# Power question



## papoose42 (Apr 29, 2012)

Hey guys had a question I have the 1.4 lt and was wondering what is the total power I could get out of this thing if I do all the upgrades available I want to make my car fast but at the same time I am not sure if I want to buy a car with more port but love mine cruze


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

papoose42 said:


> Hey guys had a question I have the 1.4 lt and was wondering what is the total power I could get out of this thing if I do all the upgrades available I want to make my car fast but at the same time I am not sure if I want to buy a car with more port but love mine cruze


If you want to go fast, buy a Camaro. If you want to be somewhat quick (15 second 1/4 mile with a tune) and want to get 40mpg doing it in a 4-door that handles like a BMW 3 series and feels more upscale than the price tag reflects, buy a Cruze. It's not a sports car; it's simply the best economy car money can buy.


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> If you want to go fast, buy a Camaro. If you want to be somewhat quick (15 second 1/4 mile with a tune) and want to get 40mpg doing it in a 4-door that handles like a BMW 3 series and feels more upscale than the price tag reflects, buy a Cruze. It's not a sports car; it's simply the best economy car money can buy.


^^^^

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## papoose42 (Apr 29, 2012)

I already have a cruze I am just curious of power gains you could get I love my cruze but want it to be faster


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Ensure your spark plugs are all gapped at 0.028" and get the Trifecta tune are going to be your best bets for more power.


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

The cruze is not going to be fast without a bunch of cash poured in. The trifecta tune makes a world of difference but using it 24/7 is going to lead to premature transmission failure. Gm built the tranny to hold a certain amount of power and a tuned engine is above that.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

mcg75 said:


> The cruze is not going to be fast without a bunch of cash poured in. The trifecta tune makes a world of difference but using it 24/7 is going to lead to premature transmission failure. Gm built the tranny to hold a certain amount of power and a tuned engine is above that.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using AutoGuide.Com Free App


That all depends. My understanding was that the stock clutch could hold up to 200ft lbs of torque. So shouldn't the tranny be that capable as well? and the basic tune is less than that.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

mcg75 said:


> The cruze is not going to be fast without a bunch of cash poured in. The trifecta tune makes a world of difference but using it 24/7 is going to lead to premature transmission failure. Gm built the tranny to hold a certain amount of power and a tuned engine is above that.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using AutoGuide.Com Free App


There is no proof of this. The only evidence we have is the design loads of the 1.4T engine, which is somewhere in the realm of 220 lb-ft of torque. Both tunes on the market do not exceed this crank value in any application, and do not disable the engine preservation measures that are built into the ECU. GM leaves a great deal of power on the table in this engine. We know fuel economy and 87 octane use have a lot to do with this.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> There is no proof of this. The only evidence we have is the design loads of the 1.4T engine, which is somewhere in the realm of 220 lb-ft of torque. Both tunes on the market do not exceed this crank value in any application, and do not disable the engine preservation measures that are built into the ECU. GM leaves a great deal of power on the table in this engine. We know fuel economy and 87 octane use have a lot to do with this.


On that note, they leave a great deal of power on the table should one choose to utilize it, but that can also be considered a safety margin for stock motors. The motor as a whole is heavily overbuilt. One can take advantage of un-tapped power, or one can try to push this motor as far as possible with regard to mileage and longevity. In the end, you'll find that it's still an excellent motor in all respects. I am fairly certain that most people still haven't come to terms yet with the fact that it's only 1.4 liters. We have some of them pushing past 200whp. 10 years ago, GM struggled to do that (with a respectable torque curve) with 3.8 liters naturally aspirated.

My personal recommendation would be to stick to a tune and an intake if you want to make some power; perhaps an exhaust if you have the money, but don't try to squeeze every last ounce of power out of it. Accept it for what it is, and if you want to go really fast, buy yourself a DSM, WRX, a muscle car, or something that you can get a lot of power out of for cheap that you won't rely on as your daily driver.


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> There is no proof of this. The only evidence we have is the design loads of the 1.4T engine, which is somewhere in the realm of 220 lb-ft of torque. Both tunes on the market do not exceed this crank value in any application, and do not disable the engine preservation measures that are built into the ECU. GM leaves a great deal of power on the table in this engine. We know fuel economy and 87 octane use have a lot to do with this.


The proof of this is right on gm power train. com website. Why in the world would you think gm would build a tranny to withstand so much more than what they intended? It costs money to do that.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

If the clutch can hold a lot of torque, it's generally very heavy and grabby. Those are not characteristics that GM wants for a mass-market car that might be purchased by anybody. So, they gave the Cruze a feather-weight clutch that's easy to drive. The downside for a performance-minded owner is that this easy to drive light-duty clutch won't stand up to a real increase in power. I suspect the torque rating on GM's website is what the clutch can withstand, not the transmission. 

Also, the automatic is rated for more torque than the manual. IIRC it's 247 ft/lbs. Nobody's anywhere close to that power level in a Cruze yet. I do suspect the manual can ultimately hold more torque with a better clutch.


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

The Cruze auto was built to have an engine of up to 177lbs-ft. 

This is why the Verano, despite not having much more power, was upgraded to the 6t45e from the 6t40e in the Cruze.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## OnlyTaurus (Mar 20, 2012)

mcg75 said:


> The Cruze auto was built to have an engine of up to 177lbs-ft.
> 
> This is why the Verano, despite not having much more power, was upgraded to the 6t45e from the 6t40e in the Cruze.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using AutoGuide.Com Free App


There is no 45 series for the Verano. The 2.4 uses the 6T40, the 2.0T uses the 6T50. The manuals use the F40 trans, which is a very strong drivetrain.


----------



## OnlyTaurus (Mar 20, 2012)

Also, the Cruze auto has a torque capacity of over 250ft-lbs. Where are you getting 177 from??


----------



## 2013Cruze (Aug 4, 2012)

mcg75 said:


> The Cruze auto was built to have an engine of up to 177lbs-ft.
> 
> This is why the Verano, despite not having much more power, was upgraded to the 6t45e from the 6t40e in the Cruze.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using AutoGuide.Com Free App


What's the difference between the 6t40e & 6t45e thanks?


----------



## OnlyTaurus (Mar 20, 2012)

mcg75 said:


> The proof of this is right on gm power train. com website. Why in the world would you think gm would build a tranny to withstand so much more than what they intended? It costs money to do that.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using AutoGuide.Com Free App


No offense mcg, I don't mean to bash your posts, as I've corrected the other, but no auto manufacture is going to put a transmission that JUST meets torque ratings. That alone is a recipe for disaster.

It's smart to put a transmission in that is capable of 25% more power than what the engine puts out. Rule of thumb.

Now if the Cruzes had the Corvettes 6-80 trans, now that'd be a little ridiculous.


----------



## OnlyTaurus (Mar 20, 2012)

2013Cruze said:


> What's the difference between the 6t40e & 6t45e thanks?


The series number (40,45, etc.) mainly is used as a strength rating.

So, the 45 is a little stronger than the 40.

A 98 Cavalier 2.2L used the 3T30(3-speed tranverse-mounted 30 series), the 2013 6.2L V8 Corvette uses the 6L80(6-speed Longitudinal 80 series), the 80 is MUCH stronger than the 30, as it's a Corvette.


----------



## 2013Cruze (Aug 4, 2012)

OnlyTaurus said:


> The series number (40,45, etc.) mainly is used as a strength rating.
> 
> So, the 45 is a little stronger than the 40.
> 
> A 98 Cavalier 2.2L used the 3T30(3-speed tranverse-mounted 30 series), the 2013 6.2L V8 Corvette uses the 6L80(6-speed Longitudinal 80 series), the 80 is MUCH stronger than the 30, as it's a Corvette.


Thanks for answering so what's your thoughts on the Verano turbo? Do you think it's worth 30,000$ plus?


----------



## OnlyTaurus (Mar 20, 2012)

Definitely. If it's 30k, that is.

Buick is known for high-class. Their luxuries, space, overall feel, put a $24k LTZ Cruze to shame, I think. I'd definitely pay the extr $6k for that, along with a 6-speed F40 manual trans slapped together with a 280hp turbo engine.

The fuel economy, however, doesn't touch the Cruzen.


----------



## 2013Cruze (Aug 4, 2012)

OnlyTaurus said:


> Definitely. If it's 30k, that is.
> 
> Buick is known for high-class. Their luxuries, space, overall feel, put a $24k LTZ Cruze to shame, I think. I'd definitely pay the extr $6k for that, along with a 6-speed F40 manual trans slapped together with a 280hp turbo engine.


A loaded Verano turbo about 32,000$ with all the options but only 250HP. The manual trans a no cost option for the Verano turbo.


----------



## OnlyTaurus (Mar 20, 2012)

You're right. It is only 250. 0-60 in just over 6 seconds though. Still impressive, I wonder why the power was dropped from initial power numbers.

Nothing a tune can't take care of though.  Direct injection is a fantastic thing.


----------



## 2013Cruze (Aug 4, 2012)

What was the HP on the Cobalt SS?


----------



## OnlyTaurus (Mar 20, 2012)

Supercharged - 205hp
Turbocharged - 260hp


----------



## 2013Cruze (Aug 4, 2012)

OnlyTaurus said:


> Supercharged - 205hp
> Turbocharged - 260hp


Then why would you want to put a tune on the Verano turbo? I wonder what the times 0-60 the Verano turbo would have with the auto trans?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

2013Cruze said:


> Then why would you want to put a tune on the Verano turbo? I wonder what the times 0-60 the Verano turbo would have with the auto trans?


Why not? Reach for 300! Too much for a FWD to put down though...


Sent from my iPhone using Autoguide


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

OnlyTaurus said:


> Supercharged - 205hp
> Turbocharged - 260hp


Thats the 2.0L engine in the cobalt SS, don't forget the Cobalt SS was also offered with a 2.4 ecotec with 170hp at the same time the 2.0L supercharged was available with 205HP.


----------



## OnlyTaurus (Mar 20, 2012)

spacedout said:


> Thats the 2.0L engine in the cobalt SS, don't forget the Cobalt SS was also offered with a 2.4 ecotec with 170hp at the same time the 2.0L supercharged was available with 205HP.


Right. Lol.. I can't believe they badged the 2.4L N/A with the 'SS'....


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

2013Cruze said:


> Then why would you want to put a tune on the Verano turbo? I wonder what the times 0-60 the Verano turbo would have with the auto trans?


I believe they tested that at 6.4 seconds.


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

OnlyTaurus said:


> No offense mcg, I don't mean to bash your posts, as I've corrected the other, but no auto manufacture is going to put a transmission that JUST meets torque ratings. That alone is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> It's smart to put a transmission in that is capable of 25% more power than what the engine puts out. Rule of thumb.
> 
> Now if the Cruzes had the Corvettes 6-80 trans, now that'd be a little ridiculous.


The 6t45 was a mistake on my part not remembering correctly. It was the Equinox 2.4 that got it. 

Anyway, regarding how much power the trans can take. You are quoting maximum gearbox torque not maximum engine torque. I'm not sure how the second figure is gotten to anymore but a GM engineer, back in 98 or 99 explained that as why any of us with modded 2.4 J-bodys were having trouble with the transmissions whining and failing. 

http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/34-1-4l-turbo/5888-manual-transmission-specs-post79908.html#post79908

Had to link to a thread here as GMpowertrain isn't working correctly.


----------

