The 1.4L turbocharged engine finally has a name
05-29-2010, 01:41 AM
#76
Senior Member
Join Date: 04-14-09
Location: California
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why dont you put your foot in your mouth mr smartass cause all your gonna do is keep arguing with me and not matter what you think your always gonna be right...even though all i've been trying to say the whole time is my opinion. its ******** like you that make an opinion-based conversation impossible.
05-29-2010, 11:14 AM
#77
why dont you put your foot in your mouth mr smartass cause all your gonna do is keep arguing with me and not matter what you think your always gonna be right...even though all i've been trying to say the whole time is my opinion. its ******** like you that make an opinion-based conversation impossible.
these cars will be nuts with a bigger turbo if people want to do that .. and it would still get like 37 mpg lol
05-30-2010, 10:30 AM
#78
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 11-22-07
Location: Howell, NJ
Posts: 6,180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GM didn't make it as a performance engine. The turbo is being used to enhance the mileage while also giving it a pretty good HP boosts compared to a NA 1.4 engine.
why dont you put your foot in your mouth mr smartass cause all your gonna do is keep arguing with me and not matter what you think your always gonna be right...even though all i've been trying to say the whole time is my opinion. its ******** like you that make an opinion-based conversation impossible.
Last edited by Blue_Balt; 05-30-2010 at 10:30 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
05-30-2010, 02:05 PM
#79
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-07-08
Location: North Vancouver BC
Posts: 910
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow. I think you may have that backwards. Even without a tune an LNF is faster than most LSJ. Just because all the LSJ on this site are modded and most of them will keep up with a stock LNF or beat it, does not encompass even near the amount of LSJ that are actually on the road. With a HALF decent tune on an LNF you better be running a TVS or nitrous or else I hate to say it, but you are probably not going to be faster with your LSJ.
I have raced a lnf when I was staged 2 and he was stock beat him. You put a modded lsj and a modded against each other the lsj will win. look at the power bands.
05-30-2010, 02:27 PM
#80
Banned
Join Date: 05-12-09
Location: Delafield Wisconsin
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-30-2010, 02:48 PM
#81
Senior Member
Thats sounds exactly like a 2.4L manual. Except 34mpg highway instead of 38
05-30-2010, 05:01 PM
#82
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-07-08
Location: North Vancouver BC
Posts: 910
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-30-2010, 06:36 PM
#83
Senior Member
Thread Starter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TMw6ugX2a0
On a side note I would hope a modded SS/SC would beat a Stock SS/TC with all the modding the S/C guys have done. What needs to be done is take an SS/SC and only put a stage 2 kit on it with everything else left stock then let them race and see who wins.
Last edited by riko540; 05-30-2010 at 06:58 PM.
05-30-2010, 07:05 PM
#84
New Member
Join Date: 05-08-06
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-30-2010, 07:15 PM
#85
Senior Member
Thread Starter
05-30-2010, 07:27 PM
#86
Banned
Join Date: 05-12-09
Location: Delafield Wisconsin
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-30-2010, 07:28 PM
#87
Banned
Join Date: 01-16-10
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
waste? its not a waste. its a 1.4l!!! with out a turbo it would be at like 90-100hp, with turbo its at what 145hp or so. and gets 40mpg? thats WAY better than whats out their now NA. again this isnt a race car. you guys are all thinking turbo engines = performance. thats not what turbo's are all used for.
This guy gets it^
its like im talking to a friggin kid! i'll break it down as if im talking to a five year old, so try and concentrate. im not saying its a damn race car! what im saying is that IN MY OPINION its a waste to design a turbo'd car that only has 138HP. like i said before, if they're looking for gas milage, bump it up to a 1.8L and scratch the turbo.
05-30-2010, 07:33 PM
#88
Banned
Join Date: 05-12-09
Location: Delafield Wisconsin
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-30-2010, 07:53 PM
#89
yeah but really in the end, how much aftermarket can you produce for a little tiny itty bitty 1.4L? its not like an exhaust is going to get you 10HP. As for the motor? Again, how much can you build it up to produce before its pointless to spend anymore money? **** im sure you can mod it all you want with all upgrades available and it still wont peak 200HP
all you gotta do is look up the 1/4 mile thread and the dyno thread...see who makes what and where....and most importantly, with what mods.
Last edited by HunterKiller89; 05-30-2010 at 08:02 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
05-30-2010, 10:12 PM
#91
New Member
Join Date: 05-30-10
Location: canada
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i dont get why you guys are so happy. i see this engine as a major step down
first of all 138 hp and 150 torque is nothing. my 2003 cavalier puts out this kind of number. of course the 1.4 will pull better from lower rpm due to turbo, but heres another factor to consider.
the cruze will be as heavy as a cow. I already saw some numbers posted because cruze is sold in europe and it weight upwards of 3000 lb. I am sorry but 2003 cavalier weight what like 2600-2700 pounds and has same power. Therefor a cavalier will demolish the cruze.
I view this new engine as a step down personaly. And i wont even talk about 1.8 its already been viewed as very weak when astra came to north america but i guess gm doesnt learn from its mistakes.
bring back 2.2 as the base engine (my cavy get 6l/100km on highway which is like 40mpg) and add a 2l turbo with like 200hp as a higher option
first of all 138 hp and 150 torque is nothing. my 2003 cavalier puts out this kind of number. of course the 1.4 will pull better from lower rpm due to turbo, but heres another factor to consider.
the cruze will be as heavy as a cow. I already saw some numbers posted because cruze is sold in europe and it weight upwards of 3000 lb. I am sorry but 2003 cavalier weight what like 2600-2700 pounds and has same power. Therefor a cavalier will demolish the cruze.
I view this new engine as a step down personaly. And i wont even talk about 1.8 its already been viewed as very weak when astra came to north america but i guess gm doesnt learn from its mistakes.
bring back 2.2 as the base engine (my cavy get 6l/100km on highway which is like 40mpg) and add a 2l turbo with like 200hp as a higher option
05-31-2010, 12:11 AM
#92
Banned
Join Date: 05-12-09
Location: Delafield Wisconsin
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i dont get why you guys are so happy. i see this engine as a major step down
first of all 138 hp and 150 torque is nothing. my 2003 cavalier puts out this kind of number. of course the 1.4 will pull better from lower rpm due to turbo, but heres another factor to consider.
the cruze will be as heavy as a cow. I already saw some numbers posted because cruze is sold in europe and it weight upwards of 3000 lb. I am sorry but 2003 cavalier weight what like 2600-2700 pounds and has same power. Therefor a cavalier will demolish the cruze.
I view this new engine as a step down personaly. And i wont even talk about 1.8 its already been viewed as very weak when astra came to north america but i guess gm doesnt learn from its mistakes.
bring back 2.2 as the base engine (my cavy get 6l/100km on highway which is like 40mpg) and add a 2l turbo with like 200hp as a higher option
first of all 138 hp and 150 torque is nothing. my 2003 cavalier puts out this kind of number. of course the 1.4 will pull better from lower rpm due to turbo, but heres another factor to consider.
the cruze will be as heavy as a cow. I already saw some numbers posted because cruze is sold in europe and it weight upwards of 3000 lb. I am sorry but 2003 cavalier weight what like 2600-2700 pounds and has same power. Therefor a cavalier will demolish the cruze.
I view this new engine as a step down personaly. And i wont even talk about 1.8 its already been viewed as very weak when astra came to north america but i guess gm doesnt learn from its mistakes.
bring back 2.2 as the base engine (my cavy get 6l/100km on highway which is like 40mpg) and add a 2l turbo with like 200hp as a higher option
Dude, your missing the point. Its for FUEL ECONOMY and nothing else. No one is gonna buy a car with a 1.4 expecting performance. If you want something fast, feel free to check out the camaro ss's and vettes at the dealer.
05-31-2010, 08:37 AM
#93
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 11-15-08
Location: oklahoma
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at it this way.
This car will probably cost sub 18k. Where as the cobalt SS/TC retailed for 23k
with 5K you can just drop in an LNF or even build the 1.4L. This will make this car competitive with others more expensive cars.
Also what a lot of you have failed to point out it that the cobalt weighs about 3000 pounds and the aveo
weight in at 2500 pounds. If you did spend that extra 5K you saved on the motor. And let's just say we dropped an LNF in there. The aveo would be faster than the cobalt at the se
price level.
This conclusion has a lot of ifs in it so it probably will never be done.
The more likely solution is a 100 shot of nitrous and at thy they will
still beat a stock cobalt SS.
But yes this engine is a piece and it's made to be cheap very cheap I can't beileve it lacks DI.
Anyways if your looking for a serious contender look at the 2011 buick regal. It's got basically
a revised LNF a 6 speed and AWD. So with a turbo swap that's a 400hp awd monster and it's a Buick who races a Buick? That will be a great sleeper and fast from
a dig
This car will probably cost sub 18k. Where as the cobalt SS/TC retailed for 23k
with 5K you can just drop in an LNF or even build the 1.4L. This will make this car competitive with others more expensive cars.
Also what a lot of you have failed to point out it that the cobalt weighs about 3000 pounds and the aveo
weight in at 2500 pounds. If you did spend that extra 5K you saved on the motor. And let's just say we dropped an LNF in there. The aveo would be faster than the cobalt at the se
price level.
This conclusion has a lot of ifs in it so it probably will never be done.
The more likely solution is a 100 shot of nitrous and at thy they will
still beat a stock cobalt SS.
But yes this engine is a piece and it's made to be cheap very cheap I can't beileve it lacks DI.
Anyways if your looking for a serious contender look at the 2011 buick regal. It's got basically
a revised LNF a 6 speed and AWD. So with a turbo swap that's a 400hp awd monster and it's a Buick who races a Buick? That will be a great sleeper and fast from
a dig
05-31-2010, 11:42 AM
#94
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 11-22-07
Location: Howell, NJ
Posts: 6,180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i dont get why you guys are so happy. i see this engine as a major step down
first of all 138 hp and 150 torque is nothing. my 2003 cavalier puts out this kind of number. of course the 1.4 will pull better from lower rpm due to turbo, but heres another factor to consider.
the cruze will be as heavy as a cow. I already saw some numbers posted because cruze is sold in europe and it weight upwards of 3000 lb. I am sorry but 2003 cavalier weight what like 2600-2700 pounds and has same power. Therefor a cavalier will demolish the cruze.
I view this new engine as a step down personaly. And i wont even talk about 1.8 its already been viewed as very weak when astra came to north america but i guess gm doesnt learn from its mistakes.
bring back 2.2 as the base engine (my cavy get 6l/100km on highway which is like 40mpg) and add a 2l turbo with like 200hp as a higher option
first of all 138 hp and 150 torque is nothing. my 2003 cavalier puts out this kind of number. of course the 1.4 will pull better from lower rpm due to turbo, but heres another factor to consider.
the cruze will be as heavy as a cow. I already saw some numbers posted because cruze is sold in europe and it weight upwards of 3000 lb. I am sorry but 2003 cavalier weight what like 2600-2700 pounds and has same power. Therefor a cavalier will demolish the cruze.
I view this new engine as a step down personaly. And i wont even talk about 1.8 its already been viewed as very weak when astra came to north america but i guess gm doesnt learn from its mistakes.
bring back 2.2 as the base engine (my cavy get 6l/100km on highway which is like 40mpg) and add a 2l turbo with like 200hp as a higher option
05-31-2010, 12:45 PM
#95
Senior Member
Thread Starter
05-31-2010, 01:04 PM
#96
New Member
Join Date: 05-30-10
Location: canada
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
are you dumb? who the hell is talking about fast? i am talking about ADEQUATE performance. the bare minimum. mazda3 will be faster then cruze, honda civic will be faster. 7 year old cavalier will be faster and i count that as a bare minimum.
Last edited by egorlike; 05-31-2010 at 01:04 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
05-31-2010, 01:36 PM
#97
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 11-22-07
Location: Howell, NJ
Posts: 6,180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a daily driver, the Cruze's performance will be just fine. Sure it might be a tiny bit slower than a 2.2, but it will get remarkable gas mileage and will be just fine for the average person who is not an enthusiast that wants to get from point a to point b.
