# Eliminating Turbo Lag



## c6vette (Jul 24, 2011)

Hi! new to the Forum. I have a Eco automatic purchased 1 month ago. 
Question- Is there any way to eliminate the turbo lag--A tune, maybe a chip. Any info would be appreciated.

2011 Chevy Cruze
2005 Corvette Coup
2012 Volt on order

Chevy nut or glutten for punishment?


----------



## cruzeman (Mar 13, 2011)

Yeah, trade it in for the 1.8 . Kidding, I'm getting the trifecta tune this week which may help. There are a lot of people that have the tune on here so I'm sure they will be posting soon.


----------



## c6vette (Jul 24, 2011)

cruzeman said:


> Yeah, trade it in for the 1.8 . Kidding, I'm getting the trifecta tune this week which may help. There are a lot of people that have the tune on here so I'm sure they will be posting soon.


Let me know how it turns out.
Al


----------



## boats4life (May 28, 2011)

The tune isn't going to help with lag, you still need a certain volume of air to spin the compressor. I love my tune, don't get me wrong, but there's only so much Vince can do with such a small motor. And believe me, he does as much as humanly possible! lol


----------



## fastdriver (Jan 7, 2011)

*Turbo lag- WHEN?*

Can someone tell me WHEN this turbo lag is noticeable? Would I notice it from a dead stop or when I am at highway speed and give it the gas? I never had a turbo before and may never get another at this rate. I had a supercharged Buick Riviera back in 1996, but it didn't have any lag when you stepped on the gas. It just MOVED full speed ahead!:grin:


----------



## CHEVYCRUZE RS (Mar 29, 2011)

Say your driving down the road "cruzin" at around 50mph and you step on the gas, the moment you step on the gas and the car actually picking up speed thats when you will notice it. The Cruze is pretty weak for that, its picks up 2-4 seconds after I step on it. However, the Cruze isnt known for power, its known for its unique design.
The trifectaTune will help you a lot in the long run, but it wont stop the "turbo lag". 


CHEVYCRUZE RS


----------



## fastdriver (Jan 7, 2011)

CHEVYCRUZE RS said:


> Say your driving down the road "cruzin" at around 50mph and you step on the gas, the moment you step on the gas and the car actually picking up speed thats when you will notice it. The Cruze is pretty weak for that, its picks up 2-4 seconds after I step on it. However, the Cruze isnt known for power, its known for its unique design.
> The trifectaTune will help you a lot in the long run, but it wont stop the "turbo lag".
> 
> 
> CHEVYCRUZE RS


Thanks. I figured that is when it would be noticeable. So, the lack of power at times from a dead stop is something different. Sometimes, the car catches quickly and jerks me backward. Sometimes, I just about have to floor it to get moving into the traffic so I don't get hit. Very strange. Just figure this is all part of the "learning" mode although I'm beginning to think my learner is a little slow. Only have about 3,300 miles on her, so I'm waiting before I go running to the dealer. I hate to bring the car to them for anything other than an oil/filter change and tire rotation.

When a car is brand new, I don't expect to be running to the dealer for anything else until the car is several years old. That's me.


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

I hit about 10psi almost as soon as I touch the gas, and peak (21psi) soon after.. I'm not sure about this turbo lag you mention


----------



## Kaimumma (Apr 14, 2011)

Keep in mind that the motor is a 1.4 turbo and not a 2.0 or 2.5 turbo. Experiencing any kind of turbo lag is so hard to begin with because the motor is already so small.


----------



## Yama1yzf (Feb 13, 2011)

you cannot eliminate Turbo lag as it is inherent in the design of the Turbo itself. Where I sense it the most on the Cruze is on / off throttle conditions (say when slowing down for someone making a turn in front of you). When you get back on the gas there is a moment of pretty much nothing happening while the Turbo spins back up and there is your Turbo lag.

Combine that with the idiotic downshifts of the tranny and you have a lot of jerkiness in the drive train. The advantages of a turbo are many for power and torque but they sacrifice some driveability.


----------



## 70x7 (Apr 24, 2011)

turbo lag is a by-product of having a turbo. There is no way to eliminate lag, period.
Now there are ways to help minimize it (Porsche spent millions developing a "new" turbo for thier vehicles a few years ago) but it will always be present to some degree.


----------



## Skilz10179 (Mar 22, 2011)

This motor has very little turbo lag, it pretty much makes full boost before 2000 rpm. There really is no reason to want boost at that low of an engine speed anyway, you never race below 2000 rpm in any conditions.

If you want modifications that reduce lag and improve the response of the turbo i have 3 words for you, exhaust, exhaust and exhaust.

A better flowing catless down pipe will be the most beneficial section of the exhaust system to replace, followed by a catless mid pipe and finally the cat back exhaust. On a turbo motor you basically want the least amount of back pressure / best flowing exhaust possible.


----------



## fastdriver (Jan 7, 2011)

Yama1yzf said:


> you cannot eliminate Turbo lag as it is inherent in the design of the Turbo itself. Where I sense it the most on the Cruze is on / off throttle conditions (say when slowing down for someone making a turn in front of you). When you get back on the gas there is a moment of pretty much nothing happening while the Turbo spins back up and there is your Turbo lag.
> 
> Combine that with the idiotic downshifts of the tranny and you have a lot of jerkiness in the drive train. The advantages of a turbo are many for power and torque but they sacrifice some driveability.


You hit the nail on the head here! This is ONE of many things that I experience. I guess I better get used to the jerkiness there. I can cross this off my list of annoying things and just keep jerking along.

Have you ever experienced this- you're at a stop sign and you're going to be merging with traffic on a busy road- you step on the gas NORMALLY, like a NORMAL car, but nothing or not much is happening except you are now moving into traffic at a snail's pace and just about have to floor it to get going before you get creamed! Then, there are other times when the car seems to "catch" quickly and you're right in with the traffic. VERY bizarre to say the least.:question:


----------



## feh (May 29, 2011)

I can see being bummed about this. I assume it's much more noticeable in an automatic car.

This is the first turbo I've ever owned, but having a manual tranny allows me to work around the lag more easily.


----------



## Yama1yzf (Feb 13, 2011)

Have you ever experienced this- you're at a stop sign and you're going to be merging with traffic on a busy road- you step on the gas NORMALLY, like a NORMAL car, but nothing or not much is happening except you are now moving into traffic at a snail's pace and just about have to floor it to get going before you get creamed! Then, there are other times when the car seems to "catch" quickly and you're right in with the traffic. VERY bizarre to say the least.:question:[/QUOTE]

Yes. I would assume anyone with the 1.4L Turbo are experiencing the same things you are. And the annoyance factor is probably higher for people coming out of a V6 or V8 non-turbo engines. There are going to be tradeoffs downsizing to a 4 cyl engine but I am saving about $100 / month in gas alone so I can live with it. And I really enjoy driving the Cruze even with a few minor annoyances.


----------



## Skilz10179 (Mar 22, 2011)

fastdriver said:


> You hit the nail on the head here! This is ONE of many things that I experience. I guess I better get used to the jerkiness there. I can cross this off my list of annoying things and just keep jerking along.
> 
> Have you ever experienced this- you're at a stop sign and you're going to be merging with traffic on a busy road- you step on the gas NORMALLY, like a NORMAL car, but nothing or not much is happening except you are now moving into traffic at a snail's pace and just about have to floor it to get going before you get creamed! Then, there are other times when the car seems to "catch" quickly and you're right in with the traffic. VERY bizarre to say the least.:question:


That's what you get for buying an automatic....


----------



## 72buickgs (Mar 20, 2011)

i owned a 1998 regal gs and yes with the supercharger. a supercharger is always superior to a turbo charger because it is instantaneousy available.
i know that if u change the supercharger oil on a regular basis, it will outlast the car. 
what is the life expectancy of the turbochargers on the cruze?


----------



## Skilz10179 (Mar 22, 2011)

72buickgs said:


> i owned a 1998 regal gs and yes with the supercharger. a supercharger is always superior to a turbo charger because it is instantaneousy available.
> i know that if u change the supercharger oil on a regular basis, it will outlast the car.
> what is the life expectancy of the turbochargers on the cruze?


I couldn't disagree more, a proper turbo system will always be superior to a supercharger. Turbochargers are much more efficient and be able to produce more power, the supercharger on your Regal was consuming about 40hp from the engine just to spin it. The turbo on the 1.4 is instant boost at any engine speed over 2000 rpm, just like a supercharger would be but without the inefficiency...

I would except the turbo on these motors to last at least 150,000 miles.


----------



## plowman33 (Jul 20, 2011)

Skilz10179 said:


> I couldn't disagree more, a proper turbo system will always be superior to a supercharger. Turbochargers are much more efficient and be able to produce more power, the supercharger on your Regal was consuming about 40hp from the engine just to spin it. The turbo on the 1.4 is instant boost at any engine speed over 2000 rpm, just like a supercharger would be but without the inefficiency...
> 
> I would except the turbo on these motors to last at least 150,000 miles.


Yeah, well I have a perpetual motion machine strapped to mine, and it's much more effecient.


----------



## SilverCruzer (Nov 30, 2010)

I actually think what you are experiencing is not turbo lag. Could just be small engine.

Look at the torque and horsepower peaks and how they match the RPM's. It happens sooner (lower rpm) than the 1.8 without the turbo. When I have experienced lag in the past with older cars, its from a dead stop. I don't feel that with the Cruze turbo.


----------



## 70x7 (Apr 24, 2011)

Skilz10179 said:


> I couldn't disagree more, a proper turbo system will always be superior to a supercharger. Turbochargers are much more efficient and be able to produce more power, the supercharger on your Regal was consuming about 40hp from the engine just to spin it. The turbo on the 1.4 is instant boost at any engine speed over 2000 rpm, just like a supercharger would be but without the inefficiency...


x2


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

Step 1 buy 2.0 ecotec engine
Step 2 remove 1.4 ecotec engine
Step 3 Install 2.0 ecotec engine
Step 4 Enjoy


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

Skilz10179 said:


> I couldn't disagree more, a proper turbo system will always be superior to a supercharger. Turbochargers are much more efficient and be able to produce more power, the supercharger on your Regal was consuming about 40hp from the engine just to spin it.
> 
> I would except the turbo on these motors to last at least 150,000 miles.


I'm not sure that is an entirely true statement. I agree a Turbo will _WASTE _less power but I don't necessarily agree that they _MAKE_ more power and definitley are not necessarily faster. I mean the fastest race cars in the world are running Superchargers. I would give the nod to a turbo in peak HP numbers but I think on a level playing field a S/C would kick it's butt in acceleration. either that or the Top Fuel guys have been getting wrong for years, pretty sure no turbo car has been able to run with them yet.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

Arguing Apples and Oranges at this point.

Most of you know this I'm sure but the reason you get instant throttle response is because a supercharger has a linear boost curve where is a turbo is progressive and is a poor air pump which is why it takes awhile to get going. Once it's going it'll move more air than a supercharger. However new types of superchargers (Eaton TVS for example) coming out are exceeding 70% and even 80% thermal efficiency. Which is on par with turbo chargers.


----------



## audog (Apr 28, 2011)

there is a little turbo lag with my Cruze, but I haven't had any issues with feeling unsafe. The last turbo car I had was a Dodge Omni GLH, that had major lag, but OMG when it finally hit it, was like a bat out of H**L. If you were not 100% in control of the wheel, you would find yourself in serious trouble. The Cruze is no where near that wicked. I have had no problems merging or passing with my LTZ. Just took a little learning how the car responds.


----------



## Blk11CruzeRS (Jul 25, 2011)

i think most of the lag is the transmission downshifting.... same thing happens on my '07 G6 GT, electronic controlled trans shifting, just takes the darn thing 1 to 2 seconds to find the lower gear it wants. especially when there's 6 gears.........


----------



## bvbull200 (Jul 18, 2011)

You can't really pinpoint it to a certain speed or certain condition other than what RPM range you are in. If you are "out of the boost", then the car will feel nearly like a N/A 1.4L engine. When you get "in the boost", you will feel the bump in HP/TQ. With an automatic, you are pretty much at the mercy of the car as to whether or not you can get in the proper gear to get in an RPM range with useable power. With a manual, you can always pick a gear that keeps the revs up enough to not fall out of the range of the turbo.

For those with the 1.4L Turbo that say you don't have it or can't feel it, I think you just aren't aware of what others are referring to. Start from a stand still and go about 1/4-1/2 throttle. That point around 2,000 RPM where the car seems to gain a good bit of horsepower (because it is)? That is the turbo "kicking in". Everything prior to that, the time you had to "wait" for that to happen, is your turbo lag.


----------



## LucyCruze (Jul 1, 2011)

I don't know... seems like I've been able to adjust my driving to where the turbo lag is becoming less and less of an issue. For example, when I'm making a turn, I start my acceleration sooner where in my old non-turbo car, I would have coasted longer. Even with an automatic, I've been able to smooth out a lot of the lag.

There have been a couple times (mostly when merging on the highway) that I've unexpectedly needed to speed up and had pretty bad lag, but for the most part, when I can anticipate how much juice the car is gonna need, it's really not been noticeable.

Overall, I really don't think you can expect to drive with a turbo the same way you drive without one.


----------



## Yama1yzf (Feb 13, 2011)

"Overall, I really don't think you can expect to drive with a turbo the same way you drive without one"

Pretty much hits the nail on the head......


----------



## Skilz10179 (Mar 22, 2011)

NBrehm said:


> I'm not sure that is an entirely true statement. I agree a Turbo will _WASTE _less power but I don't necessarily agree that they _MAKE_ more power and definitley are not necessarily faster. I mean the fastest race cars in the world are running Superchargers. I would give the nod to a turbo in peak HP numbers but I think on a level playing field a S/C would kick it's butt in acceleration. either that or the Top Fuel guys have been getting wrong for years, pretty sure no turbo car has been able to run with them yet.


There are two reasons why Top Fuel cars don't run turbochargers, first is because IT IS AGAINST THE RULES. The second reason is because they run nitromethane which creates exhaust gas temps so high that no turbo could withstand it at that power level.


----------



## Skilz10179 (Mar 22, 2011)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> Arguing Apples and Oranges at this point.
> 
> Most of you know this I'm sure but the reason you get instant throttle response is because a supercharger has a linear boost curve where is a turbo is progressive and is a poor air pump which is why it takes awhile to get going. Once it's going it'll move more air than a supercharger. However new types of superchargers (Eaton TVS for example) coming out are exceeding 70% and even 80% thermal efficiency. Which is on par with *old* turbochargers.


I fixed that for you. 

Superchargers have come a long way in recent years but so have turbochargers. New ball bearing turbos with billet compressor wheels like the new Garrett GTX line are amazing.


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

All I'm saying, rules or not, there isn't a turbo car holding speed records at the drag strip. Yes they make more high end HP and waste less power, but you are going to get beat by the supercharger in acceleration unless you want to race for a mile or so. The bigger the turbo the bigger the engine or more RPM you need to spool it without alot of lag so at some point you will start hurting yourself with turbo size. On engines for the real world yes I would take a turbo, at the power levels most street cars make it will have the advantage. But in the big leagues the S/C will be the king for the forseeable future.

On topic: I had issues with lag in my car but it was just because I was used to driving a vehicle with 500Ft Lbs of torque, I adjusted my driving habits to keep the RPM's up and it really hasn't been an issue for me since. Try and keep the revs above 2000 RPM and you should be happier


----------



## Skilz10179 (Mar 22, 2011)

NBrehm said:


> All I'm saying, rules or not, there isn't a turbo car holding speed records at the drag strip. Yes they make more high end HP and waste less power, but you are going to get beat by the supercharger in acceleration unless you want to race for a mile or so. The bigger the turbo the bigger the engine or more RPM you need to spool it without alot of lag so at some point you will start hurting yourself with turbo size. On engines for the real world yes I would take a turbo, at the power levels most street cars make it will have the advantage. But in the big leagues the S/C will be the king for the forseeable future.


Sorry man but you don't know what you're talking about. The reason turbos aren't used in a lot of racing is because they are against the rules to limit power. In some forms of racing they only allow turbos with air inlet size restrictions, which is what they do in World Ralley Cross to prevent the cars from being too fast / dangerous. Every form of racing has rules to limit cars to keep a level and safe playing field. 

As for lag, there are 1500+hp 2.0L motors that can spool their massive turbos at the starting line and launch under full boost (no lag) using a trans brake. Even a automatic Cruze's torque converter has a high enough stall speed to be able to take off from a dead stop under full boost with a little brake torque.


----------



## 72buickgs (Mar 20, 2011)

drag racing allows for superchargers, turbochargers. i attended the mnra (mustang reacing) in milan, mi., last saturday and are those turbo & supercharged classes (sso) can reach upward of 200 mph thru the traps.


----------



## 70x7 (Apr 24, 2011)

NBrehm said:


> All I'm saying, rules or not, there isn't a turbo car holding speed records at the drag strip. Yes they make more high end HP and waste less power, but you are going to get beat by the supercharger in acceleration unless you want to race for a mile or so. The bigger the turbo the bigger the engine or more RPM you need to spool it without alot of lag so at some point you will start hurting yourself with turbo size. On engines for the real world yes I would take a turbo, at the power levels most street cars make it will have the advantage. But in the big leagues the S/C will be the king for the forseeable future.


you are correct in saying a bigger turbo needs more air to spool, but like Skillz said, I can spool up a turbo sitting at a stop light (or tree for that matter). That will be instant full boost on launch....which will out accelerate a supercharger.
Now you cannot just slap on the biggest turbo you can find onto any vehicle, it doesnt work well that way. Depending on motor size and the effeciency of the turbo output, one needs to be best sized up for the application. There is a difference between peak power and useable power.


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

We will agree to disagree then. My nod goes to the Supercharger. And you are correct about the EGT on nitro, another nod to the SC. I believe the fastest turbo car in the world (and def correct me if you know of another) is running in the 5's.


----------



## jcruze (Jul 10, 2011)

that is why i went with the ECO manual, better response than the automatic. My sales guy even told me when I was testing the automatic model that there would be a lag and it would take some getting use to. My sales also did his job and highly recommended that I test out the ECO manual transmission. I was reluctant but after driving the manual I was sold. I also enjoy the manual shift because the ability to coast, which saves on gas. My Cruze seems to coast forever. (and I really do not care if you think coasting with a manual shift is a no no)


----------



## Crewz (Jul 12, 2011)

NBrehm said:


> All I'm saying, rules or not, there isn't a turbo car holding speed records at the drag strip. Yes they make more high end HP and waste less power, but you are going to get beat by the supercharger in acceleration unless you want to race for a mile or so. The bigger the turbo the bigger the engine or more RPM you need to spool it without alot of lag so at some point you will start hurting yourself with turbo size. On engines for the real world yes I would take a turbo, at the power levels most street cars make it will have the advantage. But in the big leagues the S/C will be the king for the forseeable future.
> 
> On topic: I had issues with lag in my car but it was just because I was used to driving a vehicle with 500Ft Lbs of torque, I adjusted my driving habits to keep the RPM's up and it really hasn't been an issue for me since. Try and keep the revs above 2000 RPM and you should be happier


You're right. Turbos are making land speed records on the salt flats.

Actually, the fastest drag race speed record for a four cylinder engine is held by a turbo charged air cooled volkswagen engine.


----------



## Crewz (Jul 12, 2011)

jcruze said:


> that is why i went with the ECO manual, better response than the automatic. My sales guy even told me when I was testing the automatic model that there would be a lag and it would take some getting use to. My sales also did his job and highly recommended that I test out the ECO manual transmission. I was reluctant but after driving the manual I was sold. I also enjoy the manual shift because the ability to coast, which saves on gas. My Cruze seems to coast forever. (and I really do not care if you think coasting with a manual shift is a no no)


I think this is an old wives tale. As soon as you let off the gas and coast with an automatic you're doing the same thing because the engine isn't working. On a car with instant MPG, with an auto, as soon as you let off the gas it goes up to 99 MPG. If anything the transmission is slowing the car down making your brakes work less.


----------



## Crewz (Jul 12, 2011)

I don't think there's much if any lag. I've only experienced it once and that was accelerating from 40 to 70. If anything, I think it was just the automatic going from 6th to 3rd that cause the jerk or sense of lag.


----------



## LucyCruze (Jul 1, 2011)

Crewz said:


> I think this is an old wives tale. As soon as you let off the gas and coast with an automatic you're doing the same thing because the engine isn't working. On a car with instant MPG, with an auto, as soon as you let off the gas it goes up to 99 MPG. If anything the transmission is slowing the car down making your brakes work less.


Coasting in gear might be similar for an automatic and a manual, but coasting in neutral in a manual is definitely more efficient for rolling farther... right?


----------



## Quazar (Apr 28, 2011)

I'm sure someone has a more technical explination but basically why it goes to 99mpg is because your using the amount of gas needed to idle the engine while still traveling at X mph. 

I am pretty sure that A/T and M/T in neutral are pretty much a wash in efficiency. However, the ECO in 4/5/6 is more efficient in gear if only because of the gear ratios.


----------



## Crewz (Jul 12, 2011)

LucyCruze said:


> Coasting in gear might be similar for an automatic and a manual, but coasting in neutral in a manual is definitely more efficient for rolling farther... right?


 I guess I were in a coasting contest I would go with a manual. Really and truly, if you were to put an automatic in neutral you're doing the same thing as putting a manual in neutral.

You're really getting your fuel savings from the design of the two different transmissions in gear. How often are you actually coasting vs. driving?  An automatic is a more complex tranny and has more friction parts to rob you of wheel power, not to mention automatics have a stall converter which doesn't always spin the tranny at the same RPMs like a manual does, unless it has a lockup stall converter. In return you don't have to shift gears though, and you pay more for an auto.

Here's a 3 speed auto parts diagram.
http://www.eatmyshifts.com/th350_parts_blow_up_files/th350_2.gif

Here's a 3 speed standard diagram.
http://www.compnine.com/largeimg/000000T4-13.gif


----------



## Crewz (Jul 12, 2011)

Quazar said:


> I'm sure someone has a more technical explination but basically why it goes to 99mpg is because your using the amount of gas needed to idle the engine while still traveling at X mph.
> 
> I am pretty sure that A/T and M/T in neutral are pretty much a wash in efficiency. However, the ECO in 4/5/6 is more efficient in gear if only because of the gear ratios.


I agree. ECOs do have much taller gearing which is where the fuel savings come from. Basically a much better overdrive.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

Skilz10179 said:


> I fixed that for you.
> 
> Superchargers have come a long way in recent years but so have turbochargers. New ball bearing turbos with billet compressor wheels like the new Garrett GTX line are amazing.


Yeah but the improvements in turbo's haven't been on the scale that S/Cs have. Also I only saw 1 map but peak adiabatic efficiency for * just one* of the GTX turbos was 80% where as the new Eaton TVS is at 90%. Obviously they have an assortment of others and the improvements over their GT line was very impressive btw. I think it'll be a game of preference in the short term future. But I do agree with you. For peak power and efficiency I'd put my money on the turbo hands down. It's just really good to see how far they've(superchargers) come from the 40-50% range.

I wish there was a map of the Cruze's stock turbo available as well. I don't believe we've seen anything yet from Honeywell or GM.


----------



## CHEVYCRUZE RS (Mar 29, 2011)

1995 Toyota Supra Turbo, period.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

^ That reminds me of a Supra joke...

What do a 400HP Supra and a 800HP Supra have in common?..


----------



## CHEVYCRUZE RS (Mar 29, 2011)

? ? ? ? ?
Ha Ha Ha Ha


----------



## plowman33 (Jul 20, 2011)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> ^ That reminds me of a Supra joke...
> 
> What do a 400HP Supra and a 800HP Supra have in common?..


 
I don't get it, and I used to have a Supra...

Maybe that's why I don't get it...:question:

EDIT: Unless the punchline is "nothing", in which case, yes, that is funny.


----------



## CHEVYCRUZE RS (Mar 29, 2011)

:goodjob:hahahaha


plowman33 said:


> I don't get it, and I used to have a Supra...
> 
> Maybe that's why I don't get it...:question:
> 
> EDIT: Unless the punchline is "nothing", in which case, yes, that is funny.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

The Answer:

Timeslips


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> ^ That reminds me of a Supra joke...
> 
> What do a 400HP Supra and a 800HP Supra have in common?..


They both run 12.5?

Now HERE is a turbo powered car I'd sell my soul to drive, and no, it isn't the GTR, I could care less about that thing.
http://youtu.be/Qgm2t6o6LZ8

I wonder if they suffer from lag and jerkiness


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

NBrehm said:


> We will agree to disagree then. My nod goes to the Supercharger.



Look at the 2.0L ecotec in the cobalt SS, originally it was a supercharged engine it had 205hp 200lb-ft torque, they switched to a turbo after a couple years it had 260hp 260lb-ft torque. The 2007 cobalt SS turbo(in 2007) set a lap record for front-drive sport-compact cars at Nürburgring track besting the previous record by 13seconds. 

Side note: the 2012 Buick regal GS uses this same motor(2.0L turbo), its power output is 270HP & 295 lb-ft torque.


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

spacedout said:


> Look at the 2.0L ecotec in the cobalt SS, originally it was a supercharged engine it had 205hp 200lb-ft torque, they switched to a turbo after a couple years it had 260hp 260lb-ft torque. The 2007 cobalt SS turbo(in 2007) set a lap record for front-drive sport-compact cars at Nürburgring track besting the previous record by 13seconds.
> 
> Side note: the 2012 Buick regal GS uses this same motor(2.0L turbo), its power output is 270HP & 295 lb-ft torque.


Cobalt also had a crappy supercharger on it that was an aged design. I believe they also switched to Direct Injection on the turbo engine and several other upgrades, and the turbo (if memory serves) ran at 16PSI Vs 7PSI on the S/C, that most surely is 99% of the gain. There are alot of differences in the 2 engines besides forced induction and like I said, the Cobalt had a pretty crappy Supercharger.


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

Yeah the m62 was tiny, and they did switch to DI. You can't compare a stock SS/SC to SS/TC. They're not the same


----------



## Reckless (Mar 15, 2011)

on the turbo to s/c discussion for top fuel cars... 

there was a turbo inline 6cyl top fuel car built to complete top fuel spec with the exclusion of the engine ... it was running on par with existing "legal" supercharged top fuel cars .. on a smaller engine then was allowed .. depending on track conditions it was actually faster 

the car was completely one off and was exibition only .. I'm trying to remember who the **** built it. 

comparing s/c and t/c is like was said before comparing apples to oranges... **** lets throw banana's in the mix too and add nitrous oxide to the comparison.

even if the compression methods are similar/the same (centrifical s/c to turbo) .. the head tranfers ratios etc are different ... they are each and their own different animals .. and need to be compared as such.


----------



## Mojops (Aug 2, 2012)

*Cruze transmission lag*

This is driving me crazy. The lag is soo bad i want to make chevy take it back. My dealer, Wentworth Chevrolet, says it isn't turbo lag. It is the transmission. Problem with all the new transmission. Said the car will learn my driving habits. Problem: i drive it, my wife, my 16 yr old daughter. The lag has nearly caused accidents. I ask: since it is a computer thing can't you change the specs? They say nothing they can do. Put the computer on it. And still says sorry it is what it is. Talk to Chevy. Wow! Help.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Mojops said:


> This is driving me crazy. The lag is soo bad i want to make chevy take it back. My dealer, Wentworth Chevrolet, says it isn't turbo lag. It is the transmission. Problem with all the new transmission. Said the car will learn my driving habits. Problem: i drive it, my wife, my 16 yr old daughter. The lag has nearly caused accidents. I ask: since it is a computer thing can't you change the specs? They say nothing they can do. Put the computer on it. And still says sorry it is what it is. Talk to Chevy. Wow! Help.


I'm guessing you're talking about "lag" from a stop? Re gap your spark plugs to .035" and run higher octane gasoline. It helps immensely. There have been 4828273 threads on this. 

What you're experiencing is timing being pulled due to detonation in hot weather on regular octane. The spark plug gaps are off from the factory (too small), and exacerabate the pickup problem. This isn't turbo lag.

If you think turbo lag is bad on this car, drive any other turbocharged car. 


Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Only thing I will say about the Supra, test driving one without the turbo is like driving a 1980 Plymouth Horizon.

Turbo's were really looked down upon by insurance companies, think if you have one, going to drive like a maniac. First question I asked my insurance agent with the Cruze turbo, will that skyrocket my insurance rates? Was surprised when he said no. Ha, a turbo in an 86 cube engine.

Ironically, for a brand new car, insurance rates with the same exact coverage was lower than my 04 Cavalier. Cruze has ten airbags, not just two, and automatic door locks.

Key advantage of a turbo for the economically conscious driver, it does recover some of that energy expelled by the exhaust system. In the Supra, the gain is 3 free miles per gallon. Not earth shaking, but at least something.

Would I expect miracles with the Cruze turbo driving in 6th gear trying to pass that guy ahead of me on a two lane road that is varying his/her speed between 35 and 50 mph? Not hardly, would get better results by opening the door and using my left leg like you do in a scooter.

You can do that with a manual transmission, not waiting for some silly-con diode to make up its mind with an AT. No hesitation, no delays, Cruze takes off like a bat out of that hot place. Turbos really come to life quick if the engine is permitted to rev up, can't do that in 6th gear.


----------



## rustinn (Jun 7, 2012)

Yama1yzf said:


> Combine that with the idiotic downshifts of the tranny and you have a lot of jerkiness in the drive train. The advantages of a turbo are many for power and torque but they sacrifice some driveability.


Tell me about it! This is probably the most awkward car in stop and go traffic. Jerky is an understatement. Where this car really shines is long strips of smooth road void of stops.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Can't say I have any problems in my daily commute. Sure, it takes some getting used to, especially with the manual transmission and 3 overdrive gears (making the first 3 taller). My daily commute is 27 miles, and I will occasionally hit about 15-20 minutes of heavy traffic on my way home. It's all non-highway driving too. I find that if you just relax, take your time, and keep your distance from the car in front of you, you can get along just fine, and save fuel to boot. 

If anyone is experiencing hesitation, I think I've said this well over 500 times; *check your spark plug gaps!* Re-gap them to .035 if you want the best performance at low RPMs (when the engine isn't under boost) on stock motors. 

Along with that, bypass your intake resonator for some improved throttle response, and run premium fuel to combat knock.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

rustinn said:


> Tell me about it! This is probably the most awkward car in stop and go traffic. Jerky is an understatement. Where this car really shines is long strips of smooth road void of stops.


I am so glad I went with the ECO MT. Other than having to relearn when to shift because of the odd gearing for MPG, I don't have to deal with turbo lag - just downshift and tromp on it. I've never liked the lag in all automatics and the constant shifting some of them will do when driving in the city. Regardless of transmissions, all automatics have at least one common city speed limit they can't handle smoothly. For some it's 30 MPH, others 35, MPH, and I've even driven some that can't handle 40 or 45 MPH without constantly shifting.

Basically, my opinion is the ECO MT shines regardless of driving conditions, even stop & go. In stop & go freeway driving I average over 35 MPG simply by keeping the RPMs between 1200 and 1500 and not worrying about keeping up with the brake lights in front of me. At these RPMs the turbo isn't even thinking about spooling up. 1200 RPMs is where the ECU shuts off the deceleration fuel cut off, which is why I try to stay above this point.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

obermd said:


> I am so glad I went with the ECO MT. Other than having to relearn when to shift because of the odd gearing for MPG, I don't have to deal with turbo lag - just downshift and tromp on it. I've never liked the lag in all automatics and the constant shifting some of them will do when driving in the city. Regardless of transmissions, all automatics have at least one common city speed limit they can't handle smoothly. For some it's 30 MPH, others 35, MPH, and I've even driven some that can't handle 40 or 45 MPH without constantly shifting.
> 
> Basically, my opinion is the ECO MT shines regardless of driving conditions, even stop & go. In stop & go freeway driving I average over 35 MPG simply by keeping the RPMs between 1200 and 1500 and not worrying about keeping up with the brake lights in front of me. At these RPMs the turbo isn't even thinking about spooling up. 1200 RPMs is where the ECU shuts off the deceleration fuel cut off, which is why I try to stay above this point.


To minimize or eliminate pumping losses, I've been actually trying to drive at much lower RPMs lately when AC is off. I've been cruising and accelerating lightly in 6th at 950-1100 quite often when on smaller roads. Surprisingly, the engine actually has enough power to accelerate quickly enough to allow me to keep up with traffic.

I've had to change my driving habits a bit, but it seems to be working well and I'm reaching new records on my DIC. If it wasn't for the days I absolutely need AC, I'd be able to beat my previous best of 44.7mpg. 

Sent from my Bulletproof_Doubleshot using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Fuel is a key parameter for performance and economy. Flipping a coin between Mobil top tier 91 octane ethanol free gas as compared to the same spec fuel sold by Kwik Trip. Sometimes Kwik Trip is better than Mobil or just the reverse.

Last time Mobil was definitely noticeable, but just don't have the means to test these fuels before making a purchase, like buying a lottery ticket. The standards we once enjoyed no longer exist, EPA has over 155 blends of fuel, distribution is a nightmare, and for the rest of us, don't know what in the heck we are buying.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

obermd said:


> Regardless of transmissions, all automatics have at least one common city speed limit they can't handle smoothly. For some it's 30 MPH, others 35, MPH, and I've even driven some that can't handle 40 or 45 MPH without constantly shifting.


My Cruze shifts at 25 mph (1500 RPMs, 5th) and 38 mph (1500 RPMs, 6th) respectively . 100% customizable with a tuner. 

The herky jerky bullshit people are referring to is actually that **** DFCO. It *IS* noticeable


----------



## OnlyTaurus (Mar 20, 2012)

It may be the auto trans, I have no problem 'get-going' from a stop or under any demand for that matter. Once I heard the auto computer 'learns' your driving habits, I was immediately turned off. No thanks.. not my style. I like controlling my own shifts. 

As for the 'turbo lag' complaint, I'm sure it has a little to do with the turbo. Keep in mind friends, each cylinder is only .35 liters. That's not very much exhaust gas to spin the turbine, even at 3000rpms. I wouldn't say it's 2-4 second lag for me, but I do think(like Erik stated), you will notice more lag if you punch it from a point of not even touching the gas pedal, as opposed to light to hard accel. Decel fuel cut-off does hurt, but like many said, they built it with economy in mind. Just some things we have to deal with. 

+1 for tune though, it does help a bit. More pressure in the cylinders = more force towards the turbine and quicker compressing.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> My Cruze shifts at 25 mph (1500 RPMs, 5th) and 38 mph (1500 RPMs, 6th) respectively . 100% customizable with a tuner.
> 
> The herky jerky bullshit people are referring to is actually that **** DFCO. It *IS* noticeable


I can barely feel when DFCO engages/disengages. I know it's on because my intantaneous economy jumps to 99 MPG and stays there. If I want to really tell if DFCO is operating I have to switch to Metric and watch for 0.0 L/100KM on the instantaneous enconomy meter.

Shift points in an automatic may very well be cutomizable with a tuner, but most drivers don't have a tuner, know how to use, or even want to use one. They just want the car to drive and be reasonably smooth when shifting. Shift points in a manual are customizable by left foot and right hand. MT drivers optimize shift points depending on what we want the car to do. This is why we buy manuals and not automatics when we have the option.


----------

