# Dealer says there is recall coming



## brian v (Dec 25, 2011)

That's Nice to hear something that is not going to be so Nice .. Ha already had my emissions tested for the next 2 years .. OH Goodie ..


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

There was some emissions recall released a few months ago for earlier 1.4T automatics (2011? 12?) 

You say this one will affect both gas engines and transmissions?


----------



## boneheaddoctor (Dec 10, 2014)

...and is it going to effect those people with Tunes I'm sure people with them are thinking.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

boneheaddoctor said:


> ...and is it going to effect those people with Tunes I'm sure people with them are thinking.



















Though that still doesn't clear the recall on GMs side.


----------



## AutumnCruzeRS (Sep 10, 2012)

boneheaddoctor said:


> ...and is it going to effect those people with Tunes I'm sure people with them are thinking.


Thats why recalls are optional. Especially one that deals with emissions. What 36+mpgs isnt good enough for lowering emissions.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

I wonder if it has something to do with the sticking steering issue. On April 11, 2015, GM announced that it would not issue a recall for the problem even though two owners reported crashing due to the issue. 

"GM told the Times the stuck steering wheels aren't considered enough of a safety hazard to order a recall, yet GM sent its dealers a technical service bulletin about the problem. The bulletin tells GM dealers exactly how to repair the problem by installing a simple software update, but only if customers complain enough to bring their cars in for service."

Steering Wheels Stick in the Chevy Cruze, Malibu and Buick Verano | CarComplaints.com


----------



## Robby (Mar 1, 2013)

Nothing about steering was brought up.....it was along the lines of a compliance issue only at highway speeds.

Model years 2011/2013 1.4T Eco or LT's..........no mention of the 1.8 gang.

Rob


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

Robby said:


> Nothing about steering was brought up.....it was along the lines of a compliance issue only at highway speeds.


I just hope it doesn't screw up the MPG. I can't say as I'm anxious to take it in if it's just for emissions.


----------



## Justinus (Aug 18, 2014)

Jim Frye said:


> I wonder if it has something to do with the sticking steering issue. On April 11, 2015, GM announced that it would not issue a recall for the problem even though two owners reported crashing due to the issue.
> 
> "GM told the Times the stuck steering wheels aren't considered enough of a safety hazard to order a recall, yet GM sent its dealers a technical service bulletin about the problem. The bulletin tells GM dealers exactly how to repair the problem by installing a simple software update, but only if customers complain enough to bring their cars in for service."
> 
> Steering Wheels Stick in the Chevy Cruze, Malibu and Buick Verano | CarComplaints.com


Pretty sure they're going to steer clear of a recall on this one because it requires replacing the $800 steering gear on 2011-2012 model years.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Hope its not like some Microsoft updates, recall a framework or something like this on XP that really caused my computer to crash and with 8.1 programs that were running wouldn't run anymore.

Cruze is running perfectly fine the way it is, have they really tested out this new firmware that won't create new problems?

O4 Cavalier had three firmware updates, latest one caused an engine hesitation when taking off in 1st gear, just had to learn to live with it. But was told had something to do with EPA emission requirements.


----------



## Daisy81 (Jun 17, 2012)

NickD said:


> Hope its not like some Microsoft updates, recall a framework or something like this on XP that really caused my computer to crash and with 8.1 programs that were running wouldn't run anymore.
> 
> Cruze is running perfectly fine the way it is, have they really tested out this new firmware that won't create new problems?
> 
> O4 Cavalier had three firmware updates, latest one caused an engine hesitation when taking off in 1st gear, just had to learn to live with it. But was told had something to do with EPA emission requirements.


hmm recall declined. I'm not going in to let GM fiddle with my car. It works just fine. This is not a safety issue or a hazard.


----------



## cdb09007 (Aug 7, 2013)

Agreed. I'll get the recall once I fail emissions....


----------



## BlkGrnetRS (Jul 21, 2013)

Just got a notification about this today. I've searched but couldn't come up with anymore info.


----------



## ChevyMgr (Oct 27, 2010)

*SUBJECT: Reprogram Engine Control Module *
*MODELS: 2011-2013 Chevrolet Cruze 
Equipped with 1.4L Engine (RPO LUJ and LUV) and Automatic Transmission 
*[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]CONDITION 
General Motors has decided to conduct a voluntary emission recall of 2011-2013 Chevrolet Cruze vehicles equipped with a 1.4L engine (RPO LUJ or LUV) and an automatic transmission. General Motors and US Environmental Protection Agency emissions testing found vehicles that did not comply with the carbon monoxide emissions standard on the US06 emissions test. This test measures tailpipe emissions during high speed/high load conditions. 
CORRECTION 
Dealers are to reprogram the engine control module (ECM) to revise the fuel enrichment strategy as required. 

[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## Daisy81 (Jun 17, 2012)

cdb09007 said:


> Agreed. I'll get the recall once I fail emissions....


I saw a post here somewhere but I can't find it now. It said that the Trifecta tune uses the new emissions program as a base so at least for me that means I don't have to worry about failing the emissions test. I simply don't need to be flashed. If they ask me I'll simply say Ted Britt's updated it and they must have forgotten to file the paper work. They are wankers and stiffed me on my oil change when I bought the car from Sterling Chevrolet and they bought the dealership but thought it would be cute not to honor a simple little oil change in good faith to keep customers.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

ChevyMgr said:


> *SUBJECT: Reprogram Engine Control Module *
> *MODELS: 2011-2013 Chevrolet Cruze
> Equipped with 1.4L Engine (RPO LUJ and LUV) and Automatic Transmission
> *CONDITION
> ...


Got out of this one, have a manual transmission. 

My uneducated guess is the only thing they could do with the firmware is lean out the mixture, and maybe go overboard like this did on my 04 so get some hesitation when accelerating. Never noted any change in fuel economy. This mostly depended upon what kind of crap I got out of the pump.


----------



## Daisy81 (Jun 17, 2012)

NickD said:


> Got out of this one, have a manual transmission.
> 
> My uneducated guess is the only thing they could do with the firmware is lean out the mixture, and maybe go overboard like this did on my 04 so get some hesitation when accelerating. Never noted any change in fuel economy. This mostly depended upon what kind of crap I got out of the pump.


Are you enjoying your car?-

-Yeah

Great well we're here to fix it.-

-But it's not broken.

Oh yes it is and if you don't do it the gangster government will lean on you and hand you fines and fees-

-Fine

Great now it's fixed-

-Awww wtf now it drives like s h i t

You can buy a new vehicle from us-


----------



## carbon02 (Feb 25, 2011)

Thanks Robby and ChevyMGR. 

It sounds like this reprogramming would make the engine run richer to bring the emission system to full temperature faster? 

If that's the case I'm not sure I'll be racing in to get this one. 

With the coolant system finally working properly and not venting with BlueAngel's O-ring solution, the car is delivering 38 mpg on the pump calcs and 41 mpg over a 400 mile average on the DIC. 

There's no yearly emissions testing in Minnesota anymore.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Actually when you kick on the gas pedal, knocked out of closed loop mode and the fuel injector dwell is increased to get extra power. On carbed cars, would switch from 14.7:1 down to 12:1 AF ratio. Hard to say what it is with fuel injection, would have to bypassed the catalytic converter and measure it.

But in reality, the catalytic converter is suppose to take care of this, but could be slightly undersized that would cost GM huge bucks to replace, so cheaper to rewrite the firmware for LESS injector dwell. And may get some hesitation as a result.


----------



## KENSTV123 (Sep 21, 2014)

Bet it cuts power, probably WOT turbo control


----------



## Daisy81 (Jun 17, 2012)

This really disturbs me. It is short sighted.

Why not instead push back on the out of control government and call for the car to be grand fathered as it existed before the change went into place or fix the vehicle the right way. What should we expect from GM after they here willing to take a hacksaw to cars sold just weeks prior.

Get your head out of your collective @sses GM. Don't self destruct the Cruze after a good first generation run where you might actually make a positive name for yourself rather then choke at the last second and have everyone be like yup that is the GM I remember.

Thankfully the Trifecta tune runs ok and has this already taken care of so this computer update will not defile my Cruze.


----------



## cruzinred92 (Dec 4, 2013)

Even my sister in law got a letter for her 10 gmc terrain with the 2.4. Think it'll just be a while before I head to the dealer if I can help it lol. Or just tell them not to do it... kinda wonder of they took out the fuel dump at high boost and rpm that's supposed to help cool and preserve the turbo?


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

ChevyMgr said:


> This test measures tailpipe emissions during high speed/high load conditions.
> CORRECTION
> Dealers are to reprogram the engine control module (ECM) to revise the fuel enrichment strategy as required.


I noticed the last few winters if I floor my car at the bottom of a hill and take each gear to near redline as I accelerate, I have noticed on a few occasions I can smell my catalytic converter. This always seemed to me the car would have to be running rich under these high load conditions to cause this. I will have no problem being first in line to get this update. 

Strange part I have never noticed this when its warm outside but it does occur if the engine is fully warmed up(I've never got on the car with a cold engine).


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

spacedout said:


> I noticed the last few winters if I floor my car at the bottom of a hill and take each gear to near redline as I accelerate, I have noticed on a few occasions I can smell my catalytic converter. This always seemed to me the car would have to be running rich under these high load conditions to cause this. I will have no problem being first in line to get this update.
> 
> Strange part I have never noticed this when its warm outside but it does occur if the engine is fully warmed up(I've never got on the car with a cold engine).


That's normal for a lot of cars, though.

Ever been behind a Toyota on a hill? You'll get that rotten egg smell all the way up.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> That's normal for a lot of cars, though.
> 
> Ever been behind a Toyota on a hill? You'll get that rotten egg smell all the way up.


I figured it was at least normal in the sense it was not setting off any CEL, so nothing to be concerned about. However if this update could possibly address this I would have no issue getting it. Besides wouldn't this ECU update also include the update to allow the engine fan to run with the engine off if needed? Even possibly better adjusted fuel trims for different(regular)octane gas allowing the car to run better on such fuel?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

spacedout said:


> I figured it was at least normal in the sense it was not setting off any CEL, so nothing to be concerned about. However if this update could possibly address this I would have no issue getting it. Besides wouldn't this ECU update also include the update to allow the engine fan to run with the engine off if needed? Even possibly better adjusted fuel trims for different(regular)octane gas allowing the car to run better on such fuel?


I'll wait and see if other people report MPG losses. If that occurs, I don't want it


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> I'll wait and see if other people report MPG losses. If that occurs, I don't want it


I only plan on having my car a couple more years at most, I'll be a guinea pig as soon as I get a letter from GM or the dealer mentions it.


----------



## bostonboy (Apr 8, 2015)

I know about 2-3 months after I bought my cruze GM sent me a recall letter for coolant weeping out of my water pump. As I read it I weeping myself. :sad010:


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

spacedout said:


> I figured it was at least normal in the sense it was not setting off any CEL, so nothing to be concerned about. However if this update could possibly address this I would have no issue getting it. Besides wouldn't this ECU update also include the update to allow the engine fan to run with the engine off if needed? Even possibly better adjusted fuel trims for different(regular)octane gas allowing the car to run better on such fuel?


I noticed this doesn't cover the 2014s which have been reported to run properly on 87 octane. I wonder...


----------



## BowtieGuy (Jan 4, 2013)

obermd said:


> I noticed this doesn't cover the 2014s which have been reported to run properly on 87 octane. I wonder...


I am wondering the exact same thing.


----------



## brian v (Dec 25, 2011)

I 'm not .. I drive predominately city miles ..


----------



## Daisy81 (Jun 17, 2012)

obermd said:


> I noticed this doesn't cover the 2014s which have been reported to run properly on 87 octane. I wonder...


What are you wondering?


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

Daisy81 said:


> Why not instead push back on the out of control government and call for the car to be grand fathered as it existed before the change went into place or fix the vehicle the right way.


Path of least resistance. The government can be real pricks.

But if Trifecta says they've done it already, then it may not have that much impact on performance. Or, at least it can be done without affecting performance.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

Daisy81 said:


> What are you wondering?


If maybe the 2011-2013 will work fine on 87 after the re-flash. IOW, this might well be a upgrade!

And on another note: In "My Chevrolet": "Date Issued: Nov 26, 2014" :question:


----------



## ChevyMgr (Oct 27, 2010)

As I was reading the entire reprogramming procedure I came upon this interesting note:


*Note: *[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Vehicles retrofitted with the GM Accessory Turbo Stage Kit may already have the required calibrations loaded in the engine control module (ECM). If the Service programming system (SPS) indicates that the ECM already contains the latest available calibrations, no further action is required. Do NOT reprogram or overwrite the calibrations in the ECM. [/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

So everything I've seen says automatic 1.4T only. Is that correct?


----------



## ChevyMgr (Oct 27, 2010)

That is correct.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

ChevyGuy said:


> If maybe the 2011-2013 will work fine on 87 after the re-flash. IOW, this might well be a upgrade!
> 
> And on another note: In "My Chevrolet": "Date Issued: Nov 26, 2014" :question:


Exactly what I was wondering.


----------



## brian v (Dec 25, 2011)

And I have an LS so I'm good and you 's guys can chew the fat with out me . j good question .. oh yeah me IT has never ever had any problems runnig 87 so with out further adoœ . Dat Rep doe .


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

If I remember correctly, excessive CO output under load is a sign of incompletely burned fuel. The 2011 to 2013 Cruze run like crap on 87 octane because they are pulling timing to avoid engine knock. How much unburned fuel is going out the tail pipe in this situation?

If this is correct I wouldn't be surprised to see this recall extended to the manual transmissions as well.


----------



## KENSTV123 (Sep 21, 2014)

Humm, I just got the factory books and discovered buried in the RPO codes is KRD--which the factory service manuals say means "fuel rating octane NO.91" but the owner book says 87 is OK, so is the owner book a miss print ?? my cruze is a mid 2013 build 1.4L California emission vehicle, it seems to do OK on the 87 fuel with the California oxygenates in it, would I get more MPG or power with 91 octane fuel ?????


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

KENSTV123 said:


> Humm, I just got the factory books and discovered buried in the RPO codes is KRD--which the factory service manuals say means "fuel rating octane NO.91" but the owner book says 87 is OK, so is the owner book a miss print ?? my cruze is a mid 2013 build 1.4L California emission vehicle, it seems to do OK on the 87 fuel with the California oxygenates in it, would I get more MPG or power with 91 octane fuel ?????


I doubt it's a misprint. It was known early on (2011) that the 1.4L motor was designed to run on 91 octane. Tough sell if all of the competition runs on 87 octane, and the competition would have been all over it like flies on dung, so it was likely a "management" decision to modify the software to "detune" for 87 octane. Then you can publish and sell it as such. Also the reason for so many reccmendations to run premium gas when the ambient temps got above 90 degrees F, or to get a tune that corrected the problem. This change is a good thing for Cruze owners IMO, but it likely wouldn't have happened had it not been for the EPA/NHTSA/Govermit. Better mpg with 91? YMMV.

Useless Information:
The current 1.8L motor in the Civic was also designed to run on 91 octane, for foreign markets, I believe. However, it was set up in the US for 87 octane and runs quite well on it, regardless of temperatures. I've run over 2,000 miles of 93 octane in mine and it had absolutely no effect on mileage or perceived performance. I suspect this is all due to a much simpler engine design, or better engineering.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

brian v said:


> And I have an LS so I'm good and you 's guys can chew the fat with out me . j good question .. oh yeah me IT has never ever had any problems runnig 87 so with out further adoœ . Dat Rep doe .


Does your Cruze have a PRO code of KRD? Check the inside of the glove box.

Edit: If this is what we think it is, the reason for the recall affects all KRD when they run 87 octane.


----------



## KENSTV123 (Sep 21, 2014)

Yeah KRD for sure, took a pix of the RPO label !! soooo, I need some warranty work and it don't sound like I want this re-tune---guess I better get it in soon !!!


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I have the build sheets for both my 2012 ECO MT and 2012 LS MT. They both have the KRD code. Both cars do run better on 91 octane. The ECO MT dramatically better and the LS MT somewhat better. Both show improved city fuel economy on 91 as well.


----------



## cdb09007 (Aug 7, 2013)

huzzah, driving stick wins again!


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Injector dwell is he key factor for proper air fuel factor, too rich, not enough air to burn all the fuel so would emit CO. Also cooks the heck out of the catalytic converter. 

Combustion timing has too factors, first is detonation where when the piston goes up compressing the air fuel, heat is generated that will ignite the fuel even without the spark plug. With ethanol that does not mix with gas, can get an octane rating as low as 80 and have plenty of detonation. This confuses the anti-knock sensor into delaying the spark plug firing timing to maximum retard so if even running right, the combustion cycle is greatly reduced. 

With a high octane fuel detonation is no longer a problem, but with the anti-knock sensor the combustion cycle is increased for both better performance and fuel economy, the two work hand in hand.

This was never a problem before the EPA got involved, could pretty well trust what the pump says, but sure is a problem today with over 155 different blends of gas, oil pipe mixups, and even the truck driver, don't know what in the heck you are getting. And even varies from the same exact gas station only buying what you think is top tier gas with the highest octane rating.

You also don't know if you are paying up to $4.50 per gallon for water.

In this respect, the EPA is not much different than immigration or the FDA for this matter, plus many of the other 1,500 hundred recently created new governmental agency. Sitting in Washington on their butts creating law and congress is passing them as laws, but not giving them any money to enforce them! This is the problem.

So the cure would be to decrease the injector dwell on all vehicles to reduce CO emissions, and in your case, may not even having a problem. But you will end up paying the price for it. 

Bit off topic, but after 9/11 created so many new government agencies for law enforcement they are tripping over each others feet. And finding new ways to blame another agency. We only had three after WW II!


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

NickD said:


> This was never a problem before the EPA got involved, could pretty well trust what the pump says, but sure is a problem today with over 155 different blends of gas, oil pipe mixups, and even the truck driver, don't know what in the heck you are getting. And even varies from the same exact gas station only buying what you think is top tier gas with the highest octane rating.


Really not sure how the EPA is to blame for the physics and chemistry of burning gasoline. The US's Clean Air Act and the equivalent laws in other countries have forced car manufacturers to dramatically improve the combustion mechanics of their engines so what we're seeing in this recall is GM modifying the engine to further bring the engine closer to the "ideal" burn ratios for gasoline.


----------



## Daisy81 (Jun 17, 2012)

obermd said:


> Really not sure how the EPA is to blame for the physics and chemistry of burning gasoline. The US's Clean Air Act and the equivalent laws in other countries have forced car manufacturers to dramatically improve the combustion mechanics of their engines so what we're seeing in this recall is GM modifying the engine to further bring the engine closer to the "ideal" burn ratios for gasoline.


It still really would burn me up if I bought my car didn't have it trend and went from 138HP to anything less after the fact because of some governmental change.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Daisy81 said:


> It still really would burn me up if I bought my car didn't have it trend and went from 138HP to anything less after the fact because of some governmental change.


To reduce CO emissions you need a more complete burn of the gasoline. Improving the burn should also improve both HP and MPG because you're not throwing away energy out the tail pipe. This is why 91 octane works so much better in the 1.4T engine - less knock allowing the ECU to use the more efficient burn ignition table. 91 octane gasoline actually has fewer BTUs.


----------



## Robby (Mar 1, 2013)

Daisy81 said:


> It still really would burn me up if I bought my car didn't have it trend and went from 138HP to anything less after the fact because of some governmental change.


Legally, no modification can be made that alters the advertised available horsepower.....but can change the RPM that the power was produced at.
Odds are, a WOT reprogram would be invisible to the operator.......although the potental of a more agressive timing retard during WOT presents itself.
Often, a rich mixture is introduced at WOT to combat detonation.

Most likely, if a driveability issue is created, you'll see new forum members that have joined just to ask: Ever since I had this recall performed my car does----------whatever.

I will just watch what develops and, of course, relay things the dealer reports relative to the re-program.

Rob


----------



## Robby (Mar 1, 2013)

obermd said:


> To reduce CO emissions you need a more complete burn of the gasoline. Improving the burn should also improve both HP and MPG because you're not throwing away energy out the tail pipe. This is why 91 octane works so much better in the 1.4T engine - less knock allowing the ECU to use the more efficient burn ignition table. 91 octane gasoline actually has fewer BTUs.


If I may.....higher octane numbers mean reduced volitility, not BTU's.

I will try to create a visualization.

We are inside the combustion chamber....it has performed a intake stroke and the piston (and cylinder pressure) is rising.
Pressure makes heat (ie, how a diesel works).
The moment the plug fires the mixture the cylinder pressure skyrockets up.
If the volitility is too high, the rapid pressure increase causes the yet unburned fuel (we are working in microseconds here) to also ignite.
Now, there are two flame fronts (fuel burns, not explodes) that crash into each other with such force the piston takes a jackhammer hit that you, and the knock sensor, can hear.
The knock sensor reports and the ECM yanks the timing back, or retards in an attempt to stop the potentally damaging knock...which, BTW, is now a useless power stroke because of the mayhem that occured.

The lower volitility reduces or prevents the occurence of the second flame front and the timing can be maintained to produce a consistent power stroke.

Help?

Rob


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

obermd said:


> Really not sure how the EPA is to blame for the physics and chemistry of burning gasoline. The US's Clean Air Act and the equivalent laws in other countries have forced car manufacturers to dramatically improve the combustion mechanics of their engines so what we're seeing in this recall is GM modifying the engine to further bring the engine closer to the "ideal" burn ratios for gasoline.


Based on what parameters, every different blend of gasoline has a different AF ratio, further complicated by using only one or two O2 sensors that work completely backwards. One misfire will fool the O2 sensor into thinking there is excessive oxygen in the system so either the entire engine or bank will have their cylinders enriched expelling more CO. Was originally propose to use one O2 sensor, I should know I was there, but marketing pressures cause the EPA to give in.

Not only this, but O2 sensors are extremely slow, may have a average mixture that looks okay, but your engine is actually running 50% lean at the time and 50% rich. Lean burn would certainly improve fuel economy, but with the bad side effect of high N0x emissions with the reverse of high CO emissions when running rich. And rather than correct these problems with hardware, attempting to do this with firmware. 

Somebody mention that rotten egg smell, rotten eggs are harmless, but caused by excessive sulfur in the fuel. H,O, and S, plus the heat of combustion produces H2SO4, sulfuric acid that can burn the heck out of our lungs. EPA was the first to attack little cars on this issue, very slow with commercial diesels. A very political agency.


----------



## KENSTV123 (Sep 21, 2014)

Tiss complicated for sure go here:Gasoline FAQ - Part 3 of 4 or if your REAL ambitious read all 4 pages !
seems they have different "maps" within the engine control module and if parameters start degrading it goes to a less efficient map--which equates to less mpg
it is odd that the engine was designed for 91 octane but then "recalibrated" for 87 octane--everything in that above reading assignment would indicate it would be better to use the higher octane only if engine destroying knock is present and no fuel economy increase would result--just the knock resistance (which is incidentally measured on a one cylinder engine made in Wisconsin) so if GM has to re-do those maps it technically should raise the efficiency BUT because of different fuel blends used across different regions of US "your mileage MAY vary" !!!! 
I definitely do not want a re-program if it cuts my power, decreases my MPG or de-rates the wide open throttle power just to satisfy the EPA, guess time will tell-hey we already have one volunteer to try it !!


----------



## rambo76098 (May 29, 2014)

obermd said:


> I noticed this doesn't cover the 2014s which have been reported to run properly on 87 octane. I wonder...


Define "Properly" lol. I usually put in midgrade otherwise it hesitates like crazy.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

rambo76098 said:


> Define "Properly" lol. I usually put in midgrade otherwise it hesitates like crazy.


You're one of the few who have reported on the 2014s who has stated that you need mid-grade. Personally, this doesn't surprise me as the engine is coded KRD for 91 octane. The only reason we can safely run 87 is because of the software in the ECU. This recall is a software update only and no amount of software can fully overcome the engine's hardware design for 91 octane - it can only alleviate it by detuning the combustion cycle.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

rambo76098 said:


> Define "Properly" lol. I usually put in midgrade otherwise it hesitates like crazy.


I think some forum members have rented 2014's and found they were fine. Probably never fed anything but regular.

Possibly a mid-year change? I'd check the glove box to see if your car has the KRD code.


----------



## bostonboy (Apr 8, 2015)

I did try 87 octane in one tank & I didn't see anything but I also was driving like grandma. It was the third tank of gas in it & was still under 900 miles on her at the time. I do go to a top tier gas station every time & I never got 87 again. Why you may ask I just want to see if there was a difference I only seen a little less MPG. I did notice when I'm going about 240 to 278 MPH my MPG is not that good & I have a hard time catching a radio signal too. does this happen to anyone?


----------



## rambo76098 (May 29, 2014)

I'll try to look tonight. I drove a 2013 eco mt running regular gas and didn't notice much difference, but that result is probably biased, we both replaced our spark plugs with the NGK coppers talked about here heavily. Can't remember the part# off the top of my head. 

The hesitation in my 2014 eco mt got a lot better with the copper plugs, and is virtually gone with midgrade gas. I've put regular in a few times here and there during winter, it didn't hesitate much. I'm guessing it would be more noticeable in the summer. I bought the car in June and the hesitation then was unbearable, especially with AC use or traffic. Assuming intercooler heatsoak was partially to blame for that.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

bostonboy said:


> I did try 87 octane in one tank & I didn't see anything but I also was driving like grandma. It was the third tank of gas in it & was still under 900 miles on her at the time. I do go to a top tier gas station every time & I never got 87 again. Why you may ask I just want to see if there was a difference I only seen a little less MPG. I did notice when I'm going about 240 to 278 MPH my MPG is not that good & I have a hard time catching a radio signal too. does this happen to anyone?


I didn't think the Cruze could do 240 MPH.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

That article Kenstv123 posted, Gasoline FAQ - Part 3 of 4 is really good, should read it to get a better understand.

Quite true, cars of the early 30's only had a compression ratio of 4.5:1, jumped to 10.5:1 in the 60's, then way back again. Turbos do need lower compression because of the much greater air density and also a much greater octane fuel to be most efficient. This is what my Cruze gets and only gets. 

Also a smaller spark plug gap, GM was using as high as 60 mils but dropped that down to 28 mils in the Cruze, I'm even getting a strong spark at 26 mils.

Then carbon deposits, good to add a can of SeaFoam in the full tank of gas around every 5K or so.


----------



## bostonboy (Apr 8, 2015)

obermd said:


> I didn't think the Cruze could do 240 MPH.


I was jumping out of an airplane. I saw it during fast & furious 7 so I tried it.


----------



## JerTM (Dec 12, 2014)

bostonboy said:


> I did try 87 octane in one tank & I didn't see anything but I also was driving like grandma. It was the third tank of gas in it & was still under 900 miles on her at the time. I do go to a top tier gas station every time & I never got 87 again. Why you may ask I just want to see if there was a difference I only seen a little less MPG. I did notice when I'm going about 240 to 278 MPH my MPG is not that good & I have a hard time catching a radio signal too. does this happen to anyone?


Can't say I've had my cruze up to that speed


----------



## carbon02 (Feb 25, 2011)

I just looked at my VIN number on my GM.com, and it shows recall N140801 ECM reprogramming but back on Nov 26, 2014?

I don't remember seeing a notification letter for N140801, is this programming that recall number, or was there another recall for engine programming? 

My cruze went back to the dealership the first week I purchased it for a strut bearing noise were they replaced the strut bearing, other than that I've never been back.

I got a notice yesterday from the dealership for three recalls. the splash shield, brake switch, and it must be this programming issue for


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

carbon02 said:


> I just looked at my VIN number on my GM.com, and it shows recall N140801 ECM reprogramming but back on Nov 26, 2014?


I just looked up my vin and that recall came up as well. I have got no notification and no one at the dealer has mentioned it.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

carbon02 said:


> I just looked at my VIN number on my GM.com, and it shows recall N140801 ECM reprogramming but back on Nov 26, 2014?


Same here. I bought my car mid-December, signed up for My Chevrolet after that - NO recalls. After seeing this thread, yes, now there is on.

I'm guessing the date is an administration thing. Perhaps that's when Chevy was notified by the Feds.


----------



## carbon02 (Feb 25, 2011)

Thanks guys for looking into your records.


----------



## wvupizo (Mar 25, 2013)

I just noticed this recall is showing up on mine now as well.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

bostonboy said:


> I was jumping out of an airplane. I saw it during fast & furious 7 so I tried it.


Due to air resistance, doubt if you would even hit 125 mph, try something else, like jetco rockets.

Ha, the EPA has no say on jetco rockets, but watch out of 1 ppm of CO.


----------



## Cruzin40 (Aug 14, 2013)

The recall notice that I got a few days ago is N140801, and the only description is "Reprogram Engine Control Module". So yeah, like others have said will the overwrite my $600 Trifecta Tune? If so, do I really need this recall fixed? Or can Trifecta incorporate this new GM tune into their tunes?


----------



## Daisy81 (Jun 17, 2012)

Cruzin40 said:


> The recall notice that I got a few days ago is N140801, and the only description is "Reprogram Engine Control Module". So yeah, like others have said will the overwrite my $600 Trifecta Tune? If so, do I really need this recall fixed? Or can Trifecta incorporate this new GM tune into their tunes?


The newest select a tune program includes the emissions changes already. We are taken care of.


----------



## KENSTV123 (Sep 21, 2014)

You know I was reading in the GM stuff where they are instructing the dealers to look for aftermarket tunes, seems there is a log kept in the ecm of past calibrations
installed, they were talking about trucks since those are so popular for "tuning" but I'm pretty sure all the cars do also have this possibility, seems the aftermarket tunes are stressing the engines and trans beyond GM specs and testing--and once flagged it uploads the tune log to GM and stops the warranty !


----------



## hargramr (Jul 3, 2013)

Love how I just got the notice about the recall on my April OnStar diagnostic email. On the GM recall page it says it was issued on November 26, 2014. Haven't heard about it till today and was just at the dealership less than 2 months ago for an oil change... Awesome..


----------



## bluefirestarter (Jan 15, 2013)

Mine is at the dealer ATM and they said there was a recall to update the computer and they would do that with the other repairs. Something about emissions..


----------



## Robby (Mar 1, 2013)

The recall may have been issued as a 'We have a program in development' type thing.

It was not released to the dealer body till 4/13/15.

Rob


----------



## Chevy Customer Care (Oct 29, 2011)

carbon02 said:


> I just looked at my VIN number on my GM.com, and it shows recall N140801 ECM reprogramming but back on Nov 26, 2014?
> 
> I don't remember seeing a notification letter for N140801, is this programming that recall number, or was there another recall for engine programming?
> 
> ...


Hey there, 

We can certainly look into this more for you, and provide any additional information regarding the Emissions Recall. Feel free to send me a private message along with your VIN! 

Patsy G
Chevrolet Customer Care


----------



## BlkGrnetRS (Jul 21, 2013)

Sitting at the dealer now for the ecm recall as well as the steering recall and an oil change. We'll see if it makes a difference


----------



## iedgar10 (Sep 25, 2014)

BlkGrnetRS said:


> Sitting at the dealer now for the ecm recall as well as the steering recall and an oil change. We'll see if it makes a difference


did this make a difference?


----------



## Daisy81 (Jun 17, 2012)

X_X


----------



## BlkGrnetRS (Jul 21, 2013)

iedgar10 said:


> did this make a difference?





Daisy81 said:


> I guess it is either very good or very bad because he is speechless after the software update.


Lol sorry guys I don't get on the forum much. 

I honestly can't say if it helped or not. I think it does run better on regular but that could be all in my head. 

However I have noticed there is no rotten egg smell under load anymore. So I guess that's good.


----------



## wasney (Mar 3, 2015)

Does the recall include 2013 cruzes? Just want to see if i should stop by the dealership tomorrow.


----------



## BlkGrnetRS (Jul 21, 2013)

wasney said:


> Does the recall include 2013 cruzes? Just want to see if i should stop by the dealership tomorrow.


Yes mine is a 2013. As far as I know it includes 2011 thru 2013


----------



## Chevy Customer Care (Oct 29, 2011)

wasney said:


> Does the recall include 2013 cruzes? Just want to see if i should stop by the dealership tomorrow.


Hey Wasney, 

We can look into your VIN and let you know for sure! Send us a private message with your VIN for more information. 

Patsy G
Chevrolet Customer Care


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

wasney said:


> Does the recall include 2013 cruzes?


Apparently, if it's a 1.4 Turbo, yes.

But if you want to check, just put your vin into recalls.gm.com.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

I got my letter. I guess I'm officially part of the family now. I've never gotten a letter from GM before. Probably in part because I've never bought a new car.

A couple of interesting notes:


> ... it is recommended that you have your vehicle services as soon as possible. Failure to do so could legally be determined to be lack of proper maintenance of your vehicle.


They also indicate that California law requires that the recall be done before the car's registration can be renewed.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Still a young kid, still learning, but what does that rotten egg smell have to do with playing with injector dwell or ignition timing that are the only two parameters that firmware can play with.

Rotten egg smell is caused by sulfur in the gas that is converted into sulfuric acid in the catalytic converter. Really was a major problem back in 1972 with middle east high sulfur gas, dang EPA was trying to kill us.

But I guess by leaning the mixture a tad, a bit less heat in the cat, also a requirement, would cool that cat down a tad. 

While the EPA was threatening the individual with a $25,000 fine, hmm, this hasn't increase with inflation, never thought about this until now. With the huge oil companies, do you think, maybe, well you really don't have to if you don't want to. Can you get rid of some of that sulfur in the gas?

GM was vehemently opposed to adding the catalytic converter to vehicles, and these vehicles were just privately owned vehicles, commercial vehicles weren't even looked at until around the late 80's. But when GM learned their catalytic converter plants were making a huge profit, was all for it. 

Was back in 1964 the silicon transistor came out making it possible to get rid of those troublesome ignition and voltage regulator points, but marketing was dead against it, and it wasn't until 8 years later finally giving permission. When I think about these days and with all this electronic crap in today's cars, I have to shake me head.

Didn't stop me, designed my own electronic capacitive discharge system and electronic voltage regulator for my new 1965 Buick and enjoyed troublefree operation for years.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

ChevyGuy said:


> I got my letter. I guess I'm officially part of the family now. I've never gotten a letter from GM before. Probably in part because I've never bought a new car.
> 
> A couple of interesting notes:
> 
> ...


Interesting - California must have been the impetus for this recall. As far as the "legal determination of lack of proper maintenance" I find that to be more of GM's way of saying we won't pay for emissions repair if you don't get this done.


----------



## JerTM (Dec 12, 2014)

I have programmed my 13 ECO MT, and have noticed nothing different as far as power. It may be a side-effect/placebo, but I think the Cruze is getting better MPG when my wife is driving than it did before (which could also be that she is finally listening to me on how to drive it). It is about the same, maybe a bit better mpg with my driving.


----------



## buster502 (Jun 14, 2014)

I got a letter yesterday about ecm program


----------



## Daisy81 (Jun 17, 2012)

X_X


----------



## Nobody (Feb 12, 2012)

Yeah mine came two days ago in the mail.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

obermd said:


> As far as the "legal determination of lack of proper maintenance" I find that to be more of GM's way of saying we won't pay for emissions repair if you don't get this done.


It's unclear to me what that's supposed to mean (besides getting you to do it).

It may be it lets GM off the hook as far as warranty. (Sure, you can argue that, but when you have to argue, you've already lost - even if you eventually "win".) I'm inclined to think that it means that you're not in compliance with local laws and you're opening your self up to have legal complications with local authorities.

My interpretation is that it's technically correct but largely lacking in ramifications.


----------



## Daisy81 (Jun 17, 2012)

X_X


----------



## wasney (Mar 3, 2015)

ECM reset is scheduled for sat. Has anyone noticed any difference with the way the car runs or anything after the ECM reset?


----------



## Daisy81 (Jun 17, 2012)

X_X


----------



## wasney (Mar 3, 2015)

So really I dont need the ECM reset? I am worried it might mess with my car.


----------



## Jewel Red 5 (Feb 5, 2011)

Well had car in to service to replace cv boot was ripped, was told about recall so had it done. 1st of all he never fucken told me its a voluntary recall cause I would have never had it done. 2nd my fan used to run after car is shut off to cool turbo they ****** that up now after it shuts off from heavy driving I can watch temp on my scan gauge goes to 235 and no fan at all will be going back to dealer tomorrow for sure I want it put back or the car will be in the service center booth hopefully on top of him. all said don't have it done its your decision.


----------



## wasney (Mar 3, 2015)

Yea i Think ill call them tomorrow and say nvm. lol


----------



## Daisy81 (Jun 17, 2012)

X_X


----------



## Daisy81 (Jun 17, 2012)

X_X


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Daisy81 said:


> You only need it if where you live they will check your emissions. Where I live they won't so there is no way Chevy is touching my ECM.
> 
> In short GM is going to lower the performance of your Cruze by cutting fuel ammounts at WOT to reduce the emissions by a fraction of a percent. Not flashing it won't suddenly hurt your engine.


This seems to be overly concerned about nothing. For all we know these ECU changes could only effect the WOT emissions ONLY under certain variables(like low octane fuel, cold temps, ect.). Haven't people already logged these engine run a bit fuel rich stock at WOT near redline? Doesn't a tune whic at least somewhat adjusts this anyway? Didn't Trifecta start with a new GM baseline ECU calibration starting with the 2015 cruze and GAIN power? 

I also live where they don't do any emissions or vehicle inspections, but I would not avoid this ECU update for any reason. 2-3 counties in my state do test, and If I ever moved there or anywhere else that tests, I would need the update anyway. Best bet find someone with a 2015 cruze that's not included in this recall/change, I suspect you will see little if any difference in their car and yours.


----------



## Daisy81 (Jun 17, 2012)

X_X


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Daisy81 said:


> This recall is for 2011 to 2013. You're correct Trifecta's tune is based off the new program but unlike this one it isn't about gimping the car.


This is an adjustment to keep the car from running rich during high RPM/WOT conditions. Chances are this is above somewhere around 5,000 RPM. By that time you're already out of the car's power band and should be shifting anyway.


----------



## Daisy81 (Jun 17, 2012)

X_X


----------



## KENSTV123 (Sep 21, 2014)

Daisy81 said:


> That is an assumption. They don't indicate at what range it could be on the RPM spectrum just that it happens when the throttle is wide open. Since it is an automatic it could be everything below 2000 RPM in first gear. The lag of a stock Cruze getting going might have become worse.
> 
> GM avoids saying exactly what the ramifications are. They wouldn't feel the need to apply strong arm tactics if the performance of the vehicle wasn't affected.


Yeah I'd like to see the before and after dino numbers, if this does indeed cut the power from advertised specs GM would need to compensate us !
do we have dinometer readings of a stock 1.4 with regular oxygenated gas ???


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

If I remember correctly, the 138 HP spec is at 4500 RPM.


----------



## JerTM (Dec 12, 2014)

I have personally done the recall on my car and I have noticed NOTHING. No MPG change, no change in power, and certainly nothing wrong with getting onto the freeway. If you don't want to do it, don't. Simple as that.


----------



## Daisy81 (Jun 17, 2012)

X_X


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

These cars run PIG RICH at full throttle/high RPM. They literally dump fuel in. That doesn't bring more power, but it does serve to cool off valves, cylinder temps, turbos, and heat the crap out of the exhaust catalyst (and wastes fuel). I think that was set extremely conservatively in the development process.

I bet all they do is tweak the AFR under heavy load/high RPM. Several people have noted that their cars don't smell like rotten eggs anymore from the catalysts. That's probably a good thing.


----------



## Daisy81 (Jun 17, 2012)

x_X


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Daisy81 said:


> So Tage ECM reprogramming doesn't affect the performance but instead it effects the cooling of the engine? How will this impact the longevity of the engine components?


Like I said, I believe they overshot the amount of fuel necessary for cooling action in the initial program. The car stops registering the MAF at 4000 RPM under wide open throttle. They wouldn't bother to issue a recall for it if it weren't causing problems (potentially to catalytic converters - probably something that they didn't see in the initial testing and development, as this is something that happens over time). The valves (sodium-filled on 1.4T), turbos, etc. are all built to withstand extremely high temperatures.

Turbo cars all run rich at full throttle/high RPM (you'll often notice blacker exhaust pipes or soot on the bumper on turbo cars), but this one moreso than others. I was behind a Cruze once in traffic that went full-throttle to merge into the next lane over, and a cloud of black smoke poofed out of it as it downshifted.

There was an update out for MT-equipped 2012 model cars a year or so ago that was not part of a recall, but dramatically dialed back the surging my car was experiencing under moderate to heavy throttle.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> These cars run PIG RICH at full throttle/high RPM. They literally dump fuel in. That doesn't bring more power, but it does serve to cool off valves, cylinder temps, turbos, and heat the crap out of the exhaust catalyst (and wastes fuel). I think that was set extremely conservatively in the development process.
> 
> I bet all they do is tweak the AFR under heavy load/high RPM. Several people have noted that their cars don't smell like rotten eggs anymore from the catalysts. That's probably a good thing.


I mentioned earlier in this thread on 2-3 occasions I have smelled the cat on my cruze. 2 of those times was starting from a stop on a HUGE hill with somewhere between a 6-10% grade. Both of those occasions I took each lower gear to well above 5,000RPM and soon after could smell the cat. Thinking back both times the car was running midgrade or less fuel too(something I never do anymore). 

I have 70,000 miles on my car and this happened 2-3 times in all those miles. This is why I mention these ECU changes are probably only going to effect the car under certain accumulation of variables. GM has already mentioned this change effected the car under high load and RPM conditions, exactly when I noticed the smell. 

Come to think of it when above 5K RPM on those hills, the car REALLY lazily revved toward redline. That increased load from the hill made me spend 4X the amount of time as normal above 5K RPM. This was also probably exacerbated by using low octane fuel, as my car pulls much stronger to redline on premium. Suspect that the extra fuel at high RPM becomes a problem if your spending more than 10 seconds at those RPM with the pedal mashed all the way down.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

spacedout said:


> I mentioned earlier in this thread on 2-3 occasions I have smelled the cat on my cruze. 2 of those times was starting from a stop on a HUGE hill with somewhere between a 6-10% grade. Both of those occasions I took each lower gear to well above 5,000RPM and soon after could smell the cat. Thinking back both times the car was running midgrade or less fuel too(something I never do anymore).
> 
> I have 70,000 miles on my car and this happened 2-3 times in all those miles. This is why I mention these ECU changes are probably only going to effect the car under certain accumulation of variables. GM has already mentioned this change effected the car under high load and RPM conditions, exactly when I noticed the smell.
> 
> Come to think of it when above 5K RPM on those hills, the car REALLY lazily revved toward redline. That increased load from the hill made me spend 4X the amount of time as normal above 5K RPM. This was also probably exacerbated by using low octane fuel, as my car pulls much stronger to redline on premium. Suspect that the extra fuel at high RPM becomes a problem if your spending more than 10 seconds at those RPM with the pedal mashed all the way down.


Sounds like exactly what they describe.

Weirdly (or maybe not-so-weirdly, as they have different tunes and only the autos are recalled, I suppose), I've never smelled a thing on my MT - and I usually run 89 unless it's the middle of summer.

I occasionally do high (5-6K) RPM pulls to dart across traffic, at which point it promptly winds down. I've done the same on long highway uphills to get around slow-moving traffic and never noticed, either.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Just made my appointment, my car goes in Friday for a trans fluid change and to get this recall done. 

Side note: using one of the many dealer coupons I get in the mail, the trans fluid service is only $110 and they are giving me a loaner. I can drop the car off Thursday night or Friday morning and pick up the loaner, the work should only take a couple hours..... LOVE how great my dealers service department is!!!!


----------



## JerTM (Dec 12, 2014)

I have put roughly 1k miles, elevations from 4.6k to 6.4k feet, temperatures ranging from 30F to 80F. I put roughly 100 miles a day on mine for my commute. So, yes I can without a doubt verify that NOTHING perceivable has changed with the way my Cruze runs since the update. I'm sure you'll have something to say about it, but I am a GM tech. I programmed my ECM with the current updated software before the official recall notice was released. Those are the facts, like it or not, the recall has done nothing to nerf the Cruze.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

Daisy81 said:


> GM avoids saying exactly what the ramifications are. They wouldn't feel the need to apply strong arm tactics if the performance of the vehicle wasn't affected.


It could be because the government is using strong-arm tactics on them. But I'm seeing a suggestion that this could affect the life span of the cat. That would concern GM as well as suggest why the government might be leaning on them.


----------



## JerTM (Dec 12, 2014)

That is possible, but only time will tell if that is the case. I would think GM would step up to take care of the cat issue if it does turn into an issue. I am seeing a lot of special policies extending the coverage of know failures in vehicles recently. Something old GM never did.


----------



## getincrumpdup (Jan 12, 2015)

anyone taken their car in for this recall yet 

N140801 reprogram engine control module? whats this all about it claims its an emissions recall at highway speeds. what exactly are the scientists at chevy doing to our cars on this recall? lol that's all i want to know is details pros and cons thanks any help is great!


----------



## BlkGrnetRS (Jul 21, 2013)

getincrumpdup said:


> anyone taken their car in for this recall yet
> 
> N140801 reprogram engine control module? whats this all about it claims its an emissions recall at highway speeds. what exactly are the scientists at chevy doing to our cars on this recall? lol that's all i want to know is details pros and cons thanks any help is great!


Lol no offense dude but that is what this whole thread is about. I know 12 pages is a lot to read but the answers to your questions are all there


----------



## BadBowtie (Apr 18, 2015)

Hi everyone...."New Guy to the forums"
Just spoke with a Chevy Dealer here, (N.E. Ohio area), about any "software" updates for my 2012 Cruze LT.
Previously I noticed in the forum a post that mentioned a "humming" noise from engine compartment after shutting off the engine when using the AC.
I checked it out on my Cruze,..sure enough,..it happened to mine !! A software update is needed to remedy this.
So after inquiring the Dealer about it,he mentions the ECM emission update "recall" and adds that "It will take about 45 minutes to do and will update the ECM with ALL software updates available."....not just the emissions.
So I'm assuming that the "Reprogamming" (or flashing as some call it) of the ECM will bring it up-to-date with all software enhancements or fixes that there are. Can I trust this ?? 
Any thoughts or feedback on this information ???? :th_coolio:


----------



## theburro (Apr 7, 2013)

Took my '13 in for this. Took them an hour total. Car drives just like it did before. Drove it around all day.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

theburro said:


> Took my '13 in for this. Took them an hour total. Car drives just like it did before. Drove it around all day.


My 2012 at first seemed to have less power, but the more I drive it I think its just smoother in every driving condition. I also used to get surging/knock sensor hits with anything less than 93 octane in 5th gear at low RPM on hills in town(30MPH/1400RPM). Smooth as silk now. Its even smoother when I bump the cruze control up a few MPH! Gonna try some regular gas on next fill up to see if my car will no run better on that as well. 

Side note: Got a 2014 1LT auto as a loaner, that car ran so much better than mine on regular(I assume it was regular because who would put premium in a loaner?) the 2014 automatic also was WAY smoother than my 2012, though mines much improved since the fluid change.


----------



## rcclockman (Jan 16, 2012)

In California, Now you don't have to run the car on a Dyno for Year 2000 and up Cars, No more 15 and 25 mph tests, Now as long as there is no Check engine light, your car passes smog... So your car can be dirty out the pipe and still pass California emmisions..the toughest in the world...


----------



## gt_cristian (Apr 7, 2012)

Does anyone know if this recall will have an affect on those who run 91 Octane and a spark plug cap of 32? Should we tweak the gap lower or higher aftet this recall?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

gt_cristian said:


> Does anyone know if this recall will have an affect on those who run 91 Octane and a spark plug cap of 32? Should we tweak the gap lower or higher aftet this recall?


I wouldn't worry about it. The updated tune will still have low and high octane tables


----------



## JerTM (Dec 12, 2014)

I use 91 octane, and run the same gap. No issues.


----------



## ChevyMgr (Oct 27, 2010)

Did my 2012 today. No pain. No difference that I can tell with my trusty butt dyno.


----------



## teerow707 (May 8, 2015)

First time poster here. Dealer updated the ECM on my 2011 Cruze LTZ for recall N140801, and 1 day later it's throwing:

Engine Codes:
P0106
P0171
P1101

HUD Codes:
Service Stabilitrak
Service Traction Control

Taking it into the dealer to troubleshoot... will keep you posted.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

teerow707 said:


> First time poster here. Dealer updated the ECM on my 2011 Cruze LTZ for recall N140801, and 1 day later it's throwing:
> 
> Engine Codes:
> P0106
> ...


Time for a valve cover. PCV disc is bad.


----------



## Skraeling (May 30, 2012)

Just got the letter for my wifes 12' 1.4t today.

Honestly im not sure why people say the car runs like crap on 87...Ive never noticed an issue with it. I tried 93 once to see if I could see a difference mpg wise or not.. I didnt. Now maybe the ecu didnt have enough time to remap timings or what not, but for the increased cost not worth it. maybe ill give it a shot after the edu update.


----------



## dirt dauber (Dec 24, 2014)

I just received my recall notice from gm, they are going to reflash my ecu.
they said it would take about an hour to do
got my appointment for next week


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

I've put on just over 900 miles since I got this ECU update, I have averaged 38.1mpg(pump calculated). If anything still seems a bit smoother than my car was previously when accelerating from low RPM. 

My 3 year average MPG for May is 36.3MPG, so far this month after this update I'm up 1.8MPG.


----------



## bostonboy (Apr 8, 2015)

I was at the dealer yesterday & I had no recall or update. They did say there was a something for low coolant coming from the manufacture. But no update to the ecu. 2014 cruze ltz me


----------



## Robby (Mar 1, 2013)

Bostonboy......the reflash applies to model year 2011/2013....your 14 is in the clear.

Rob


----------



## wasney (Mar 3, 2015)

Has anyone taken their cruze in for the update with a cold air intake? Im worried they might say something.


----------



## CruzeRS253 (May 9, 2015)

Scheduled for the 12th.Fingers crossed lol.


----------



## theburro (Apr 7, 2013)

wasney said:


> Has anyone taken their cruze in for the update with a cold air intake? Im worried they might say something.


My car has the K&N intake. They performed the recall without hesitation. I don't even think they pop the hood, honestly. I would imagine it's all done through the OBD-II port. 

This issue isn't a warranty-issue anyway (not that an intake would void your warranty). I have 44,000 miles, so I'm not even in warranty. They still gave me a nice loaner while they performed the recall.


----------



## JerTM (Dec 12, 2014)

As a GM Tech, and every one of my coworkers, couldn't care less if you have an intake on it. I get paid by GM to program a computer, get paid about $6 to do it.


----------



## bostonboy (Apr 8, 2015)

Robby said:


> Bostonboy......the reflash applies to model year 2011/2013....your 14 is in the clear.
> 
> Rob


Thanks rob
This is my 1st new car. I always bought cheaper used cars but used cars seem to be going up in value.


----------



## teerow707 (May 8, 2015)

jblackburn said:


> Time for a valve cover. PCV disc is bad.


Bingo. The ECM update didn't cause this problem; it only pointed it out. The dealership replaced my valve cover (under warranty) and car is running perfectly. No more codes or warnings.


----------



## camaro69 (Jul 1, 2015)

I took car in for something else and they re-programmed it, loss of power ns gas mileage went from 34 to 28


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

camaro69 said:


> I took car in for something else and they re-programmed it, loss of power ns gas mileage went from 34 to 28


Assuming it's a 11-13 1.4T 1/2LT Eco LTZ, are you using the same gas station and fuel grade? is the normal route under construction or did your work hours change and you rush to work more trying to adjust to new times and traffic pattern?


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

camaro69 said:


> I took car in for something else and they re-programmed it, loss of power ns gas mileage went from 34 to 28


Something else is going on. In addition to dialing back the fuel injectors at high RPM under load this ECU update keeps the ignition timing advanced more than the old version, which means the car will perform better and get better fuel economy on 87 octane.


----------



## allenclme (Aug 8, 2015)

Same thing here. Loss of power is only under load, going up hills that I used to do in M5 and now need M4. MPG down to 30 from 36. Car was fine until they reprogrammed it.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

allenclme said:


> Same thing here. Loss of power is only under load, going up hills that I used to do in M5 and now need M4. MPG down to 30 from 36. Car was fine until they reprogrammed it.


There is probably some other variable at play here, as I have put a little over 10,000 miles on my car since the ECU update and my MPG is averaging a couple higher than normal for this time of year.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

I wonder if the reprogram prevents the car from taking full advantage of premium gas.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

ChevyGuy said:


> I wonder if the reprogram prevents the car from taking full advantage of premium gas.


On the contrary, my car feels exactly the same on premium, its the few times I ran regular since the update my car seemed worse than before. Before the update(68K miles) my 2012 on regular the power curve was not linear and felt stepped as you accelerated from low RPM. At times you would feel/see the RPM drop as the car dialed things back under load. 

Since the update my car is much smoother even on regular at low RPM when accelerating, however this smoothness(dialed back feeling) makes the car seem even slower off the line or just at low RPM trying to accelerate. Again running premium I get none of this and the car feels the same as before. 

So just like before the update I'm forced to run premium 100% of the time just to ensure my car drives consistently and never falls on its face when I need power, no matter if its 80F+ outside, I have a giant hill to climb or some combo of both.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Gather this recall only applies to you guys that don't like to manual shift. Apparently if you slam on the gas pedal, the CO emissions are a tad too high. Say a tad, because they don't say how much. Maybe 0.001 grams per mile and apparently the catalytic converter isn't taking care of this if measured at the tail pipe.

Also a good question why this recall does not apply to the manual transmission, can also manually down shift and slam the gas pedal to the floor, or even a worse case scenario would not to downshift at all. This really puts a load on the engine. Hitting the gas always increases the power AF ratio to a richer mixture, ignition timing does retard a bit, has to, takes a tad longer to burn this richer mixture.

Can only speculate to whatever they are doing, isn't very much, and apparently, if you don't slam on the gas pedal, won't make any difference at all. Under steady state conditions, maximum spark advance to get longer combustion cycle depends on that anti-knock sensor. Only way to get more spark advance on these things is to use a higher octane fuel.

As far as screwups are concerned, is possible the mechanic typed in the wrong VIN number, everything is based on this with even more screwups in making sure the data is correct.

Could do this myself, but in 1972, was a PITA when the catalytic converter was installed, my CO2 and AF meters were worthless, so had to bypass the cat, but only long enough to properly tune the car, had to reinstall it or get a $25,000 fine if caught. Only changes made was adding the EGR, another new problem and adding the cat. Spark advance was trial and error as no way to adjust the distributor while driving. Could be tune for the grade of gas you were using. Easy on my motorhome and boat, because had full access to the distributor while someone else was driving. Peak RPM was correct under steady state conditions.

But all this stuff is in the history books, one vehicle with a bent bracket for the CAS, had to make my own timing marks. But with cranshaft or camshaft type sensors, have to take their word for it. Camshaft is affected by timing chain or belt stretching. Guess its because people don't know how to tune an engine, we are stuck with all this crap.

But a V-8 would run perfectly fine on 6-7 cylinders, it an O2 sensor and a misfire get excessive oxygen in the engine, so it enriches all the fuel to the other cylinders because they are too cheap to add an O2 sensor to each cylinder. That extra raw fuel will burn out your cat costing you $$$$, and your engine will stumble like crazy, with a four cylinder with one misfire, lucky to hit 40 mph.

Another thing they don't know how to adjust is tapered wheel bearing, stuck with lubricated for a short life hub bearings. Running across this now with one vehicle. Instead of a couples bucks to repair, like 170 bucks for a new hub bearing, another throwaway part. Sounds like the grease on the inside is all dried up, no way to clean and lubricate it.

Happy motoring. 

"#14801A: Product Emission – Reprogram Engine Control Module – (Apr 16, 2015)

Subject:14801A – Reprogram Engine Control ModuleModels:2011-2013 Chevrolet Cruze Equipped with 1.4L Engine (RPO LUJ and LUV) and Automatic Transmission 
The Service Procedure section of this bulletin has been revised. A note has been added to include supported controller section information (see Step 3). Please discard all copies of bulletin 14801.
[HR][/HR] [h=2]Condition[/h] General Motors has decided to conduct a voluntary emission recall of 2011-2013 Chevrolet Cruze vehicles equipped with a 1.4L engine (RPO LUJ or LUV) and an automatic transmission. General Motors and US Environmental Protection Agency emissions testing found vehicles that did not comply with the carbon monoxide emissions standard on the US06 emissions test. This test measures tailpipe emissions during high speed/high load conditions.
[h=2]Correction[/h] Dealers are to reprogram the engine control module (ECM) to revise the fuel enrichment strategy as required.
​ [h=2]Vehicles Involved[/h] All involved vehicles are identified by Vehicle Identification Number on the Investigate Vehicle History screen in GM Global Warranty Management system. Dealership service personnel should always check this site to confirm vehicle involvement prior to beginning any required inspections and/or repairs. It is important to routinely use this tool to verify eligibility because not all similar vehicles may be involved regardless of description or option content.
For dealers with involved vehicles, a listing with involved vehicles containing the complete vehicle identification number, customer name, and address information has been prepared and will be provided to US and Canadian dealers through the GM GlobalConnect Recall Reports, or sent directly to export dealers. Dealers will not have a report available if they have no involved vehicles currently assigned.
The listing may contain customer names and addresses obtained from Motor Vehicle Registration Records. The use of such motor vehicle registration data for any purpose other than follow-up necessary to complete this recall is a violation of law in several states/provinces/countries. Accordingly, you are urged to limit the use of this report to the follow-up necessary to complete this recall.
[h=2]Parts Information[/h] No parts are required"


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

So I wonder where it leaves those of us who use the mid-grade 89?


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Compression ratio is the total volume of a cylinder, piston at bottom dead center, divided by the volume remaining with the piston clear at the top. Back in the 60's, early 70's with like a 70 Buick Riviera , CR was 10.5:1, no choice but to use the highest octane gas as possible. Preignition was definite and so was detonation, here the engine would keep on running with the ignition switch off.

With unleaded gas, the price of leaded high octane fuels skyrocketed, more than twice the price. EPA was also cheating, but decreasing the amount of lead oil companies were allowed to use, over a six year span, dropped this down to 10%. So not only knock problems, but burnt valves and even holes in pistons became common. 

Since this was my baby and I wanted to drive it, Canada never had high octane fuels, got a set of Canadian head gaskets, very thick to drop the CR down to 9.0:1. To burn unleaded, needed an intake manifold with an EGR valve, carb and all, least back then could go to wrecking yard, found a 73 455 CID, removed it myself and got it for 15 bucks. This is sure history. Also installed an HEI distributor matching the spark advance to the 73's, and added a 10SI alternator to get rid of that troublesome mechanical voltage regulator. 

Was not required by law to add cats, that would be a fortune back then, car had factory duals. 

CR of the Cruze is 8.5:1, typical for a turbo engine, but with manifold pressures double of atmospheric, effective CR goes way up. Can get by with a lower octane fuel, because the anti-knock sensor really cuts down on the spark advance. But does not compensate for detonation. So only use the highest octane fuel I can buy in my neck of the woods which is 91.

But won't make much difference if you drive your Cruze with a very light foot using a low octane fuel, turbo never kicks in.

For me, its not the cost of fuel at the pumps, its the cost per mile, with my experience, using the highest octane fuel is cheaper, plus my engine is a lot happier. Also with that piece of plastic buried in the fuel tank called a fuel pump, treat a 1/4 of a tank of gas as empty. That pump needs that gas to stay cool and they last a lot longer.


----------



## jjngundam (Dec 7, 2010)

I got my ECM reprogrammed too last week. I haven't received any error codes but my car have been very slow lately. Also had a metal scratching noise when shifting during the first 3 gear. Engine is louder than before so I'm going to bring it back cause I'm still under warranty.


----------



## ChelseaP (Mar 17, 2016)

Hey there,
My name is Chelsea, I took my 2013 1.4T cruze in as they said the recall was important. ( they did not specify what it was for, silly me). Anyways, it is for the emissions. My car now hesitates while accelerating and parked at a light. My engine light was not on. So I took it back to them, and conveniently it is not under warranty anymore. They called me and said nothing is wrong. Go pick up my car, and this morning when I started my car, the engine light came on. They are saying that the hesitation could have nothing to do with the recall.... Since I had this recall done, my car runs like ****. I feel like im in an old beater vehicle. Everyone that drives in my vehicle with me has commented on it, but the dealership cannot feel it... suspicious.


----------



## bostonboy (Apr 8, 2015)

try some super unleaded from a top tier gas station & some GM or chevron fuel injection cleaner the concentrated stuff


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

ChelseaP said:


> Hey there,
> My name is Chelsea, I took my 2013 1.4T cruze in as they said the recall was important. ( they did not specify what it was for, silly me). Anyways, it is for the emissions. My car now hesitates while accelerating and parked at a light. My engine light was not on. So I took it back to them, and conveniently it is not under warranty anymore. They called me and said nothing is wrong. Go pick up my car, and this morning when I started my car, the engine light came on. They are saying that the hesitation could have nothing to do with the recall.... Since I had this recall done, my car runs like ****. I feel like im in an old beater vehicle. Everyone that drives in my vehicle with me has commented on it, but the dealership cannot feel it... suspicious.


This is also a symptom of a PCV failure. You could just have had bad timing on this. My car was running like crap for about a week before the check engine light finally came on and it was the PCV valve & cover.


----------

