With the new Vectra facelift, Opel took the chance to introduce a much needed replacement for the aging weak 1.8.

March 23, 2005
New 1.8 liter 140 hp Gasoline Engine to Extend Opel Engine Line-up

Adam Opel AG

* More power, reduced fuel consumption, improved elasticity, enhanced refinement
* Continuously variable camshaft phasing and two-step intake manifold
* Intelligent lightweight design further enhances efficiency

Rüsselsheim … Power output increased by up to 14 percent, fuel consumption decreased by about four percent, improved elasticity and enhanced refinement — these are the most important advantages of the brand new 103 kW/140 PS 1.8 L Opel ECOTEC gasoline engine, when compared with its same-displacement, 125 PS predecessor. The highly efficient four-cylinder unit will debut this summer in the new Opel Zafira and be available in the Vectra and Signum, as well as other Opel models, in the near future.

The all-new four-valve engine features numerous technology-highlights: Two continuously adjustable camshafts (DCVCP — Double Continuous Variable Cam Phasing) to optimize the charge cycle; a two-step intake manifold with a rotary sleeve instead of flaps to minimize flow losses; a highly efficient oil-water heat exchanger; a map-controlled thermostat; and a deep drawn exhaust manifold with an integrated catalytic converter. With a power output per liter of 57 kW/L, the new 1.8 ECOTEC engine is one of the most powerful in this displacement class. Ninety percent of the 175 Nm maximum torque is available over a wide range from 2200 to 6200 rpm, which ensures lively performance even at low engine speeds, for relaxed everyday driving.
"With its low fuel consumption and responsive performance, the highly efficient new 1.8 L gasoline engine is another example of Opel's long-standing tradition of offering innovations not for their own sake, but only when they deliver real benefits for the customer", says Hans H. Demant, GME Vice President, Engineering, and Managing Director, Adam Opel AG.

Tests with the Opel Vectra resulted in MVEG-cycle fuel consumption of 7.3 L/100 km — 0.3 L or four percent less than the previous Vectra 1.8. Maximum speed (213 versus 205 km/h) and acceleration (0 to 100 km/h in 10.5 versus 11.2 seconds) have also been significantly improved.
Mass reduction, achieved by consequent lightweight design, also contributes to the high efficiency of the engine. In spite of additional features such as DCVCP, the engineers succeeded in making the new engine three percent lighter than the previous version while achieving increased stiffness and structural strength through extensive stiffening measures in the head and block. The cylinder block alone is 20 percent lighter than its predecessor. Due to the hollow frame concept, the gray cast-iron block weighs just 27 kilograms including the bearing caps. The new 1.8 engine weighs a mere 118 kilograms according to the DIN 70020 standard, resulting in an excellent weight-to-power ratio of 1.14 kg/kW.
Camshaft phasing allows adjustment to operating conditions
Unlike conventional engines, where the crankshaft and camshaft are mechanically linked in a fixed Crank Angle (CA) via a toothed belt or a chain, this engine allows the intake and exhaust cam to twist relative to the crankshaft. This is continuously varied on the new 1.8 L engine using an extremely compact, lightweight hydraulic vane type phaser. The variable range is 60° CA on the inlet side and 45° CA on the outlet side.

Depending on the engine's speed and operating conditions, the valve timing can be selected for optimum performance or fuel consumption. Advantages of the double camshaft adjustment include higher power output and torque characteristics over a wide engine speed range due to optimized cylinder charging; reduced exhaust emissions thanks to high exhaust gas recirculation rates; and reduced fuel consumption via a de-throttled charge cycle.
Important data on the new 1.8 engine at a glance:
1.8 ECOTEC
Displacement (cm3) 1796
Bore/stroke (mm) 80.5/88.2
Cylinder distance (mm) 86.0
Compression ratio 10.5:1
Power output (kW/hp at rpm) 103/140 at 6300
Max. torque (Nm at rpm) 175 at 3800
Exhaust emission standard Euro 4

This engine would be a great addtion to the Cobalt line, because as a economic car the 2.2's fuel consumption is much higher than class norm. Corolla's 1.8 get 42 mpg while cobalt's 2.2 gets only 27. The new 1.8 will beat corolla's 1.8 power and almost match the 2.2 and gets much better economy. This will really rank up Cobalt's slow sales. With fuel prices so steep nowadays, the cobalt just couldn't survive with only the large 2.2 as the base model.

This brand new 1.8 is also very high tech with dual cam valve timing, variable intake manifold, and variable valve control (camphase).

Therefore this engine should be quieter and rev sweeter than the 2.2. While maintaining remarkable flexibility with maximum torque of 175Nm spanning from 2200-6200 redline like the new bentley continental flying spur! And it does so without a turbo.

Hopefully some of these technological advancements will be introduced into the larger 2.0 and 2.2 litre models.

Hopefully some of these technological advancements will be introduced into the larger 2.0 and 2.2 litre models.

exactly!....put it into the 2.2 and crank out 180 hp :lol: :lol: :nuts:

screw 1.8, what about a 5.7L LS1 with 350hp/365tq? Im sure the cobalt will be quick then... :)

actually, come to think of it, id rather have the 1.8 with VVT. id lose 5hp from the 2.2, but a 1.8 being smaller and more technology, itll be quicker than the 2.2L.

All these things happening right now with cobalts makes me wish I bought one next year... :cry:

screw 1.8, what about a 5.7L LS1 with 350hp/365tq? Im sure the cobalt will be quick then... :)

actually, come to think of it, id rather have the 1.8 with VVT. id lose 5hp from the 2.2, but a 1.8 being smaller and more technology, itll be quicker than the 2.2L.

All these things happening right now with cobalts makes me wish I bought one next year... :cry:

yea....theres nothing wrong with 1.8....but personally i never want one>< its just that everytime i think of 1.8, ill remind myself that its a 1.8 ....so as the ones in corollas.......and I HATE IT...

yea....theres nothing wrong with 1.8....but personally i never want one>< its just that everytime i think of 1.8, ill remind myself that its a 1.8 ....so as the ones in corollas.......and I HATE IT...

But based on this information, the 1.8 with vvt will be better than the current 2.2L. (faster, higher mpg, etc)

i voted yes.
it goes both way for me though.
yes- better gas milage, cleaner emissions, lighter
no- it IS a 1.8 L engine, this is america!
but the ss s/c is only .2 L more. so chew on that.
i think it sould be standard on the avao, but optional with the cobalt, like an economy package to bring the price down to like 10 g.
just my $.2

While I do want GM to remain healthy, and to do so means lower operating costs, which would be realized by more engine sharing, I dont look forward to seeing the 1.8L ECOtec from GM Europe arrive in the states....this engine shares nothing with the L61,LSJ(and soon LE5) ECOtec that we all know and love. Its just badged as ECOtec because that is one of GM Powertrain engine brand names. the biggest reason I dont want to see this engine, and most likeyl reason we wont is that it has belt driven camshafts, not chain like virtually every North American GM powerplant. While it would make adding cam sprockets(pulleys) easier, it also increases maintenance and lowers reliability. I vote no.

Whats in the Aveo? Cause I heard thats a rebadged Opel. If not that would a more suitable engine for it. The 2.0 SC, 2.2, and 2.4 should only be in the Cobalts, Pursuits and Ions. Just my thought.

the Aveo is not an Opel its built by GM in Korea and used to be known as a Daewoo. it doesnt have an ECOtec. its got a belt-driven OHC 1.6L(in USA)

I don't think I like it. Anything under a 2.0 just reminds me of like a Honda or VW.

how is it that you think a VVT engine is going to bring down the price????

As long as there is a significant fuel economyto justify it over the 2.2L I voted yes.

I still woud get a bigger engine though

the biggest reason I dont want to see this engine, and most likeyl reason we wont is that it has belt driven camshafts, not chain like virtually every North American GM powerplant. While it would make adding cam sprockets(pulleys) easier, it also increases maintenance and lowers reliability. I vote no.

Did I not read something right? From what I got out of the info it has a hydraulic cam drive, not belt or chain. If it is hydraulic, wouldn't that virtually eliminate maintence?

No it has hydraulically adjustable cams....meaning the cams pulleys are two pieces have a helical spline(curved) in them and when they are forced away from each other by oil pressure routed into the pulleys chamber the cam moves in relation to the pulley, thereby adjusting its and the valve timing.

If anyone needs further clarification of GM's VVT systems I can post some more info. :cssNET:

Um.. Toyota has switched to VVT engine since 2001. So instead of still relying on displacement, GM should move forward with technology and use VVT. It's time NOW, or it'll be too late. To most customers, using 2.2 in a 1.8 class segment is just low tech.

Rival ford has just switched to a VVT 2.0 for the focus that's designed in cooperation with mazda.

And from the cobalt I driven, it's refinement and smoothness is below its rivals. Especially eagerness, the engine runs out of breath really quickly at 5000 rpm, rather like a diesel engine. The mazda5 I test drove 2 days ago is just the opposite, the car doesn't really move below 3000 rpm, but really wakes up after wards until 7000 rpm. The smoothness is much better and sounds really nice compared to cobalt 2.2.

GM needs to put in the 1.8 ecotec VVT for the cobalt now, or they will be together with the koreans.
The 2.4 should really be reserved for the Malibu. Most rivals are 2.4 like camry, accord, altima is 2.5. 2.2 for malibu is just outclassed, and the 3.5 V6 is so low tech and heavy even when compared to the koreans. 2.2 for the malibu would be alright if it at least has manual gearbox. But for now, the malibu is just a waste of the excellent epsilon european platform.

GM has been using VVT techniques for several years now. The Trailblazer/Envoy/Ranier/Bravada/Saab9-7x all use VVT, the Cadillac Northstar V8 uses VVT, the 2.4L ECOtec LE5 uses VVT, the 3.9L V6 in the MalibuSS/G6GT/Impala/Monte Carlo and other vehicles uses VVT. As does the new Global High Feature V6 in displacements between 2.8L and 3.6L.

And that "lowtech" OHV V-6 in the Malibu/Impala/Monte Carlo gets 30mpg or more.

Yes, since GM is already using VVT in so many of its cars already, why not the cobalt?

And in a V6, people expect performance and is ready to pay the price of fuel. If people want economy, they would get a diesel. Especially when that ancient iron V6 lump burdens the nose that much and creates so much understeer, people doesn't really want that in a range topper. Nor the uninspiring noise it makes.

Thats a real blanket statement your making. "To most customers, using 2.2 in a 1.8 class segment is just low tech"
I would genralize that its mostly hp/litre freaks (notice I am generalizing and guessing since I don't have any polling data) that would even care.

I think its smart. A larger enigne makes more torque and won't need as agressive gearing to make ot acclerate fast.

Reveiew after review of the Matrix with the 1.8L complains about no low end torque---no one complians about that in the Cobalt.

All a GM dealer would have to do is compare the torque numbers--the 2.2L kills a 1.8L Toyota.

I have driven Honda engines, Mazda and the 2.2L---I found the sound and smoothness excellent. Better, no---but damn close. And light years ahead of any other GM 4 cly engine. While I didn't find the 2.2L to have alot of high rpm power--neither did I find the Mazda 3.

Reserving the 2.4L for the Malibu? NO! When GM builds an engine they need to maximize capacity---its called economy of scale---the more units you build, the cheaper they get.
Nissan drops that 2.5L in the Sentra you know.

"the 3.5 V6 is so low tech and heavy even when compared to the koreans"

Get back to me when you have some actual numbers stating enigne weights.
You see these OHC engines have really massive clyinder heads--and they aren't light.

A aluminum 2 valve Malibu head is easily lighter then A 4 valve ohc or dohc head.

"But for now, the malibu is just a waste of the excellent epsilon european platform"

Pretty much agreed. Gm could have done better. :D

VVT--sure add it--although GM version doesn't
seem to add much hp. 1.8L Eco-tec, sure but keep the 2.0L 2.2L and 2.4L (maybe the 2.0L S/C shuld be dropped for a blown 2.2L ?)

I wanna see direct injection! Cars that have added that pick up more power then VVT--and they run cleaner.

The only benefit I see of Chevy introducing a Cobalt with a 1.8L is the fact it includes the vvt. If they brought this technology over to the 2.2L or 2.oL you would get even greater results out of an already well rounded engine. :cool:

the 2.4L LE5 HAS VVT....it is going to be in the Cobalt SS.....and may be optional in other models(as it is in the HHR, which is just a Cobalt derivative)

While I do want GM to remain healthy, and to do so means lower operating costs, which would be realized by more engine sharing, I dont look forward to seeing the 1.8L ECOtec from GM Europe arrive in the states....this engine shares nothing with the L61,LSJ(and soon LE5) ECOtec that we all know and love. Its just badged as ECOtec because that is one of GM Powertrain engine brand names. the biggest reason I dont want to see this engine, and most likeyl reason we wont is that it has belt driven camshafts, not chain like virtually every North American GM powerplant. While it would make adding cam sprockets(pulleys) easier, it also increases maintenance and lowers reliability. I vote no.


My Honda VFR (motorcycle) has a gear driven cam system (16 valve , V4) and it sounds FREAKIN awesome. :bow:

As for belt driven cam's has anyone had a friend with a Honda who didn't change the timing belt out like they should of and it borked their ride ? I have :)

Actually, the main reason they should add the 1.8 to the line is because the 2.2 has too poor economy compared to rivals. Of course the power from a 2.2 is greater than a 1.8.

since when is 34mpg poor economy????

Havrent any of you guys seen all of the GM fuel economy bragging rights ads???

19 cars with over 30mpg....and something like GM leads fuel economy in 50% of the vehicle segments they compete in. Look in to it :cssNET:

If you are a guy with an LS or LT whos aspiring to an SS in the next few years you should be happy... All the carmakers have to be above a certain average MPG across the board for all the cars they sell (cant remeber the exact number right this moment) ... thats why only 14 or 16% if mustangs are GTs... Not because its a limited model.. but because they have to keep the model lines MPG up... Thats why they stopped with the V10 excursions and stuff... It kills them when a car get 4miles to the gallon or whatever....
BUT ANYWAYS... boy that was long...
If they can increase the average fuel mileage of the line.. they can make more SS's !!!
Atleast I think... Maybe im totally off base there...

Nope you're not off.its called CAFE.or Corporate Average Fuel Economy, and exactly as you stated every non-commercial(light duty) vehicle a manufacturer makes is averaged together to come up with its CAF, they get fined, etc, for dropping below this number, and GM has the highest CAFE number in the USA as far as I know. I wouldnt worry about CAFE being a reason you cant get an SS though..........its numbers are over the average so it actually helps. The only vehicle actually below the number are the gas v-8 1/2 ton trucks/SUV's..everything else is over(I believe)

I have one question for everyone that had something bad to say... where do you get this info about chevy being such low quality and "behind" the game??? do you live in a cave???

chevy has a ton of cars with GREAT not even just good BUT over 30mpg GREAT fuel milage... they have freakin commercials about it!!!!

Also chevys have become one of the most reliable and highly rated cars... JD power rates almost every chevy excellent and most insurance studies show them to be safe and reliable.

but oh i'm sorry a chevy is just a dinosaur that guzzles gas right?

To add fuel to the fire.. My 1998 Monte Carlo w/ the oh-so-antiquated 3.1l PUSHROD v6 gets 30 mpg on the highway. At 113,000 miles it does this without a hiccup.

Repairs since 2001: Starter, Alternator, Battery, Lower intake manifold gaskets. All the rest is maintainence.

Back on topic: Belt driven cams are pointless and a great way to exact money from customers' wallets come repair time. The only detrimental things I notice with a chain-driven DOHC engine is chain whine at high RPMs... I honestly don't think that's a bad thing at all... Chain whine is similar to blower whine. :lol:

your wish comes true chaps in America, this engine will be in the Saturn(Opel) Astra that'll come here later this year.

See, I told you this would come.

no thanks, no belt drivin cams. no engines smaller then a 2L bottle of soda and i dont want a forignen high reving/torqueless motor in my cobalts

Didn't know this would be high revving and torqueless, was hoping it would be like civic's 140hp 1.8 but with a real 140 (or near) at the wheels with low rev power to match.

people, why do u confuse this with honda engines?

if you have read the article, it says this:
Ninety percent of the 175 Nm maximum torque is available over a wide range from 2200 to 6200 rpm, which ensures lively performance even at low engine speeds, for relaxed everyday driving.

This is a highish power engine with high torque.

This engine would be a great addtion to the Cobalt line, because as a economic car the 2.2's fuel consumption is much higher than class norm. Corolla's 1.8 get 42 mpg while cobalt's 2.2 gets only 27. The new 1.8 will beat corolla's 1.8 power and almost match the 2.2 and gets much better economy. This will really rank up Cobalt's slow sales. With fuel prices so steep nowadays, the cobalt just couldn't survive with only the large 2.2 as the base model.

Yeah, I only get about 27 MPG,

BUT I do all city stop and go driving. I get 35+ on the highway. This is with an auto.

The 1.8L sounds like it would be good for the cobalt.

Didn't know this would be high revving and torqueless, was hoping it would be like civic's 140hp 1.8 but with a real 140 (or near) at the wheels with low rev power to match.

people, why do u confuse this with honda engines?

if you have read the article, it says this:
Ninety percent of the 175 Nm maximum torque is available over a wide range from 2200 to 6200 rpm, which ensures lively performance even at low engine speeds, for relaxed everyday driving.

This is a highish power engine with high torque.

Thats 129 lbf ft of torque if you want to compare

That engine's gonna be in the new Saturn Astra hatch. It'll probably replace the 2.2 by the next redesign.

Dead horse. Not sure if its posted elsewhere, BUT:

The 1.8 will be the only powerplant for the Astra when it officially launches on 1/2/08. Its called RPO "2HO" and its NOT the same as the L850/L880 ECOTECS we all know and love, its the old Family 1 rear breathing belt driven engine that we never used in the USA. Its got an 80.5mm bore and a 88.2mm stroke, none of the parts swap between this engine and our current 2.0/2.2/2.4. It uses a cast iron block and crank, forged steel rods, and an aluminum head. If anyone wants and it hasnt been done I can start a new thread on just this engine. I just put this here since the Cobalt isnt scheduled to get this engine.

With fuel prices so steep nowadays, the cobalt just couldn't survive with only the large 2.2 as the base model.

My 2.2 gets perfectly good mileage. What are you talking about?

I have no objections to the 1.8 w/ 140 HP.... It a perfectly good powerplant!

I know I am showing my age but my first new car was a 1.6 liter 1979 Ford Fiesta w/ 66 HP and a 4 speed :lol: 0-60 was like 10.5 seconds and top end was 105 mph....
it was almost as fast as the 1979 BMW 318 which did 0-60 in 10.3 seconds and top end was probably 110

So, the 1.8 w/ 140 HP will be a perfectly fine motor for those who want it.... and to everyone who is spoiled....just don't buy one :twothumbs

oh and the stock Fiesta's ran on 12" rims :lol:

i didnt bother reading this whole thread so sorry if this is a repost....... but i'm pretty darn sure this is the same motor that is going to be in the new Saturn Astra. This car is identical to the Opel version. same name and everything, just a different badge on the front and back. you can check out the saturn website. it's gonna be a pretty cool little car.

140hp outta a 1.8 and they cant do better from the 2.2s or 2.4s????

i mean its got a higher compression than the 2.2 n same as 2.4
smaller bore/stroke than both and makes almost the same power...

need to have a 200hp 2.2 factory... honda does it with the k20

140hp outta a 1.8 and they cant do better from the 2.2s or 2.4s????

i mean its got a higher compression than the 2.2 n same as 2.4
smaller bore/stroke than both and makes almost the same power...

need to have a 200hp 2.2 factory... honda does it with the k20

they get that broad VE by having a very expensive head...
the K20 only makes that kind of power cause of the high revs....if it had 90% tq from 2.5kRPM-8kRPM then i'd say the k20 is amazing

what about the upcoming 2.0 165hp n/a Direct Injection, vvt ?

The K20Z3 in the new Si's is a cool engine since its nearly(197) 200hp from an NA 2.0L but only has 139ftlbs and it doesnt hit until 6100rpm. The Si's are gutless until wound tight(over 6000rpm) and then they fall way out of powerband when you shift unless you let it overrev like 5 or 600 rpm....
The 2.2L has that much torque from about 1200rpm all the way to 6000rpm. The Cobalt SS's LNF 2.0Turbo makes that much torque from barely off idle all the way to redline!(not mention alomst double the peak torque from 2000-5500) The Cobalt SS is gonna smoke the Si( not that the SS/SC didnt already do that :))



I havent heard anything about an NA 2.0 SIDI/VVT

i like

i voted yes.
it goes both way for me though.
yes- better gas milage, cleaner emissions, lighter
no- it IS a 1.8 L engine, this is america!
but the ss s/c is only .2 L more. so chew on that.
i think it sould be standard on the avao, but optional with the cobalt, like an economy package to bring the price down to like 10 g.
just my $.2

x2. econo package would be nice. would be a good motor for Aveo too.

i say diesel cobalt :D with like 300 trq and 100hp hahahahahahaha

i say diesel cobalt :D with like 300 trq and 100hp hahahahahahaha

That would be pretty sweet.

Seriously who needs hybrid bullshit that thing would get like 40s....

New Astra, recently released...

http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop-800x532/2008_Saturn_Astra_2_8w.jpg

http://upload.moldova.org/auto/2007/oct/saturn-astra-3.jpg

http://images.motortrend.com/auto_shows/coverage/chicago/112_2007_chicago_auto_show_05z+2008_saturn_astra+i nterior.jpg

Gave this car a test drive this week, and is up there with the cobalt in almost every way (except power...and i didnt get to test the upgraded audio package). Soft touch surfaces, rides/handles very well...

bleh.

if it's gonna be 1.8ltr it better rev to at least 8200rpm. Otherwise, get back in the displacement game right this second chevy!

bleh.

if it's gonna be 1.8ltr it better rev to at least 8200rpm. Otherwise, get back in the displacement game right this second chevy!

Sounds like it revs pretty high. Here are the numbers from this article on it.
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071113/FREE/71113001/1005/FREE

138 HP
125lb-ft

0 TO 60 MPH: 9.7 sec
For around the base price of the Astra you could probably find a Cobalt sports coupe or sedan with the 2.4L instead.

according to the pics above, that car only hits 6,500. my, how familiar. lol

according to the pics above, that car only hits 6,500. my, how familiar. lol

Thanks for pointing that out, how could I not notice that. Yep that is rather familiar.

The K20Z3 in the new Si's is a cool engine since its nearly(197) 200hp from an NA 2.0L but only has 139ftlbs and it doesnt hit until 6100rpm. The Si's are gutless until wound tight(over 6000rpm) and then they fall way out of powerband when you shift unless you let it overrev like 5 or 600 rpm....
The 2.2L has that much torque from about 1200rpm all the way to 6000rpm. The Cobalt SS's LNF 2.0Turbo makes that much torque from barely off idle all the way to redline!(not mention alomst double the peak torque from 2000-5500) The Cobalt SS is gonna smoke the Si( not that the SS/SC didnt already do that :))



I havent heard anything about an NA 2.0 SIDI/VVT

I`m sold. I tested the 197hp si, with 180+whp. Winds all the way to 8500rpm fuel cut, sounds like a motor bike. Burns the tires in 1st-2nd change.

And it`s not torqueless, in 4th, at 2k rpm, touch throttle still as responsive as any 2000cc NA because of i-vtec. Perfectly enough. Possibly more performance than I need.

Honda is the best choice for natural aspiration.

GM is too late to the party, their 140hp 1.8 doesn`t sound so hot anymore especially when the astra isn`t light and the aerodynamics aren't that good, a bit heavier than civic. It`s gotta beat civic if it wants to win.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=124222/pageId=134245

I kinda like the Astra... I love hatches...