel so by the time you or dealer runs 87 you won't even see those numbers past the small pull you did out the gas station into traffic. When you refuel the Cruze it feels like the brand new gas has way more energy than what was sitting in the bottom of your fuel tank. if gen 2 is like Gen 1 the 91 fuel map defaults on on refuel event and you get that fuel map until the 87 pings it back down.

Subaru usually crack the same pistons due to fueling issues in stock setup, most likely whats happening here. Subaru also uses A and B size pistons at random but that still was narrowed down to 2 cylinders.


----------



## cp-the-nerd (Jun 7, 2017)

Hmm. My wife was excited to get a car that only required regular gas. I'd be shocked if GM couldn't build a high volume turbo engine capable of running regular gas reliably. I remember early on the gen 1 Cruze had a more flexible spark advance to benefit from premium gas, but after GM made changes to bump up fuel economy around 2012, the spark advance was dumbed down and I didn't hear any widespread issues on low octane.

I personally would put premium in a turbocharged engine, but if an MFR is going to engineer the car and recommend regular gas, it needs to run it happily. My wife is going to be super pissed if the engine takes a dump because she commutes over 300 miles per week. She probably wouldn't trust the car anymore either.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

cp-the-nerd said:


> Hmm. My wife was excited to get a car that only required regular gas. I'd be shocked if GM couldn't build a high volume turbo engine capable of running regular gas reliably. I remember early on the gen 1 Cruze had a more flexible spark advance to benefit from premium gas, but after GM made changes to bump up fuel economy around 2012, the spark advance was dumbed down and I didn't hear any widespread issues on low octane.
> 
> I personally would put premium in a turbocharged engine, but if an MFR is going to engineer the car and recommend regular gas, it needs to run it happily. My wife is going to be super pissed if the engine takes a dump because she commutes over 300 miles per week. She probably wouldn't trust the car anymore either.


My '12 was undrivable on 87 in the summer. The tuning got better for 2014-15, but the early models drove like crap on regular to protect the motor.


----------



## cp-the-nerd (Jun 7, 2017)

jblackburn said:


> My '12 was undrivable on 87 in the summer. The tuning got better for 2014-15, but the early models drove like crap on regular to protect the motor.


I never owned a 1st gen Cruze, I'm only going off what I learned reading threads on the HPTuners forum. This is the first I've heard of the port injected 1.4T really being negatively affected by regular octane gas.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

cp-the-nerd said:


> I never owned a 1st gen Cruze, I'm only going off what I learned reading threads on the HPTuners forum. This is the first I've heard of the port injected 1.4T really being negatively affected by regular octane gas.


They heat soak - badly. All kinds of threads here about running higher octane to combat knock.


----------



## cp-the-nerd (Jun 7, 2017)

jblackburn said:


> They heat soak - badly. All kinds of threads here about running higher octane to combat knock.


Is that related to the afterblower feature I read about in an old Cruze TSB/recall?


----------



## SilverCruzer (Nov 30, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> My '12 was undrivable on 87 in the summer. The tuning got better for 2014-15, but the early models drove like crap on regular to protect the motor.


My 2011 had its best fuel efficiency in the summer, and I did not notice any reduction in performance. I only used 87.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

cp-the-nerd said:


> Is that related to the afterblower feature I read about in an old Cruze TSB/recall?


No - that's to keep mold off the AC core.

The intercooler is sandwiched in between the AC condensor and radiator. When you sit at a long stoplight in the summer with the AC cranked up, the car will barely move away from the light under its own power it's pulling timing so much.

Here's one of such threads:
http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/27-fuel-economy/81489-93-octane-debate-continues.html


----------



## DavidGXP (Nov 26, 2016)

This is interesting. I've been running 92 octane and have noticed 5th and 6th gear power improvements while cruising around town and back roads doing the speed limits. I recently put 87 in a few days ago and after letting the car sit for awhile (waiting to pick up my kiddo) I left the street light to accelerate up to speed and heard a loud rattle from the engine and saw a cloud of smoke come out the exhaust. This was from shifting into 2nd. The engine output was reduced and then returned. The car seemed to drive home ok, but I was a little irritated and worried. I am certain that it was detonation! I will run higher octane for now on (and no more Arco). If this engine blows (shocker 153hp) I will get out of it. I don't want this car torn apart and slapped back together. This engine is so under powered, and the stupid gearing only makes it worse. However, the fuel economy is phenomenal!


----------



## jsusanka (Jan 31, 2011)

"Both cars have been maintained by quick lube places, but at different locations, different times, etc. "

I quit going to those places. Total scams. Last time I went to one of those places they left my oil cap off and I drove all day without an oil cap needless to say I had a mess. They can't do their job and put an oil filter cap back on but they can try to up sell me a filter for 30 bucks that would cost 10 at a parts store.


----------



## 17Hatch6MT (Dec 28, 2015)

jsusanka said:


> "Both cars have been maintained by quick lube places, but at different locations, different times, etc. "
> 
> I quit going to those places. Total scams..


THIS. I know that once when I brought my own Mobil 1 Synthetic for them to put in, I watched & caught them hiding the stuff I brought & putting their cheap generic stuff in. Gave me an argument when I told them to drain it & fill it with the oil I'd brought. Just one of the many times QuickyLube screwed up, each time something different. If I can't do it myself, then it's going to a reputable local mechanic.


----------



## jsusanka (Jan 31, 2011)

New Oil Technology Needed to Prevent Super Knock

Found this about LSPI and the second gen dexos spec. Interesting stuff.


----------



## ethangsmith (May 7, 2017)

Dang, reading this thread is a bit unnerving. I use 87 octane in my car. Would simply going up to 89 offer any protection? Also, what's the difference between GM's Dexos oil and other synthetics? Would I be ok using Mobil1, Pennzoil Platinum, or Valvoline SynPower? Or should I just stick with Dexos? I want to do everything I can to prevent a failure from occurring.


----------



## Patman (May 7, 2011)

ethangsmith said:


> Dang, reading this thread is a bit unnerving. I use 87 octane in my car. Would simply going up to 89 offer any protection? Also, what's the difference between GM's Dexos oil and other synthetics? Would I be ok using Mobil1, Pennzoil Platinum, or Valvoline SynPower? Or should I just stick with Dexos? I want to do everything I can to prevent a failure from occurring.


I have a Gen 1 LT and I used 89 octane and the car does alright(untuned). As far as the oil, Mobil1 offers an Dexos variation and I have used that many times on my Eco with no problem. Lots of synthetics offer a Dexos variation, just look for the DEXOS identifier on the oil.


----------



## ethangsmith (May 7, 2017)

Good to know. So as long as the oil shows the Dexos spec and is full synthetic, I'm good to go? I know there are some synthetic blends that are Dexos approved, but I plan on avoiding those. I'll also hop up to 89 octane from now on.


----------



## neile300c (Jul 8, 2014)

Castrol Magnatec 5w30 was semi-synthetic, and Dexos approved. Now it looks like it's full synthetic. 520 was already that way, wonder if GM is requiring Dexos oil to be full synthetic now


----------



## EricSmit (Dec 21, 2016)

neile300c said:


> Castrol Magnatec 5w30 was semi-synthetic, and Dexos approved. Now it looks like it's full synthetic. 520 was already that way, wonder if GM is requiring Dexos oil to be full synthetic now


Yes.


----------



## Pipelineops (Jul 16, 2017)

*My turn*

I have a 2016 Cruze Premier. At 34000 mi. it would not auto restart and
loss of low end power. I drove 75 mi home and 300 feet from home
the check engine light finally came on. Took it to the dealer. Had 2 cracked pistons.
number 1 and 3 from what I could find out. Only pistons were replaced and comp 
flashed. Took the idiots at my dealership 20 days to get it done.


----------



## cleatus99 (Feb 26, 2014)

Curious about using the better octane gas, I have 183k + on my '12 eco manual. Have only run 87 octane.. We just picked up '17 LT RS Hatchback auto... Will run mid-grade or better and see if engine has issues.


----------



## 17Cruzer (Apr 18, 2017)

jblackburn said:


> That's a theory. Tune or something inherent in the engine/intake design causing that particular cylinder to run leaner or hotter than others is another theory. Seems odd that it's #1 in particular, when the Gen 1 1.4T would seemingly break pistons at random when it happened.


Yes to both theories and too high final gear ratio causing high engine loading when accelerating.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

17Cruzer said:


> Yes to both theories and too high final gear ratio causing high engine loading when accelerating.


Gearing's fine...in fact, I'd prefer it to be slightly taller like it is on Ford's 6F35 (shares the same ratios, but final drive is taller). Shift logic might need work, though - it likes to lug around in as high a gear as possible and only really downshifts if you boot it.


----------



## 17Cruzer (Apr 18, 2017)

jblackburn said:


> Gearing's fine...in fact, I'd prefer it to be slightly taller like it is on Ford's 6F35 (shares the same ratios, but final drive is taller). Shift logic might need work, though - it likes to lug around in as high a gear as possible and only really downshifts if you boot it.


The problem has more than one cause....


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

17Cruzer said:


> The problem has more than one cause....


Not really. There's 1 OD ratio in the AT and the rest are quite short. The picking a higher gear when accelerating at low throttle openings is programming. Ford and GM have used this same transmission design in many cars over the years, often with a taller final drive ratio that lets for lower highway/4th gear passing RPM. 

Fords 1.5/2.0 Ecoboosts don't seem to have LSPI issues, but they love to rev, run rich air/fuel mixtures, and definitely have programming that doesn't lug around in high gears when accelerating.


----------



## 17Hatch6MT (Dec 28, 2015)

My 2017 Cruze has a manual. All the cars I've ever owned, back to the '70's (except one used one that I couldn't afford to pass up), have been manuals. I've always been cognizant of not putting too deep a throttle at low RPMs. Kills fuel economy I think, in addition to being hard on the engine. The turbo and computerized throttle (my first car with either of these things) adds another level of complexity -- can't feel the engine through the pedal, can't tell how much boost it's pushing, can't even be sure a given pedal setting results in the computer opening the throttle to a corresponding degree in different situations.

That said, the two occasions I've noticed brief pinging was when goosing the throttle with no load to engage the clutch in first, or to downshift. Not something that I could've predicted or that I can avoid.


----------



## 17Cruzer (Apr 18, 2017)

jblackburn said:


> Not really. There's 1 OD ratio in the AT and the rest are quite short. The picking a higher gear when accelerating at low throttle openings is programming. Ford and GM have used this same transmission design in many cars over the years, often with a taller final drive ratio that lets for lower highway/4th gear passing RPM.
> 
> Fords 1.5/2.0 Ecoboosts don't seem to have LSPI issues, but they love to rev, run rich air/fuel mixtures, and definitely have programming that doesn't lug around in high gears when accelerating.


Yes, really, and you just stated so. Of course, a better quality piston should have been used as well.


----------



## Hawkeye1 (May 23, 2017)

jblackburn said:


> Honestly, they are so new that we don't really know how the long-term reliability for this particular powertrain will pan out - the new small engine family (1.0/1.4T/1.5T) is a clean-sheet redesign. You probably have some of the higher-mileage 2016.5/2017s out there. It's an all-new engine design, and GM seems to be still investigating the cause of the failures. I have heard rumors that there may be a service bulletin or recall for the LE2 engines in the works similar to the Malibu, along with redesigned pistons, but nothing confirmed yet.


I am one of the people that reported on another thread that there is a computer reprogram in the works for the 2016. I have gone through 2 02 sensors due to soot covering them and leading to lean conditions in cylinder 1. My fuel trim was at -17 the last time I took it in for th po15b check engine light. I am afraid of piston damage and my service advisor has been great about getting on GM, but I was told at the end of May that they were working on the programming/fix and here we are two months later with no fix.


----------



## Yunder (Feb 20, 2017)

Hawkeye1 said:


> I am one of the people that reported on another thread that there is a computer reprogram in the works for the 2016. I have gone through 2 02 sensors due to soot covering them and leading to lean conditions in cylinder 1. My fuel trim was at
> 
> 
> this is exactly what happened with my girlfriends Gen2 she had four 02 sensors replaced, and then boom cyl #1 went


----------



## 17Hatch6MT (Dec 28, 2015)

In the meantime, what fuels should we use or avoid, what driving styles should we practice or avoid? 

As for fuels, I'm wondering if the different additive packages from the various oil companies would make a difference. Not just octane. More octane may help at the margin, but sounds like the lean condition is too pronounced for that to make a difference.

I understand there may not be airtight answers to this.


----------



## Hawkeye1 (May 23, 2017)

Thanks for replying, but it is exactly what I didn't want to hear. Did you get any codes other than po15 b? Did you notice any changes in mpg- mine has been pretty consistent and good. I really don't want to deal with major engine work.


----------



## Taxman (Aug 10, 2017)

Always #1 piston and in at least one instance #3?

Where does the PCV oil go, any chance most of it ends up in cylinder #1?

Why do I feel a sudden urge to replace my plugs with 2-3 steps colder?


----------



## pontiacgt (Jan 12, 2011)

i have 3 O2 sensors replaced. They said the when the replace the last 2 about 3 weeks ago they had soot on them too. I got a check engine light and Onstar said it was a emissions issue. So far the car seems to run ok. but they need to get the reprogramming out soon if this is the issue with piston 1 and O2 sensors.


----------



## rmeav8r#106 (Oct 14, 2017)

I just joined the cruzetalk site yesterday. I am just catching up on the past history of these engines. Today is one year that I have owned my Premier. It has 6700 miles and I just did my first oil change. I have recently started servicing my 2012 Suburban and my 2014 Challenger at the dealership for simple regular maintenance. They charge the same price as my local mechanic. I'd rather the dealer perform the service. that way they can't blame anyone else for any issues . Tomorrow I will fill up with 89 octane. I've been using 87 and was getting 28-30 mpg average. I bought the car as a daily to/from work driver (40 miles round trip). I don't think I have gone over 80 mph. Don't see any need to beat on it. My Dodge Challenger 5.7 HEMI is the whipping boy! Hoping for the best. If any issues arise in the next 48 months....I'll trade it in and get a Tahoe.


----------



## ChevyCanuck (Sep 27, 2016)

I brought my 2016.5 Cruze in 1 week ago for my second po15 b CEL. They didn't replace an O2 sensor this time but they did reprogram the ECU. So it looks like the long awaited update is out. I'm not sure what it changes. The only thing I noticed was that my auto-transmission seemed to have been reset and had to relearn my driving habits. I shifted weird at first but is back to normal for me.

For what it's worth I fill up with Shell V-Power and engine seems to run great except for a few instances where the engine was lugging in high gear/low RPMs. The lugging hasnt occured for me since the ECU update. It hasn't been long enough to tell if the shifting algorithm has been changed though.


----------



## Hawkeye1 (May 23, 2017)

Do you happen to have a bulletin number off your paperwork? I just talked to a higher -up person with GM customer service about not having a fix yet. They are going to get back to me this week. I started a case with them 5 months ago and the light keeps coming back. I would think they would need to clean out the exhaust some how because my sensors are always caked with soot. They replaced it twice and cleaned it once. I told them I want a buy back if they can't fix it on this fourth try. I love the car and would prefer a fix.


----------



## ChevyCanuck (Sep 27, 2016)

There's no bulletin number that I can see. Here's an excerpt:

CORRECTION: =2810075=0.5ST=
REPROGRAM ECM SPS 11A65. UPDATE SPECIFICALLY FOR P015B DELAYED RESPONSE 02 SENSOR.
CLEAR ALL DTC'S VERIFY O2 SENSOR 1 FLAGGING


----------



## Hawkeye1 (May 23, 2017)

Thanks for the response. My service advisor said the gm tech got back to him about the reprogramming. It is the one for the 2017s and they are trying it on the 2016s. I still don't know what the difference in the model years might be, but I hope it works. I go in on Thursday.


----------



## Hawkeye1 (May 23, 2017)

The update is officially for the 2016s. My dealer has been great and is emailing gm to give me an extended warranty since this is the 4th time fixing it for the same issue. If it doesn't work, they will start the buy back process. I hope it works because we love the car except for this one issue.


----------



## ChevyCanuck (Sep 27, 2016)

I hope it works for you! It's a great little car.


----------



## CruzeTOwn (Nov 17, 2017)

I always try to buy American, but with my Cruze problems and then this...maybe I should reconsider. Sorry you are having these problems. I suppose GM is struggling still after being bailed out and now they can't make decent products anymore. Ugh....:sigh:


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

CruzeTOwn said:


> I always try to buy American, but with my Cruze problems and then this...maybe I should reconsider. Sorry you are having these problems. I suppose GM is struggling still after being bailed out and now they can't make decent products anymore. Ugh....:sigh:


When my 2012 ECO MT was totaled the Cruze was on my short list. In fact, all the cars on my short list were Chevys. The issue GM has with the Cruze is it's their mass market sedan and trying to keep costs down leads to other issues. GM's other issue is their dealership network. When I take my wife's Toyota in for service there are just as many Toyotas being worked on - in fact it's harder to get an appointment for her Toyota than it is for my Cruze (previous) and Volt.


----------



## SilverCruzer (Nov 30, 2010)

CruzeTOwn said:


> I always try to buy American, but with my Cruze problems and then this...maybe I should reconsider. Sorry you are having these problems. I suppose GM is struggling still after being bailed out and now they can't make decent products anymore. Ugh....:sigh:


Unfortunately, much of this has to do with GM trying to meet a target miles per gallon across all their fleet. Since the money maker is the truck, they need to offset it with a vehicle that gets ultra MPG. And this second generation Cruze definitely does. I get 45 on my commute without trying. 

However...everything in it is lighter weight and less substantial than my Gen 1 Cruze. There is technology on technology to squeeze out more MPG's, etc etc. More complications and opportunities for failure.

Now before we consider this a GM issue, the latest Consumer Reports Auto issue mentioned many new models across all MFG's that are experiencing problems with new tech on their 2018's.


----------



## jamc204 (Aug 17, 2012)

I'm going through this now w/ my Gen 2 2016. It has less than 24,000 miles on it and it started running roughly a few days ago and gave me a "service Stabilitrak" error mesage. I took it in and they said it has some bad pistons. I was shocked given the low mileage and how well I care for the car. I don't know much detail yet as they said the work will take into next week. I'll be sure to post the full diagnosis and results here.

Dealer gave me a rental with no hassle.


----------



## Hawkeye1 (May 23, 2017)

Sorry to hear yours has the piston issue. I was wondering if you were experiencing the po15b code for the oxygen sensors? If so, how many times did they replace the sensor? I have driven about 5000 miles since they did the update and am hoping I didn't get any damage. They extended my bumper to bumper warranty to 6 years 100,000 miles at the request of my dealer just in case.


----------



## cohbraz (Dec 9, 2017)

ChevyCanuck said:


> There's no bulletin number that I can see. Here's an excerpt:
> 
> CORRECTION: =2810075=0.5ST=
> REPROGRAM ECM SPS 11A65. UPDATE SPECIFICALLY FOR P015B DELAYED RESPONSE 02 SENSOR.
> CLEAR ALL DTC'S VERIFY O2 SENSOR 1 FLAGGING


I just had the ECM reprogrammed in my 2016.5 1.4/t after getting the p015b code. The service bulletin was 17-NA-155. As far as I can tell, they did not replace the O2 sensor - just the reprogram. I would love to get more information about this bulletin.


----------



## JC55 (Aug 20, 2017)

I had the really rough idle and low power, took it into the dealer today and it has a failed piston. 2017 model with 35,000 miles


----------



## davhamm (May 2, 2011)

ChevyCanuck said:


> I brought my 2016.5 Cruze in 1 week ago for my second po15 b CEL. They didn't replace an O2 sensor this time but they did reprogram the ECU. So it looks like the long awaited update is out. I'm not sure what it changes. The only thing I noticed was that my auto-transmission seemed to have been reset and had to relearn my driving habits. I shifted weird at first but is back to normal for me.
> 
> For what it's worth I fill up with Shell V-Power and engine seems to run great except for a few instances where the engine was lugging in high gear/low RPMs. The lugging hasnt occured for me since the ECU update. It hasn't been long enough to tell if the shifting algorithm has been changed though.



Had similiar tale, just got back from 3rd CEL replaced, 02 sensors again and said GM is working on a fix, so the software flash from Nov didn't seem to fix anything, or was a different issue.


----------



## rippem (Feb 8, 2017)

just had my 16.5 flashed for emissions CEL
_ delayed response to 02 sensor/PO15b sensor delay bank 1.
TSB 17 NA 155
Reprogram ECM 11E30

_Time will tell. I also run premium fuel


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

Reading this thread has been interesting. The Emissions on the Gen 1 Diesels, and Diesels in general have been a technical challenge (though it seems the made big improvements on Gen 2 - 1.6L over the Gen 1 - 2.0 for emissions).. it appears that a similar challenge is now taking place on the engine pistons in the gas engine... All this due to CAFE standards, and EPA standards.. Having said that, if I was driving a gas engine, I'd go high octane for sure, I've calculated that even in my 21 year old Saturn, that the MPG increase for the more efficient burn of the higher octane fuel more than offsets the extra cost of the fuel, I'd assume that holds true, even more so for a turbo charged engine in the Cruze. 

The other observation.. I think I'll take the possible emissions hassles over a blown piston... then again, I have 3 Diesel Cruzes, so that should be pretty obvious I guess. Actually the diesel emissions tend to work pretty well if you do enough highway driving to get a good DPF regen, I've been without any serious issue on my Diesels because I have a pretty good understanding of what it takes for them to work well. 

It's also interesting to hear about soot issues on the gas engine.. that's been an issue for Diesel, especially from EGR flow, which tends to be much higher in the Diesel. 

To the OP: Do consider a diesel for your next 50/50 highway/city car... my car with average speed at only 25MPH is sitting at 50MPG right now, I've been stunned at how good the MPG is on the Gen 2 Diesel. 

I'd caution against a Diesel for anyone doing mostly city/short duration drives.. that spells emissions troubles for sure. It would really be nice if the manufactures would just explain all that, but they want us to think any and all cars can do any and all patterns of driving with no problems... which is just not reality. I do think they say 87 Octane is OK, for marketing purposes, when clearly a turbo engine with higher compression is going to be safer and perform much better with the higher octane fuel.... this is the marketing people, likely over objections of the engineers.


----------



## JC55 (Aug 20, 2017)

What did you guys think of buying the trifecta or bnr tune to possibly circumvent this from happening again? I forgot to mention the Piston that failed was number 3 in my car


----------



## Premier17 (May 20, 2017)

It's hard to say. Going with a tune to prevent that does introduce the risk of voiding any further power-train warranty. However, I also have not heard of anyone having a piston failure that also had a tune, though the ratio of tuned Cruze to factory tuned is also much lower. I would say there really is not enough evidence yet to suggest going with a tune solely with the objective of avoiding the piston 1 failure.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Premier17 said:


> It's hard to say. Going with a tune to prevent that does introduce the risk of voiding any further power-train warranty. However, I also have not heard of anyone having a piston failure that also had a tune, though the ratio of tuned Cruze to factory tuned is also much lower. I would say there really is not enough evidence yet to suggest going with a tune solely with the objective of avoiding the piston 1 failure.


There have been a few. I think that's why GM hasn't figured out the "solution" with a simple tune update yet either like they did for the Malibu.

There have also been lots of O2 sensor problems with the early Gen 2 builds. Probably has something to do with the piston failures.


----------



## JRB'sOilburningCruze (Feb 25, 2015)

As mentioned above, these are the reasons I stayed away from buying another turbo powered car. Turbos do make up for smaller displacement but as I've state before, I think they are just too hard on the components.


----------



## Pegasus (Feb 17, 2018)

Is the piston issue still happening with #1 cylinder? Has a cause been officially determined. I read somewhere that the auto stop feature stops the cylinder at the top of the stroke on piston #1. If that is true, could that be related to the cause?
Just speculating, and concerned about whether this will happen to me. 

2017 with 1K miles LT 1.4 turbo


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Yes, happens on the forums and FB page every few weeks or so.

Much more likely tuning or LSPI issues than anything to do with auto-stop.


----------



## Sunline Fan (Jul 29, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> Yes, happens on the forums and FB page every few weeks or so.
> 
> Much more likely tuning or LSPI issues than anything to do with auto-stop.


----------



## Pegasus (Feb 17, 2018)

jblackburn said:


> Yes, happens on the forums and FB page every few weeks or so.
> 
> Much more likely tuning or LSPI issues than anything to do with auto-stop.


Is the piston issue something that shows up by a certain mileage? Like for example do most failures happen prior to say, 40K miles, 50, 60? Or have their been many incidents past 60K?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Pegasus said:


> Is the piston issue something that shows up by a certain mileage? Like for example do most failures happen prior to say, 40K miles, 50, 60? Or have their been many incidents past 60K?


Seems like most I've seen are inside 30k. Very few have past 60k on a LE2 yet. @UpstateNYBill is getting there with no issues.


----------



## UpstateNYBill (Jan 14, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> Seems like most I've seen are inside 30k. Very few have past 60k on a LE2 yet. @*UpstateNYBill* is getting there with no issues.


I just passed 60,000 miles somewhere in Georgia on Wednesday. Enjoying Florida weather for a week or so before heading back home. Still no issues to report.


----------



## snowwy66 (Nov 5, 2017)

Some gal just posted replacement at 8k miles. In one of them other piston threads.


----------



## Rbk_3 (Apr 14, 2013)

My 2012 gen 1 at 145k had a similar issue, I think? Idled really loud, and poor acceleration. They quoted me to replace all the pistons and rings at almost 2k, so I just traded it in and went with a new 2018 Cruze. Does this sound like a similar issue? 




Rbk_3 said:


> Well, not good news


----------



## snowwy66 (Nov 5, 2017)

I guess one way to tell if you got broken piston is take the oil cap off and watch the blowby smoke pouring out. 

Pcv hose probably be more preferable though so you're not splashing oil out of the cover.


----------



## JunkieXL (Nov 24, 2017)

New Englander said:


> 87 octane is always used. We just use a lot of gas and premium isn't budgeted for it. The turbo heat does make sense. I hate the added expense of using premium or midgrade fuel, but maybe that would keep this from happening again. Asking 100 cubic inches and a turbo to work that hard does seem a lot to me. But I also think in old school ways.


Cruze only has a 13 gal tank. Even on dead empty, the difference between 87 and 91/93 is only going to be about 5-6 bucks if that and on an empty tank. I only use Shell gas, which is usually also the most expensive around and it's about 5-6 bucks more to fill up with premium. My 2017 Cruze is the first car that I ever noticed an actual difference in performance/feel using Premium gas. It's definitely more responsive/peppy, more fun to drive. This is also my first turbocharged car, so maybe it's a turbo thing with the premium gas feeling. The only downside is I definitely lose about 2-4 MPG on average with 91 octane vs 87. I'm at 17k miles and keeping my fingers crossed I dodge the piston issue. I baby mine and rarely if ever get on it and the few times I have it wasn't for long. Though my transmission has been wonky as **** since I rolled her off the lot. That's another topic altogether....


----------



## ajb62787 (Feb 13, 2018)

During the winter, the gasoline provided have higher Butane, which raises the octane closer to Premium when using 87 Grade. If the temperature is below 50*F, it is extremely difficult to attain 40+mpg. Today here in Maryland, the temperature hit 60*F. I drove 35 Miles on highway speed with the RPM at exactly 2000 and I clocked in at 53mpg


----------



## gyrfalcon (Dec 27, 2013)

My thoughts... never let a "quicklube" place touch your car, EVER.

Your issues might not be related to anything they did, but best to take them out of the equation. Never found one that does good or reliable work. If you want low-wage/criminal screw-ups working on your vehicle that don't care about anything...go to a quicklube place. It'll be the worst $20+ dollars you've ever spent.


----------



## Pegasus (Feb 17, 2018)

JunkieXL said:


> Cruze only has a 13 gal tank. *Even on dead empty, the difference between 87 and 91/93 is only going to be about 5-6 bucks if that and on an empty tank. *I only use Shell gas, which is usually also the most expensive around and it's about 5-6 bucks more to fill up with premium. My 2017 Cruze is the first car that I ever noticed an actual difference in performance/feel using Premium gas. It's definitely more responsive/peppy, more fun to drive. This is also my first turbocharged car, so maybe it's a turbo thing with the premium gas feeling. The only downside is I definitely lose about 2-4 MPG on average with 91 octane vs 87. I'm at 17k miles and keeping my fingers crossed I dodge the piston issue. I baby mine and rarely if ever get on it and the few times I have it wasn't for long. Though my transmission has been wonky as **** since I rolled her off the lot. That's another topic altogether....



I wish the bolded part was true where I live. Here the 87 octane is currently averaging 2.559 a gallon, and 91 at most stations is almost a dollar higher per gallon.


----------



## travis4 (Sep 10, 2017)

2016.5 gen2 sedan (ohio) cyl#2 misfire ----> diagnosis piston failure and new engine at just under 24K
used Dexos, regular gas, never abused it

Dealer didn't fool around, called it at first visit and gave loaner


----------



## Heliarc (Apr 6, 2018)

Older thread. New here.
But my educated guess is that it is not the oil exactly.
You cannot put a leaned out 4cyl in 1600-1900 RPM with potentially 17psi of boost (highway climbing cruse speed)
And not expect it to eventually get hot and begin acting erratic.

Several other MFGs are also battling this. The tiny boosted engine trend is just its phase. 

They want economy and power density at the same time. 
Talk to a professional performance engine builder and mention what specs they run with and at and they will say the same things. They are very close to reaching the limit of how economical gasoline can be in a traditional engine. 
Next step is either something break-through...or diesel. 
I would be willing to bet as the stock tuning is currently on the cars they will all see some failure of this type before 100,000 miles at the MAX.

I mean.. Yeah.. They'll run nice with all that added compression at low speed... But that is tremendous strain and heat being generated.


----------



## Heliarc (Apr 6, 2018)

My guess would be MUCH stronger piston design.. Cyl walls or sleeving. Etc. Going to much more expensive material. 
You can push the limits of things. But if you need 150psi of air and only have a 120psi tank.. You don't just hope it don't explode. You get the bigger tank to achieve the goals. Lots of variables in it. 
But this is my opinion. ?
I'm the test pig. Mine is running in a very custom manner. But not with increased power.


----------



## JunkieXL (Nov 24, 2017)

Was talking to a GM Tech the other day and we got on the subject of the LE2 engine in the 2nd gen Cruzes. Said he's seeing an alarming amount of issues with piston cracking, just at his dealership alone. Went on to say the common denominator seemed to be people who ran 87 octane gasoline or modded the engine for more output i.e BNR/Trifecta tunes etc. 

Curiously I touched on the 87 octane part since the owner's manual states 87 as "recommended". Said it's mainly there for legal reasons, but the small 1.4 Ecotec struggles with pre-detonation on 87, which is resulting in higher chances of piston failures. Makes sense, octane is the resistance gasoline has to detonation, higher octane, higher resistance. He also went on to say that the LE2 suffers from a lack of upper cylinder lubrication by design. Recommended running a group IV full synthetic oil, adding a can of PEA additive for the lubrication and premium gas to mitigate the piston issues as much as possible. Went on to say he's yet to see a failed LE2 who's met most of those. 

Since then I immediately started only using 91 octane shell gas and adding gumout multi-system tuneup every few tanks (only 6 bucks on amazon) as it PEA based, unlike Seafoam etc. I'm good on the oil as I've run Amsoil Signature Series in her since I rolled her off the lot, which is surprisingly a Group IV synth and exceeds Dexros across the board. Castrol Edge, Mobil 1 etc are only Group III's. I'm at 17k miles and runs like a top *knocks on wood*. Transmission though, that's another topic entirely. 


Hope this helps.


----------



## Pegasus (Feb 17, 2018)

JunkieXL said:


> Was talking to a GM Tech the other day and we got on the subject of the LE2 engine in the 2nd gen Cruzes. Said he's seeing an alarming amount of issues with piston cracking, just at his dealership alone. Went on to say the common denominator seemed to be people who ran 87 octane gasoline or modded the engine for more output i.e BNR/Trifecta tunes etc.
> 
> Curiously I touched on the 87 octane part since the owner's manual states 87 as "recommended". Said it's mainly there for legal reasons, but the small 1.4 Ecotec struggles with pre-detonation on 87, which is resulting in higher chances of piston failures. Makes sense, octane is the resistance gasoline has to detonation, higher octane, higher resistance. He also went on to say that the LE2 suffers from a lack of upper cylinder lubrication by design. Recommended running a group IV full synthetic oil, adding a can of PEA additive for the lubrication and premium gas to mitigate the piston issues as much as possible. Went on to say he's yet to see a failed LE2 who's met most of those.
> 
> ...



If it can't reliably run on 87 without engine damage then Chevrolet is guilty of something, not sure what to call it (false advertising?) 
legal reasons my ---, the real reason is if they were truthful with people and said 91 octane was required they wouldn't sell as many economy cars in a market where cost savings is a factor. So it's either spend 4 grand more in gas costs over 100k miles or have to do an engine rebuild? What kind of nonsense is this?


----------



## snowwy66 (Nov 5, 2017)

87 has always been the recommendation. With every vehicle I've ever owned. Clear back to leaded gasoline days.

67 Olds being my oldest car and 76 Kawasaki being my oldest bike. 

America for the most part has always ran the cheapest stuff. Since the beginning of time. Around here it's 85. Most seem to be selling 87 now, though. Even the news would run a story once in a blue moon that the expensive stuff is just wasted money. 

My cruze is the first car I"m actually running 91. 

Our cruzes have a compression ratio of 9.5. 

My uncle has a 10 Dodge truck. 10.5 compression. His wife's car is a 14 Chev Traverse. 11.5 compression. According to google. Roughly 45k miles on both vehicles. Nothing but the cheapest octane. 85. Owners manual says 87. But their motors aren't turbo either. Bigger then our 85 cubic inches.


----------



## Heliarc (Apr 6, 2018)

91/93 is less likely to pre-det. Plus..just better to run on any charged air engine.

I could see the gumout or fuel additive maybe helping some.

They are saying the issue is due to carbon deposits on the intake valves..due to being a DI engine. (Fuel never passes over the valves, only intake air)
So it can build up. Fall into chamber randomly and cause detonation.
Only way to combat the intake valve buildup is from the throttle body or another vac source.

From my research over the past 9 months I've found equally the amount of stock VS tuned cars with the issue. I spoke with two guys with standards.. Asked BNR for most aggressive tune. Adding 6psi to the 17psi base pressure. And hot rodding will do it even faster. They both had piston failures even sooner.
Although a richer A/F is effective at cooling the cyl walls/piston. That is just tons of boost.

From experience tuning older boosted engines.. Boosted cars tend to appreciate running a little rich. It helps with heat and gives it plenty of fuel to accommodate the compressed air.

There are plenty of stock cars having the issues. Seems mostly dependent on being auto or standard. As auto will upshift when it gets under too much load.. And also how the owner drives the vehicle. What loads it stays at.. Etc.

I'm also curious how Amsoil has conducted the testing they claim defeats LSPI. Because there are many other factors going into it than just oil combustion. Climbing a hill @ 16psi @ 1800rpm running lean as it can is the exact ingredients for a disaster. 
Makes it even worse that the turbo is so small it can easily spool up to those ranges even in lesser RPM bands.


----------



## Pegasus (Feb 17, 2018)

Heliarc said:


> There are plenty of stock cars having the issues. Seems mostly dependent on being auto or standard. As auto will upshift when it gets under too much load.. And also how the owner drives the vehicle. What loads it stays at.. Etc.


I want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. Are you saying most of the stock unmodified Cruzes having the piston cracking issues are standard shift?


----------



## llbanks522 (Nov 23, 2017)

Heliarc said:


> There are plenty of stock cars having the issues. Seems mostly dependent on being auto or standard. As auto will upshift when it gets under too much load.. And also how the owner drives the vehicle. What loads it stays at.. Etc.


I personally think (IMHO) “*how the owner drives the vehicle” *May play a major role in cracking the pistons. I have 2,300 miles on my 2017 LT and have never “WOT” the engine. At best was 1/2 down to pass a bus or get onto the Parkway. I also followed the engine brake-in instructions in the owners manual. I don’t intend to “WOT” unless I have an emergency or I’m being chased by “Godzilla”. I will be visiting the dealership next month for (my first of 2) free oil changes. I will talk directly with the Service Manager (he did invite me to meet with him on my first visit). Let’s see how honest he is. I will report what I’m told.


----------



## llbanks522 (Nov 23, 2017)

llbanks522 said:


> I personally think (IMHO) “*how the owner drives the vehicle” *May play a major role in cracking the pistons. I have 2,300 miles on my 2017 LT and have never “WOT” the engine. At best was 1/2 down to pass a bus or get onto the Parkway. I also followed the engine brake-in instructions in the owners manual. I don’t intend to “WOT” unless I have an emergency or I’m being chased by “Godzilla”. I will be visiting the dealership next month for (my first of 2) free oil changes. I will talk directly with the Service Manager (he did invite me to meet with him on my first visit). Let’s see how honest he is. I will report what I’m told.


Sorry, I forgot to add that if I crack a piston like “Pegasus” I will scream holy **** at Chevy!


----------



## Taxman (Aug 10, 2017)

Assuming the problem really is LSPI brought about by trying to squeeze every last MPG out of the engine by minimizing heavy throttle fuel enrichment, then I would expect it to be much worse in manual transmission cars than in cars which automatically downshift when you tip into the throttle at low RPM. (one theory I've read says that ours do it and Ford's Ecoboost don't, because Ford was more conservative with the fuel profiles)

And if that's the case, it might be the real reason why GM is dropping the manual transmission option.


----------



## Heliarc (Apr 6, 2018)

llbanks522 said:


> Heliarc said:
> 
> 
> > There are plenty of stock cars having the issues. Seems mostly dependent on being auto or standard. As auto will upshift when it gets under too much load.. And also how the owner drives the vehicle. What loads it stays at.. Etc.
> ...


Yes. There are many stock vehicles having this issue. Standards are more prone because if the Driver does not upshift in a lug situation (keeps rpms below 2k) than the turbo will boost to maximum (17psi) and struggle to maintain the required torque.
---Creating VERY excessive strain and heat. Add to the equation of a very lean condition (generally good.. But not as much for boosted cars) 
And it gets even hotter. And can create umstable combustion.
This is seen in high power levels too. Never ever lug a turbo car.

And..that is exactly what the automatics are doing as well... However the detant upshift will keep the engine mostly out of those ranges. However in 6th gear (cruising speed) it will try to maintain 6th quite irrationally (imo) and will boost to near maximim before upshifting.

So you see more manuals tham autos with the issue.

Yes hot rodding and driving incorrectly will cause that as well. Too much low end boost. 
LSPI isn't exactly a "new" thing.
Preformance car tuners know that you can't run high boost in low rpm. 
But it's happening because of the conditions that new mfgers are introducing in order to achieve HP, MPG, and drivability. 

Dealership guys will almost always deny problems lol
Even now. I mentioned the pre AFM (DoD) engines having issues to my dealer (specifically 07-09) in the 5.3s and they say "Well i never heard that!!" Even though they were replacing many engines before 50k miles due to burning oil and piston carmelization of the rings.

My 07' Avalanche burned 5 quarts every 3000 miles. It ran great. Didnt smoke that i could tell. But it **** sure did something with it lol
Even the newest AFMs still having some issues. Hence why the "delete kit" is so popular. All for 5% mpg increase ?


----------



## user1414 (Mar 3, 2017)

Taxman said:


> Assuming the problem really is LSPI brought about by trying to squeeze every last MPG out of the engine by minimizing heavy throttle fuel enrichment, then I would expect it to be much worse in manual transmission cars than in cars which automatically downshift when you tip into the throttle at low RPM. (one theory I've read says that ours do it and Ford's Ecoboost don't, because Ford was more conservative with the fuel profiles)
> 
> *And if that's the case, it might be the real reason why GM is dropping the manual transmission option.*



I don't think it's anything that sinister or sneaky. Autotrader in Canada is showing 3236 Cruzes across the country. Of those, there are just 132 that are manual which is 4%. I'm going to go on a limb here and assume there is simply near zero demand for manuals these days hence the real reason they dropped it. Which is sad really.


----------



## Heliarc (Apr 6, 2018)

I had a custom tune written after i studied the topic and talked to many of my car builder buddies.
My warranty will be out in less than a year from how many miles i drive. I didn't care as much about their warranty because in such a short time frame... My luck i would have the issue at 60,001 anyway. 
And at that point if it isn't updated or figured out.. Its on you anyway. Lol
What i did;
Lowered maximum boost from 17psi to 12psi.
Richened A:F slightly.
Hardened shifts and raised the shift point threshold. (It drives like a car of the 2000s.)
Locked out 6th gear (automatic) until 73mph.

There is zero shutter. Mpg still averages 38mpg. 
And with the other tweaks i cannot really feel a power difference. 
Time will tell ?

I'm certainly not saying this will fix everything lol
Or to do it. But just sharing what i had done to mine. 
But hey. I guess ill be able to see. 
After speaking to a few ppl who have had a engine replaced (being stock) they was very worried about a repeating event later on. 
I rolled the dice to see if i can prevent it from ever happening anyway. ?


----------



## llbanks522 (Nov 23, 2017)

Heliarc said:


> So you see more manuals then autos with the issue.
> 
> Yes hot rodding and driving incorrectly will cause that as well. Too much low end boost.
> LSPI isn't exactly a "new" thing.
> ...


Interesting posts Heliarc. Because of yours and others I “Goggled” LSPI and watched a couple of YouTube videos describing it to try and fully understand it. You're right and it’s not a new thing. I want to be fully “armed” when I visit the dealership next month. I’m hoping the Service Manager is a straight shooter and not a BS artist.


----------



## Heliarc (Apr 6, 2018)

Well they are under the gun from not only their dealership employment. But GM. They wont ever openly admit a issue.. Because if they did it could trigger alot of things later. 
Other MFGs are also having the issue. It's just the trend right now. The engine will give nice torque and MPGs. But it can't be sustained while trying to use the bare minimum engine components. Trying to get more power density out of a economy engine. 
If they found the components capable of running in those parameters than it would work. But it wouldn't be cheap. 

Most boosted car tuning enthusiasts wont even wanna run over 15psi on engines producing 300hp. 
You run into "heat soak" and knock fairly fast if you dont have matching hardware to provide what the engine needs.

I couldn't believe ppl be squeezing 23psi on the smallest turbo ive ever seen lol (Cruzes..when tuned)
Idk what or how they are rating their efficiency maps.. But it just blows my mind. An example, a T25 Garret is 2x the size of the turbo on the 1.4.. And runs out of map over 17psi. 
Any more and seals blow. Bearings come apart. And it turns into a hair dryer..

But in the world of advancements and more MPG.. It seems like the manufactures are just getting ahead of themselves. 
When they stand tested the 1.4l for (x) hours at loaded or unloaded ranges.. I very much doubt they tested it @ say 1800rpm -15-17psi boost (Maximum torque) for extended periods.
The idea of what would actually occur in the real world.
But ehh. Im sure they will figure it out eventually. 

Good luck man. Hopefully these cruzes end up fixed and not popping pistons every 40k ?


----------



## Pegasus (Feb 17, 2018)

llbanks522 said:


> Sorry, I forgot to add that if I crack a piston like “Pegasus” I will scream holy **** at Chevy!


I guess I need to clarify something. I never said I had a cracked piston. (yet) My wife and I are new Cruze owners, a new 2017, currently with 4K miles. We didn't know about the cracked piston issue before we bought the car. Now my wife and I both have some concerns about whether we made the right decision. Now maybe using 91 octane might prevent this or not (don't know that was just a theory some people on here are saying) but if we had been told that we needed to use 91 octane to prevent piston cracking, we neve would've bought the car. It's stupid to make an economy compact car and require it to have the most expensive gas. People buy economy cars to save fuel costs, not to have to spend an extra dollar a gallon to avoid engine damage. 

Now perhaps higher octane isn't the answer, but who knows. It's not like anyone at Chevrolet has come out and said what the problem is or was with the cracked pistons. If they have can someone link me to it, because I haven't read it yet. 

I asked my local dealers service dept. and they claim they don't know the official reason either. All they could tell me was they haven't seen any piston problems yet with the gen 2's but they aren't in a high volume market anyway, so they don't know if the problem is fixed or not. They are like my wife and I, keeping their fingers crossed and hoping it won't be an issue in the future.


----------



## llbanks522 (Nov 23, 2017)

Pegasus said:


> I guess I need to clarify something. I never said I had a cracked piston. (yet) My wife and I are new Cruze owners, a new 2017, currently with 4K miles. We didn't know about the cracked piston issue before we bought the car. Now my wife and I both have some concerns about whether we made the right decision. Now maybe using 91 octane might prevent this or not (don't know that was just a theory some people on here are saying) but if we had been told that we needed to use 91 octane to prevent piston cracking, we neve would've bought the car. It's stupid to make an economy compact car and require it to have the most expensive gas. People buy economy cars to save fuel costs, not to have to spend an extra dollar a gallon to avoid engine damage.
> 
> Now perhaps higher octane isn't the answer, but who knows. It's not like anyone at Chevrolet has come out and said what the problem is or was with the cracked pistons. If they have can someone link me to it, because I haven't read it yet.
> 
> I asked my local dealers service dept. and they claim they don't know the official reason either. All they could tell me was they haven't seen any piston problems yet with the gen 2's but they aren't in a high volume market anyway, so they don't know if the problem is fixed or not. They are like my wife and I, keeping their fingers crossed and hoping it won't be an issue in the future.



Sorry about that. I should have gone all the way back and re-read your original posts. I too am worried about cracking a piston etc. and perhaps having to use premium gas. That is a lot of extra expense over 25k, 50k, 100k miles etc. to “help avoid” a “possible” problem. I visit my dealership next month for the first (of 2) free oil changes. I will be talking directly with the Service Manager about it then, but honestly, I really don’t expect a “true straight forward answer”. We’ll see.


----------



## llbanks522 (Nov 23, 2017)

llbanks522 said:


> Sorry about that. I should have gone all the way back and re-read your original posts.


The thread was started by Cruze Talk member “New Englander” and he indeed had to engine failures.


----------



## snowwy66 (Nov 5, 2017)

I think all of us are keeping our fingers crossed. 

I just barely turned over 5k on mine.


----------



## Farmerboy (Sep 2, 2012)

Well, my wife’s car (‘17 Hatch) has almost 50k on it. Hadn’t heard about this till now. No problem so far. Have used Amsoil SS all it’s life but almost always 87 octane. May have to start using higher.


----------



## 17Hatch6MT (Dec 28, 2015)

A friend has a Gen I Cruze with the 1.4T and 6AT, and I test drove a Gen II equipped similarly. With gentle acceleration, under light throttle, the AT upshifts at low RPM. You can get up to speed keeping the engine well under 2000 rpm in both cars. My time at the wheel of each was brief, so correct me if I'm wrong. So that's what I do with my MT car. I like getting good MPG, so I accelerate at a speed the engine can accommodate at low RPM and low throttle. That's pretty slow by the standards of impatient tailgater types, often young females, who don't understand the break for the 1-2 shift and give me ugly looks. (When the engine is fully warm, I'll goose it a little bit in 1st once it reaches the torque band, to give some space. But if it's cold, I drive really gently.)

Not sure I'm doing it 'safely' given this problem. It's so quiet, muffled by chassis design and by the turbo. Also, given the throttle-by-wire, I don't have as much feel through the pedal, and I don't know what the computer is actually doing with the physical throttle. And, the turbo throws a 'wild card' into the actual, physical throttle setting.

I am going to use some tricks outlined here, unless and until we have a word from GM. Top-tier premium fuel. Best oil (maybe the Amsoil SS), fuel treatment every 10,000 (just about due for the 1st, have bought the Gumout brand stuff, haven't put it in yet), haven't decided yet if the catch can is worthwhile.

I did have two LSPI incidents that I'm aware of. Both under heavy throttle. Once at around 2000 rpm, once in the upper 2000s to the best of my recollection. Pedal matted both times. I think both were after a dealer oil change where it was overfilled about 1/2 quart and where I think they may have used the prior revision of oil. I took it back to them after a few hundred mi to correct the overfill, before being aware of the oil revision and the propensity of these engines to blow up. They drained & refilled it but didn't change the filter. I haven't noticed a problem since, but I am also driving it differently, and using premium fuel, so not sure if anything has actually changed.

I thought on modern cars that it wasn't dangerous to mat the throttle, but hearing otherwise with this. Very disappointed that I can break it by using it normally. Haven't had that feeling while I owned a 1989 Honda and a 2001 Nissan, both with manual transmissions. My parents always had GM and they almost always had to pay for early engine repairs. I liked the cars otherwise... handling and driving feel and comfort balance was a GM strong suit and is also on this car.

I must say, the only thing more expensive than using top tier premium fuel and expensive oils and driving carefully, is selling the thing early and buying a different new car. I don't feel really wealthy, but, I could afford to do this I think. Not sure what type of Toyota I'm going to get next.

Interested to know what 'Italian tune-up' techniques work for this thing. Afraid to press the throttle to the floor now, but I suppose at 3,000 and above, it's ok. Haven't felt the need to redline it, but is this a necessity once in a while?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

17Hatch6MT said:


> A friend has a Gen I Cruze with the 1.4T and 6AT, and I test drove a Gen II equipped similarly. With gentle acceleration, under light throttle, the AT upshifts at low RPM. You can get up to speed keeping the engine well under 2000 rpm in both cars. My time at the wheel of each was brief, so correct me if I'm wrong. So that's what I do with my MT car. I like getting good MPG, so I accelerate at a speed the engine can accommodate at low RPM and low throttle. That's pretty slow by the standards of impatient tailgater types, often young females, who don't understand the break for the 1-2 shift and give me ugly looks.
> 
> Not sure I'm doing it 'safely' given this problem. It's so quiet, muffled by chassis design and by the turbo. Also, given the throttle-by-wire, I don't have as much feel through the pedal, and I don't know what the computer is actually doing with the physical throttle. And, the turbo throws a 'wild card' into the actual, physical throttle setting.
> 
> ...


Yes the AT upshifts pretty low as the engine has a pretty good low end. I spent most of my driving sub 2500 RPM, but it does see upper ranges one or twice a week because I hate other idiots on the road. 

Both of my LSPI events were on 87 octane in the mid 3000s under heavy throttle. Definite hiccup and weird noise from the motor under acceleration. I've also felt it do a weird hiccup on 89 after accelerating and then backing off on the throttle. 

Since a diet of Amsoil XL and 93, I haven't felt it again. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Heliarc (Apr 6, 2018)

Interesting reads.

The LSPI events you guys are speaking of. Did it feel like an immediate "cutout" in power?
I felt that a few times before tuned down. 
It occured around 2800rpm going uphill with cruise control set.

I had the handheld connected after the first one to see if it detected knock or misfires. Nothing came up on the KR or Misfire log.
(I hadn't uploaded the tune yet)

Another good thing to help prevent this is to clean the intake valves periodically using some of the spray-in-intake method when following instructions. (Assuming the current theory is also correct about the buildup) The valves get very nasty on just about all DI engines. 
Couldn't hurt either way. 
Im still near certain it is from too much pressure/power density/heat from the lean boosting conditions. Add some debris on the valves to get nice and ?

Hopefully this gets totally resolved in the coming years. However it may.

I'd hate to think of the gen2s as an avoided vehicle. GM (Opel) may just have to use some internals of higher strength and/or fine tune everything. Who knows. 
?


----------



## 17Hatch6MT (Dec 28, 2015)

Yes, grinding sound from under the hood, pronounced >50% decrease in power, lasted about as long as it took my mind to register there was a problem & to react by lifting my foot.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

17Hatch6MT said:


> Yes, grinding sound from under the hood, pronounced >50% decrease in power, lasted about as long as it took my mind to register there was a problem & to react by lifting my foot.


Same. Second or so.


----------



## llbanks522 (Nov 23, 2017)

17Hatch6MT said:


> I am going to use some tricks outlined here, unless and until we have a word from GM. Top-tier premium fuel. Best oil (maybe the Amsoil SS), fuel treatment every 10,000 (just about due for the 1st, have bought the Gumout brand stuff, haven't put it in yet), haven't decided yet if the catch can is worthwhile.
> 
> I did have two LSPI incidents that I'm aware of. Both under heavy throttle. Once at around 2000 rpm, once in the upper 2000s to the best of my recollection. Pedal matted both times. I think both were after a dealer oil change where it was overfilled about 1/2 quart and where I think they may have used the prior revision of oil. I took it back to them after a few hundred mi to correct the overfill, before being aware of the oil revision and the propensity of these engines to blow up. They drained & refilled it but didn't change the filter. I haven't noticed a problem since, but I am also driving it differently, and using premium fuel, so not sure if anything has actually changed
> 
> ...


Yikes, there are so many different “Threads & Posts” about LSPI, cracked pistons etc., premium gas vs 87 Octane, premium oils etc that my 71 year old brain is spinning.?. I’ve watched videos on LSPI and read articles about it and lots of individual posts to the point of WTF! Any way I went to COSTCO today and filled up my “Hot Red” 2017 LT with regular 87 octane. Today’s prices in New Jersey $2.539 for 87 and $2.899 for 93 octane. COSTCO has (hands down) the lowest gas prices in the state. I’ve run some actual numbers based on my first 5 months of ownership: (Remember I’m retired so not too many miles driven)

2,356 miles, total of 89 gallons used. Had I used premium gas I would have spent $32 more 
Now let’s go further (using a 28 MPG average)
25k miles = 892 gallons or $321 more using premium over regular
50k miles = 1784 gallons or $642 more
75k miles = 2676 gallons or $963 more
100k miles = 3568 gallons or $1,284 more

That’s not too bad of an extra expense (to possibly avoid a “possible” major engine failure) but here in NJ the difference is only 36 cents a gallon more. Some CT members have said premium gas is a $1.00 or more per gallon higher! I’m not considering $$ for oil because you should always use the best oil regardless of the make/model of the car.

I can’t wait to get that first free oil change at the dealership. Perhaps I can make the Service Managers head spin TOO. LOL ?


----------



## Pegasus (Feb 17, 2018)

llbanks522 said:


> Today’s prices in New Jersey $2.539 for 87 and $2.899 for 93 octane. COSTCO has (hands down) the lowest gas prices in the state. I’ve run some actual numbers based on my first 5 months of ownership: (Remember I’m retired so not too many miles driven)
> 
> 2,356 miles, total of 89 gallons used. Had I used premium gas I would have spent $32 more
> Now let’s go further (using a 28 MPG average)
> ...


I wish they had those prices where I live. The station nearest to me was 2.599 for 87 octane and 3.499 for premium, a ninety cent difference. This is actually an improvement, at times I've seen the difference a full dollar. Another station had regular for 2.899 but premium for 3.699, only an 80 cent difference. There are no Costco's near where I live, or it would be worth it to get a membership.


----------



## 17Hatch6MT (Dec 28, 2015)

It may be important to use 'Top Tier' fuels also. These have more detergents.


----------



## Heliarc (Apr 6, 2018)

I just did a intake valve clean treatment from Seafoam. The spray. My car idles WAYY SMOOTHER after. Like how it should. Dealer kept saying the slight miss was normal. But i bet anything a intake valve was nasty. 
It helps alot. I would totally say to do it. But don't lose the 2 plastic things on the side of the intake horn clip.
I lost both of mine ?
Ill have to order new ones. 

Luckily i took a pic when i lost ONE and lost both trying to ask a Tech if i could buy them. And pic has part number.
(HSR23393) lol

I don't think they are critical but it keeps pin centered that holds the horn on. 

Anyway.. Yes!!! Do the intake cleaning every 20k. I KNOW the engine will sound better. I ran mine for 15 mins at idle and noticed BIG TIME how much smoother ot purred.


----------



## Heliarc (Apr 6, 2018)

For me.. Premium (91) gas WITHOUT ethanol is little over 3$.
87 WITH is like 2.40
I never put anything but real gas in any of my gasoline motors. Designed to handle it or not. The MPG difference of 1 or 2 mpg makes up for at least half the loss.

Ill eat the other 25cents anyday.


----------



## Pegasus (Feb 17, 2018)

Heliarc said:


> For me.. Premium (91) gas WITHOUT ethanol is little over 3$.
> 87 WITH is like 2.40
> I never put anything but real gas in any of my gasoline motors. Designed to handle it or not. The MPG difference of 1 or 2 mpg makes up for at least half the loss.
> 
> Ill eat the other 25cents anyday.


In the area where I live, none of the regular stations sell 100% gas, not even the 93. To get 100 % gas around here you have to go to a marina. I don't know the price, but just for example, the 87 that is 10% ethanol today is 3.159, 93 octane is 3.999, and not 100% gas. I shutter to think what the price is for 100% gasoline at the marina.


----------



## JunkieXL (Nov 24, 2017)

17Hatch6MT said:


> It may be important to use 'Top Tier' fuels also. These have more detergents.


Not unfamiliar with Top Tier, but the local Shell station where I always get gas, I've noticed does not have the green 'top tier' sticker on any of the pumps. I know Shell sells top tier and I've seen them on other Shell station pumps. The gas station in question also doubles as a Spinx store and I know Spinx does NOT offer top tier. Also, one night on way home from work (work 2nd) there was a tanker refilling gas at the Shell station I go to, it was unmarked. Just has me curious if the station, despite being a "shell" station, is not actually selling Shell gas and instead selling whatever gas Spinx sources which is not top tier. Or maybe the Owner(s) just didn't put the top tier stickers on the pump and it was just coincidence the tanker was unmarked?


----------



## Taxman (Aug 10, 2017)

Last I knew, they all used the same gas from the same pipeline around here, the vast majority of it hauled by independent trucking companies. 

The delivery truck has everybody's additives on board, and mixes it to spec as its dispensed into the underground tank at the gas station. 

IIRC, a Speedway might get about 150ppm of the Marathon detergent to meet federal regulations, while a Marathon station (Top Tier) might get 400ppm of the same detergent, while Shell would get an entirely different detergent package.


----------



## SONICJIM (Aug 23, 2016)

BTW, after reading recent posts about LSPI in the GEN2 Cruze ( I have a 2016 GEN2 ), I have started using 89 octane and my mileage has noticeable _dropped _about 3 mpg. But I think I will continue to use it. I have 44K miles on it and I don't want any piston problems after 50K miles.

I wonder if the piston failures was really due to LSPI or just a bad batch of pistons. But if piston #1 was usually the piston at fault, I guess a bad batch of pistons wouldn't account for that.

Does anyone know if an ECM re-flash has been issued to help prevent piston failures ? Maybe I should bring my car in before it hits 50K miles to have that done.


----------



## SONICJIM (Aug 23, 2016)

Taxman said:


> Last I knew, they all used the same gas from the same pipeline around here, the vast majority of it hauled by independent trucking companies.
> 
> The delivery truck has everybody's additives on board, and mixes it to spec as its dispensed into the underground tank at the gas station.
> 
> IIRC, a Speedway might get about 150ppm of the Marathon detergent to meet federal regulations, while a Marathon station (Top Tier) might get 400ppm of the same detergent, while Shell would get an entirely different detergent package.


That's what a retired gas hauler told me too. I'm also in Michigan.

BTW, last year we took a trip to Minnesota and when getting gas at a station in Iowa, I noticed the pump said ALL grades of gas contained NO ethanol. I don't remember the name of the chain. I thought that was really weird being in Iowa with all the cornfields.

But at other stations in Iowa , the pump had the standard warning " Contains up to XX% ethanol".

BTW ( again) , around here in West Michigan more and more stations are selling 91 octane ethanol free "Recreational " gas. It's about a buck and a half more than 87 octane regular. It's sold out of a stand alone above ground tank.


----------



## Taxman (Aug 10, 2017)

SONICJIM said:


> BTW, last year we took a trip to Minnesota and when getting gas at a station in Iowa, I noticed the pump said ALL grades of gas contained NO ethanol. I don't remember the name of the chain. I thought that was really weird being in Iowa with all the cornfields.


Unfortunately for us, the last time I saw a table of statewide pump labeling requirements, it was pretty much illegal in MI, IN, and OH to label the regular island pumps with the actual ethanol content. Somehow the 'rec fuel' pumps get around that, but the usual car pumps all say "up to 10%", because our untruth in labeling laws prohibit them from telling you exactly what you're buying. 




> BTW ( again) , around here in West Michigan more and more stations are selling 91 octane ethanol free "Recreational " gas. It's about a buck and a half more than 87 octane regular. It's sold out of a stand alone above ground tank.


In the last ten years, E0 availability has gone from 'go to the marina and pay $2 extra for regular or go to the airport and pay $2 extra for 100 octane with lead', to "you're probably within 25 miles of a 89-90-91 octane rec fuel pump right now". (the one in Nashville sells 89)

If it weren't for the fact that LL stand for Low Lead, 100LL aviation gas would be great stuff. It stores forever, it has great detonation resistance, and it has more BTU per gallon than any other gasoline I can think of. But there lies the problem with using 100LL in outdoor power equipment. If you can't tune the carburetor, it runs rich and makes less power. If you can tune the carb (chainsaw or string trimmer with uncapped carb adjusting screws) and you tune it for 100LL, you can run lean and seize if you put E10 in it without retuning.


----------



## aircom (May 26, 2019)

Hello everyone. Using 87 octane I can not avoid engine problems with cruze 2017?


----------



## JunkieXL (Nov 24, 2017)

aircom said:


> Hello everyone. Using 87 octane I can not avoid engine problems with cruze 2017?


There is no official word on the fact. The LE2 can run just fine on 87, it's just not widely recommended outside 'official' sources. Octane is the measurement of resistance to detonation, higher octane, more resistance. The caveat to small turbo engines, is pre-det susceptibility. Right off the bat a higher octane fuel will help here. On top of that, higher grade fuel will burn cleaner and more efficient. You spend a little more at the pump, but you gain back more down the road if you plan on keeping the car for any length of time outside the warranty. 

But to answer your question more directly, There just isn't enough data if running just 87 will directly lead to issues with the LE2.


----------



## Iamantman (Sep 24, 2018)

There are also about a million variables that could lead to engine failure besides simply what gas you use. It's just a "best practice" kind of thing. Or cheap insurance. However you want to look at it.


----------



## Iamantman (Sep 24, 2018)

SONICJIM said:


> BTW, after reading recent posts about LSPI in the GEN2 Cruze ( I have a 2016 GEN2 ), I have started using 89 octane and my mileage has noticeable _dropped _about 3 mpg. But I think I will continue to use it. I have 44K miles on it and I don't want any piston problems after 50K miles.
> 
> I wonder if the piston failures was really due to LSPI or just a bad batch of pistons. But if piston #1 was usually the piston at fault, I guess a bad batch of pistons wouldn't account for that.
> 
> Does anyone know if an ECM re-flash has been issued to help prevent piston failures ? Maybe I should bring my car in before it hits 50K miles to have that done.


It wasn't that it was a bad batch of pistons like a manufacturing fault or something. GM changed the design of the piston itself to limit failures. Pre-ignition is bad news bears for any engine. The early LE2s were just more susceptible to it due to their piston design.


----------



## aircom (May 26, 2019)

my cruze 7/2017. Am I still at risk?


----------

