# Cruze 1.4 turbo Overview Video



## gordio (Nov 26, 2010)

jaygeo1 said:


> Came across this Youtube video overviewing the Cruze 1.4 turbo at the 2010 NAIAS in Detroit.* Keep Cruze'in*
> 
> YouTube - GM 1.4-liter I4 Engine @ NAIAS 2010



awesome. that thing is beautiful


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...what *I* want to know is *WHY* they didn't opt for *S*park-*I*gnition *D*irect-*I*njection (SIDI) fuel management too? It's already on the 2.4L and V6 Camaro engines!

...why, why, why not?


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

We'd get more power out of the box but less tuning capability. We'd have to worry about fuel pressure and all the "odd" issues the LNF 2.0Turbo has..


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...true, but there'd also be increased FUEL ECONOMY with that increased HP using SIDI!

...my 2009 Pontiac (Toyota) Vibe (Matrix) has the 1.8L SIDI engine. Rated at 31 mpg, I routinely got 40+ mpg at 65 mph (no A/C) with the automatic tranny.


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

touche!
the though of using SIDI had crossed my mind, i'm actually fairly shocked they didnt. i wonder why.. for GM theres really not much downside. maybe they didnt have a 1.4 SIDI already and didnt want to engineer one? not sure...


----------



## sedanman (Dec 10, 2010)

SIDI is more expensive. The fuel injector is subject to high heat from the combustion chamber and must be made of more durable materials. Maybe in a future model?


----------



## sedanman (Dec 10, 2010)

Pros and cons of direct injection:

*Advantages*


DI uses computer managed control of fuel metering, which results in very extremely precise control over the amount of fuel and timing of the injection.
Fuel can be injected earlier or later in the cycle compared to traditional fuel injected systems. A DI system can actually inject fuel at any time if programmed to do so. This flexibility to inject at any time allows for detonation/knocking control.
The location of the injectors allow for an optimized spray pattern, which results in a more homogeneous air/fuel mixture. This allows for a more complete combustion (Lean burn). Additionally there's no fuel in the intake track.
Because the fuel and air is mixed right before the combustion is to take place, the fuel has no opportunity to precipitate out of the air.
DI offers a performance boost over a similar sized engine, it can match the output of a larger displacement non-DI engine. A manufacturer could use a smaller DI engine instead of a larger non-DI engine, saving on weight and hopefully also some handling gains. Which is the reason a DI+Turbo was chosen for the CX-7: for weight savings and by extension, offering better weight distribution.
*Summary*: offers the possibility of more fuel efficient engines, lower emissions, more power, and reduced detonation/knocking.
So all the good stuff comes with some bad stuff.

*Disadvantages*


Complexity and cost: DI systems are more complex, driving up cost as a result.
Components are also more expensive, as DI requires higher pressures for the fuel injection. And the injectors themselves are now located in the combustion chamber, so they must be made more robust.
_Possible issue_: Anecdotal evidence suggests, DI engines have a high gasoline content in the engine oil. As to why? Long answer short: fuel is inject at around 2,200psi. Some of it seems to be getting forced into the engine oil.
*Summary*: More complex, costlier (by how much, I do not know), engine oil dilution from fuel


----------



## CruzinAround (Dec 4, 2010)

I like how he refuses to give advice on making his engine better!


----------



## sedanman (Dec 10, 2010)

CruzinAround said:


> I like how he refuses to give advice on making his engine better!


He probably realizes that increasing the turbo pressure will negatively affect the reliability and fuel economy of the engine.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

CruzinAround said:


> I like how he refuses to give advice on making his engine better!


...obviously, he had been briefed by the _corporate lawyers_ on what *not* to say or talk about (ha,ha)!


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

sedanman said:


> He probably realizes that increasing the turbo pressure will negatively affect the reliability and fuel economy of the engine.


Yet oddly enough that when Vince turned up the boost and advanced the timing, he really didn't see a loss of fuel economy...


----------



## CruzinAround (Dec 4, 2010)

lol...pretty much


----------



## sedanman (Dec 10, 2010)

shawn672 said:


> Yet oddly enough that when Vince turned up the boost and advanced the timing, he really didn't see a loss of fuel economy...


I don't know this Vince fella but it sure would be odd to not see a loss in fuel economy when you burn more fuel! And more boost = more fuel into the engine when you stomp on the gas, right? And let's face it, if you're not going to stomp on the gas opting instead to drive like grandma then you don't really need more boost do you?


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

sedanman said:


> I don't know this Vince fella but it sure would be odd to not see a loss in fuel economy when you burn more fuel! And more boost = more fuel into the engine when you stomp on the gas, right? And let's face it, if you're not going to stomp on the gas opting instead to drive like grandma then you don't really need more boost do you?


Under full boost and WOT you barely get 10mpg so the overall fuel economy doesnt change much. you'd have to ask him exactly what he did and why it doesnt change much though

trifectaperformance.com


edit: at WOT from a stop, you'll achieve about 5mpg for the first quarter mile. therefore, raising the boost at WOT only really is not going to affect overall fuel economy very much. at partial throttle you'll use about the same amount of boost as you do now is what i imagine


----------



## jaygeo1 (Nov 10, 2010)

*Another 1.4 L tidbit video........oil pump*

A more close-up view and explanation of the special oil pump.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...did some "searching" and there are apparently two _different_ turbochargers being used, the *Garrett* (p/n: 781504-50015) for the GM/Opel 1.4LT we use and a *Borg-Warner* unit that's used by Shanghai GM (SGM) for China-made vehicles.

...the GM partnumber for the *Garret* turbo is: GM 55565353. I'm trying to get info on the *B-W* unit.


----------



## jaygeo1 (Nov 10, 2010)

*Basic 1.8 L & 1.4 L turbo engine specs*

http://image.gmhightechperformance.com/f/editorials/2011-chevy-cruze/30085907/new-ecotec-motors.jpg 

Thought I'd just pop some basic specs in the thread...


----------

