# 2011 Cheverolet Cruze: Turbo or Naturally Aspirated



## Tom_Cruze (Jul 23, 2010)

I'm definitely interested in picking up this car when it comes out. But I can't decide weather to shell out the extra money for the turbo version. I'm hoping you guys can help me decide.


----------



## cruze-control (Jul 23, 2010)

nothing beats the feeling of boost. so im voting for turbo. only drawbacks is theres more parts to potentially break and also its not as reliable as na.


----------



## naazlee (Aug 12, 2010)

Dude Turbo, Man the power is what we all are looking for, Upgrade and enjoy. I am sure you wont regret as this beauty will drive you crazy. Do let us know what have you decided.


----------



## dystedd (Aug 13, 2010)

You gotta go with the Turbo. You'll experience a slight twinge of pain when you shell out the extra cash, but that will quickly evaporate once you start to drive it


----------



## descorpio (Aug 15, 2010)

It's a better option for sporty persons to go for turbo version as it will definitely increase adrenaline and gives you the super car charge. Personally I can't afford and interested seeing turbo charged cars.


----------



## naturelover (Aug 12, 2010)

Taking deliver of Turbo charged Cruze without minding its cost will prove till its last mile in pleasure driving. I will go for turbo.


----------



## adhityaen (Aug 15, 2010)

Almost all cars are coming out with turbo charge and if it comes out from the stable of GM, there is no doubt to opt for it. I feel car buyers shouldn't mind shelling out more bucks to get Cruze with turbo.


----------



## cruze-control (Jul 23, 2010)

so far only one person doesnt want the turbo. now the question is will chevy actually come out with a decent turbo motor so we can all enjoy boost.


----------



## gamerx (Sep 1, 2010)

Turbo?? Wow man!! Thats truly Conviencing.. Power is really an addictive thing in driving. and the with the turbo cruze is surely gonna rock higher? Where will it release first?? When?? Can anyone tell the exact date?? I am in India, so I want to know when will it hit the indian markets.


----------



## sheboygancruze (Oct 6, 2010)

Turbo forsure. That extra power will come in handy for the small ammount extra you pay.


----------



## Tom_Cruze (Jul 23, 2010)

Looks like everyone is voting for turbo. I've owned turbo cars before but I'm just scared for the reliability. I've already blown 4 turbos in my lifetime on 2 different cars.  But this will be the first new car I'm picking up so we'll see. If I'm picking the turbo I'm probably gonna hold off for a few more months so I have some extra money put aside for it.


----------



## DEJON-Dave (Oct 21, 2010)

I'm looking for a 1.4turbo car to make prototype performance parts for. Any of you guys live around DC and are interested, PM me.


----------



## Cruzer (Oct 18, 2010)

Proud to say I'm another turbo voter here also but as long as the price increase is not too much. I know it will cost a little extra for maintenance and stuff so I don't want to shell out all my money just for that option.


----------



## crusin_cruze (Nov 10, 2010)

Tom_Cruze said:


> Looks like everyone is voting for turbo. I've owned turbo cars before but I'm just scared for the reliability. I've already blown 4 turbos in my lifetime on 2 different cars.  But this will be the first new car I'm picking up so we'll see. If I'm picking the turbo I'm probably gonna hold off for a few more months so I have some extra money put aside for it.


Wow, how did you manage to blow 4 turbo's? Were these aftermarket turbo's you added to a non-turbo vehicle or did it come stock?

I have friends with turbocharged cars that hardly have any problems with them. Cruze turbo should be a lot of fun, i don't see why someone on this board won't get one.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

Turbos, if treated correctly, will do very well.

Good clean oil, if nervous, let the turbo idle for 3-5 minutes and cool down if needed after a hard run.


----------



## lostjuan (Jan 21, 2011)

The turbo is the choice. Uhm I am pretty sure that the 1.8L is the one that was in the Saturn Astra 
(vauxhall,opel too I would guess) and on paper that was one of the cars' weaknesses. 
Not a lot of power with less that stellar economy numbers. 

I actually discussed the issue of turbo reliabiltiy with one of the warranty managers when buying the car. 
I stated that the turbo might be an issue as gm does not have a lot of experience with such devices. 
Now I knew that one of the chevy cyclone or typhoons were turbo charged but they were never sold 
north of the 49th and I think it was a pretty limited run unit wize.He mentioned that the Grand Am's 
had turbocharging, I kinda scratched my heat on that one. Grand Am's???? Hunh?
About a week later I realized he meant to say Grand National. Nothing else needs to be said about the subject now. 
In fact this same unit dominated Indy for quite of few years. I was also watching an edition of fifth gear
and they mentioned that the vehicle they were testing had the turbo motor from the VXR astra four pot
putting out 220hp. So they have hard current production cars using turbos for a while.


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

cobalts and solstice/sky have been turbo'd as well amongst other applications for a few years recently


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

shawn672 said:


> cobalts and solstice/sky have been turbo'd as well amongst other applications for a few years recently


...but they were engineered the "old fashioned" way -- almost like after-market bolt-on units -- rather than "integrated" as the 1.4L turbo engine has been done.

...water-cooling, oil cooling, in-exhaust manifold positioning, etc.


----------



## former farmer (Jan 10, 2011)

I had a 1984 Chrysler Laser with a 2.2L turbo and 5 speed manual. I purchased the car new and sold it with 245,000 miles on it. The turbo was still working fine, but the waste gate was sticking and needed to be replaced. 

I never had any problems with the turbo but when I changed oil, I would disconnect a plug by the oil filter and crank over the engine until it built up oil pressure. Then I would reconnect the plug and start the engine. I don't remember exactly what the wires were for or who had told me to do this procedure but I never had any problems with the turbo.

I would get about 35 MPG at 55 MPH on the highway with that car.


----------



## sedanman (Dec 10, 2010)

lostjuan said:


> I actually discussed the issue of turbo reliabiltiy with one of the warranty managers when buying the car.
> I stated that the turbo might be an issue as gm does not have a lot of experience with such devices.


Sounds more like you're the one that does not have much experience with such devices. GM was the first American automaker with turbo back in the Corvair days. Grand Am and Grand Prix had turbo models. Though the Grand Am turbo was limited in production the Grand Prix was mass produced.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...wasn't the "first" production turbo GM used was in the '62 Oldsmobile F-85 Turbo-Jetfire 215 cid engine?

...and used a special "Turbo-Rocket" 'water-alcohol' injection fluid to control full-throttle detonation?


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...and used a special "Turbo-Rocket" 'water-alcohol' injection fluid to control full-throttle detonation?


Now that would be a very nice add-on.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...that 215 cid V8-engine used 10.25:1 compression ratio and produced 215 hp, or *1.0 hp-per-cid*.

...our 1.4L (83 cid) I4-engine uses 9.5:1 compression ratio and produces 138 hp, or *1.66 hp-per-cid*!

...I'd say that GM technology has _progressed_ "a little" over the past 49 years.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...that 215 cid V8-engine used 10.25:1 compression ratio and produced 215 hp, or *1.0 hp-per-cid*.
> 
> ...our 1.4L (83 cid) I4-engine uses 9.5:1 compression ratio and produces 138 hp, or *1.66 hp-per-cid*!
> 
> ...I'd say that GM technology has _progressed_ "a little" over the past 49 years.


Hmm, by about 66%?

Imagine what could have been done with 215 cu and a turbo and some electronics.


----------



## Spaceme (Jan 20, 2011)

And actually the 1.4L Turbo engine in the Cruze has a lot more potential for making power. It was one of the reasons I got a Cruze.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

Spaceme said:


> And actually the 1.4L Turbo engine in the Cruze has a lot more potential for making power. It was one of the reasons I got a Cruze.


A lot more power.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...that 215 cid V8-engine used 10.25:1 compression ratio and produced 215 hp, or *1.0 hp-per-cid*.
> 
> ...our 1.4L (83 cid) I4-engine uses 9.5:1 compression ratio and produces 138 hp, or *1.66 hp-per-cid*!
> 
> ...I'd say that GM technology has _progressed_ "a little" over the past 49 years.


138hp for a turbo I4 @ 1.4L is not that great. With a retune it could pick up loads of torque and a hefty power gain. Don't know if it'll be #'s like the GTI reflash but I'm sure the map GM used is very conservative. I'm personally more impressed with GMs moves towards DI and DOHC larger displacement motors like their V6 Camaro with the DI version of my LY7. Although Who could ever turn down a 350? So easy to make power it's stupid.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...in a world facing $4-$5-per-gallon gasoline, fuel economy (MPG), not horsepower (HP), will too soon become paramount.

...what *I'd* like to see is a _sub-_1.0L engine producing 150 HP (that's about 10X what's needed to drive 55-60 mph) with a fuel consumption number pushing 100 MPG.

...that shouldn't be too hard to accomplish using turbo-charging, direct-injection and variable-valve lift/duration technologies--all which are available TODAY.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...in a world facing $4-$5-per-gallon gasoline, fuel economy (MPG), not horsepower (HP), will too soon become paramount.
> 
> ...what *I'd* like to see is a _sub-_1.0L engine producing 150 HP (that's about 10X what's needed to drive 55-60 mph) with a fuel consumption number pushing 100 MPG.
> 
> ...that shouldn't be too hard to accomplish using turbo-charging, direct-injection and variable-valve lift/duration technologies--all which are available TODAY.


Motorcycle engines are hitting those #'s with the addition of nitrous  I may be wrong but isn't Honda the only one still offering variable duration and lift? I'm pretty sure Toyota no longer does VVTL-i and I'm confident the big 3 don't offer it as well. I can't think of any European companies that do it either.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...*Fiat/Chrysler* on their new "Multi-Air"

...*Porsche* on their 913 "VarioCam"

...*Ford* on their 'Triton' trucks

...*Mitsubishi* on their _diesel_ engines.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...*Fiat* on their new "Multi-Air"


Sweet I'll have to read up on it. I wonder if we'll see it crossover to Chrysler vehicles. Did you ever read that article in Popular Mechanics about variable displacement motors(not cylinder shut down but more of variable compression ratio)? Seemed interesting I can't remember what company was working on it though


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...back-in-the-good-old-days, many of the *tractor* companies played around with 'true' variable-displacement engines.


----------



## jakkaroo (Feb 12, 2011)

turbos are for ***** all motor all the way


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

jakkaroo said:


> turbos are for ***** all motor all the way


Many people have a different opinion than you.


----------



## some_goat (Feb 21, 2011)

For these little engines u better slap a turbo in them . If u ever plan on upgrading your engine this platform is preferable and already started for u .


----------

