The 1.4L turbocharged engine finally has a name
06-02-2010, 11:31 AM
#126
New Member
Join Date: 04-05-10
Location: nj
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't say anything without the facts to back it up. A simple search would have shown you I wasn't saying random BS my friend. XFE (5 speed only) performance is pretty impressive - in fact... it matches the straight line performance of my old 2.4 SS (auto).. It can't touch my old SS in braking/ Skidpad #'s though. AND.. in Street start my '06 only went from 7.5 to 7.6. XFE goes from 7.5 to 8.1. The SS 2.4 (5 speed) could hit 60 in 7.1.
Different missions anyway ... the 2.4 model was for more performance. The XFE fuel.. Still... impressive stock straight line speed with the potential of 37mpg.
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 7.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 21.6 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 28.3 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 8.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.9 sec @ 89 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 114 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 200 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.77
For ’09, the Cobalt’s 2.2-liter four-cylinder engine gains variable valve timing, and output rises to 155 horsepower. The XFE remains a manual-only proposition, but the tweaks are now standard on Cobalt LS and 1LT trim levels. An even taller (3.63:1) final-drive ratio is another change on the '09 model that helps it bump highway fuel economy to 37 mpg.
Zero to 60 mph: 7.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 21.6 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 28.3 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 8.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.9 sec @ 89 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 114 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 200 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.77
For ’09, the Cobalt’s 2.2-liter four-cylinder engine gains variable valve timing, and output rises to 155 horsepower. The XFE remains a manual-only proposition, but the tweaks are now standard on Cobalt LS and 1LT trim levels. An even taller (3.63:1) final-drive ratio is another change on the '09 model that helps it bump highway fuel economy to 37 mpg.
It's been quite awhile since the last Camaro Z28 grumblings, so we're happy to send you off to the long weekend with some exciting Camaro Z28 (and just general Camaro and GM news)!
Motortrend recently had an opportunity to interview GM's Vice President of Global Vehicle Engineering, Karl Stracke. In this interview, two open-secrets were once again confirmed:
The return of the Camaro Z28 (said out of earshot of his PR person )
Motortrend recently had an opportunity to interview GM's Vice President of Global Vehicle Engineering, Karl Stracke. In this interview, two open-secrets were once again confirmed:
The return of the Camaro Z28 (said out of earshot of his PR person )
Modern engines achieve power levels that we could only dream about 20 years ago. The downside to this is that during routine driving, most engines are lugging along, and 300hp engines are inefficient when they're only putting out the 30hp necessary to push the average car down the road. When an engines throttle is barely open, there's a strong vacuum in the intake manifold. During the intake stroke, as the pistons suck against this vac., efficiency suffers.
The solution to this is to make an engine smaller. A small engine works harder, running with less vac, and is consequently more efficient. But small engines make less power than big ones, so......to make BIG-ENGINEPOWER with SMALL ENGINE ECONOMY, car makers are turning to smaller engines with TURBOS, and this is the whole point of this particular car. GM isn't really making any mistakes with this car, persay, they have strict CAFE minimum fuel economy requirements that they have to meet with their car line as a whole. I for one think you guys would be happy about this car, because of the fact it is small, and gets better fuel economy. Cars like this help them boost their CAFE numbers as a whole, so you can have high hp fuel sucking cars like the Camaro and the 'Vette.
The solution to this is to make an engine smaller. A small engine works harder, running with less vac, and is consequently more efficient. But small engines make less power than big ones, so......to make BIG-ENGINEPOWER with SMALL ENGINE ECONOMY, car makers are turning to smaller engines with TURBOS, and this is the whole point of this particular car. GM isn't really making any mistakes with this car, persay, they have strict CAFE minimum fuel economy requirements that they have to meet with their car line as a whole. I for one think you guys would be happy about this car, because of the fact it is small, and gets better fuel economy. Cars like this help them boost their CAFE numbers as a whole, so you can have high hp fuel sucking cars like the Camaro and the 'Vette.
My point is the car will be slow compared to it's competition. You can bet that will be factored in heavily during road tests.
I have no problem with small engines - as long as they are in the right cars. My '87 Sprint Turbo hit 60 in 8.7... engine size 1.0. HP = 70. Car Weight - under 2000. In '87.. that was pretty quick.
Last edited by John Lake; 06-02-2010 at 11:31 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
06-02-2010, 02:40 PM
#127
Senior Member
, I have yet to have an LSJ show me up...Out of 5
06-02-2010, 03:29 PM
#128
sooh...
as i said, the Z28 project was leaked years ago, and its R&D is effectively done, however they put the project on hold, as they did not want to be bringing a 556hp muscle car to the bench while simultaneously asking the gov. for bailout money to help them build more gas-conscious cars.
If they are planning on picking up the project again, thats great, but im just saying, GM as a whole is not and has not been performance oriented throughout this crisis.
Five minutes into the nickel tour of our facilities and out of earshot of his PR handler, Stracke casually served up unprompted confirmation of the return of the Camaro Z/28. Not exactly breaking news -- while GM has yet to officially confirm it, the Z/28’s resurrection is something of an open secret -- but Stracke’s casual bomb dropping set the tone for the rest of his visit.
If they are planning on picking up the project again, thats great, but im just saying, GM as a whole is not and has not been performance oriented throughout this crisis.
06-03-2010, 09:36 AM
#130
New Member
Join Date: 04-05-10
Location: nj
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sooh...
as i said, the Z28 project was leaked years ago, and its R&D is effectively done, however they put the project on hold, as they did not want to be bringing a 556hp muscle car to the bench while simultaneously asking the gov. for bailout money to help them build more gas-conscious cars.
If they are planning on picking up the project again, thats great, but im just saying, GM as a whole is not and has not been performance oriented throughout this crisis.
as i said, the Z28 project was leaked years ago, and its R&D is effectively done, however they put the project on hold, as they did not want to be bringing a 556hp muscle car to the bench while simultaneously asking the gov. for bailout money to help them build more gas-conscious cars.
If they are planning on picking up the project again, thats great, but im just saying, GM as a whole is not and has not been performance oriented throughout this crisis.
This is just in general. No test of the 1.4 - but - Motortrend did test the 1.8 and it's a dog. On paper the power of the 1.4 is only about the same as the 1.8. We will have to wait for a road test of course - BUT - A friggin Prius might be able to embarrass the 1.4 when it's in the Cruze.. AND get better mileage while kicking it's ass. A brand new car slower than it's main older competition (not talking Prius) AND only a few mpg more?? Not good.
Tune the 1.4 in the cruze? Good luck... you'll be very lucky to match the acceleration of my old '06 2.4.
Where is the 2.0 Chevy?????????????? Even a detuned version more geared for mileage???
Now.. the 1.4 in the Aveo RS.. different story.
Is the Cruze good enough to take the fight to Honda and Toyota here in America? Right now GM can hardly see beyond the end of the week, let alone next year, but assuming the corporation survives, the basic soundness of the Cruze is beyond doubt. The performance, refinement, and fuel efficiency of the 1.4L turbo engine is key to the Cruze's "import fighter" credentials, however. If that engine is not substantially more energetic and responsive than the 1.6 and 1.8L gas powerplants in the European Cruze then GM will have failed us. Again.
2010 CHEVROLET CRUZE (EURO-SPEC)
Base price $16,000-$21,000 (UK price)
Vehicle layout Front-engine, FWD, 5-pass, 4-door, sedan
Engines 1.6L/113-hp/113-lb-ft 16-valve I-4; 1.8L/141-hp/130-lb-ft 16-valve I-4; 2.0L/150-HP/236-lb-ft 16-valve I-4 turbodiesel
Transmission 5-speed manual, 6-speed automatic
Curb weight 2850-3150 lb (mfr)
Wheelbase 105.7 in
Length x width x height 181.0 x 70.4 x 58.1 in
0-62 mph 10.0-13.5 sec (mfr est)
EPA City/Hwy Not yet rated
CO2 N/A
On sale U.S. Summer 2010
2010 CHEVROLET CRUZE (EURO-SPEC)
Base price $16,000-$21,000 (UK price)
Vehicle layout Front-engine, FWD, 5-pass, 4-door, sedan
Engines 1.6L/113-hp/113-lb-ft 16-valve I-4; 1.8L/141-hp/130-lb-ft 16-valve I-4; 2.0L/150-HP/236-lb-ft 16-valve I-4 turbodiesel
Transmission 5-speed manual, 6-speed automatic
Curb weight 2850-3150 lb (mfr)
Wheelbase 105.7 in
Length x width x height 181.0 x 70.4 x 58.1 in
0-62 mph 10.0-13.5 sec (mfr est)
EPA City/Hwy Not yet rated
CO2 N/A
On sale U.S. Summer 2010
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz0pnN7xeh4
Last edited by John Lake; 06-03-2010 at 09:43 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
06-03-2010, 10:52 AM
#131
New Member
Join Date: 05-30-10
Location: canada
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't say anything without the facts to back it up. A simple search would have shown you I wasn't saying random BS my friend. XFE (5 speed only) performance is pretty impressive - in fact... it matches the straight line performance of my old 2.4 SS (auto).. It can't touch my old SS in braking/ Skidpad #'s though. AND.. in Street start my '06 only went from 7.5 to 7.6. XFE goes from 7.5 to 8.1. The SS 2.4 (5 speed) could hit 60 in 7.1.
Different missions anyway ... the 2.4 model was for more performance. The XFE fuel.. Still... impressive stock straight line speed with the potential of 37mpg.
Different missions anyway ... the 2.4 model was for more performance. The XFE fuel.. Still... impressive stock straight line speed with the potential of 37mpg.
06-03-2010, 12:01 PM
#132
Senior Member
the reason i am skeptical is because in europe manufacturers actualy supply the consumer with 0-100 and other numbers. and the number for honda civic with 140 hp is something along 9+seconds. How does the cobalt shave off 1.5 seconds with only 15 hp more and potentialy heavier (not sure about this)
06-03-2010, 02:52 PM
#134
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-31-07
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-03-2010, 03:55 PM
#135
New Member
Join Date: 04-05-10
Location: nj
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the reason i am skeptical is because in europe manufacturers actualy supply the consumer with 0-100 and other numbers. and the number for honda civic with 140 hp is something along 9+seconds. How does the cobalt shave off 1.5 seconds with only 15 hp more and potentialy heavier (not sure about this)
It looks like the 1.4 will have VVT - so - it will have an advantage over the 1.8 in the Cruze. Still.. the link I posted earlier of the Europe version Cruze had manufacturer claimed 0 - 62 times of 10 to 13.5 seconds (not including the 1.4)... and that included a turbo diesel version with tons of torque. I'm guessing the 10 second car is the turbo diesel.. leaving the 1.8 somewhere in the 11 - 12 second range. 'Im guessing' that would leave the 1.4 - even with VVT - in the 9.5 - 10.5 range.
We can't know for sure until the things are tested.
06-03-2010, 04:59 PM
#136
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Well if it does take 10 seconds to reach 60 mph the cruze will scream I'm slooo(10 seconds later)ooow, while your standing still of course.
06-03-2010, 10:07 PM
#138
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-19-06
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And with the pricing of the new Cruze just released (LTZ model starts at $23K, fully loaded is around $26K), people looking for sub $25K performance cars are going to be forced into cars like the Aveo. If it looks anything like the concept though, I don't have a problem with that.
06-03-2010, 10:24 PM
#139
Senior Member
Thread Starter
06-10-2010, 01:00 AM
#141
Senior Member
For those of you saying most drivers don't care about the acceleration of "basic transportation" ... I dunno about that. I have to agree with John Lake on this. My boss has a 2010 Prius and it NOT a car person one bit, and constantly comments about how much better "pickup" it has over his old Echo. My wife drives an 09 Yaris and constantly bitches about how shitty it accelerates too.
Most times in my SS/TC when I'm at a light people mash it around me to the next red light. I always feel like I have 10hp compared to even the shittiest car in the next lane with how people drive.
Silly observations I know, but if the Cruze indeed comes out as the slowest accelerator in its class you KNOW the magazines and everyone else will bag it for that. GM needs a clear win here and yet another mediocre car.
Also there are TONS of "hot hatches" out there in Euroland & Japan. Just because we just never got them.... to say the era of the small performance car is over is assinine. The fact we've been legislated into having 2500+lb vehicles that think for us is our own fault. Face it, the Honda CRX HF I drove in high school got better milage, was lighter and a lot of fun to drive compared to most of the crud coming out. The new Honda CR-Z doesn't do much for me either though :\ it all comes down to weight. The cars of today are just too damn heavy.
With the AC off, tires @ 42 and 65mph cruise I'm able to get 33-34mpg avg. (on DIC) on my daily commute in my 2010 SS/TC Sedan. If I got bored and really got into some hypermiling techniques I'm sure I could add to that a bit. Point being is that if you don't drive like an ******* the fleet economy would be waaaay higher.
Ok I'm rambling.
Most times in my SS/TC when I'm at a light people mash it around me to the next red light. I always feel like I have 10hp compared to even the shittiest car in the next lane with how people drive.
Silly observations I know, but if the Cruze indeed comes out as the slowest accelerator in its class you KNOW the magazines and everyone else will bag it for that. GM needs a clear win here and yet another mediocre car.
Also there are TONS of "hot hatches" out there in Euroland & Japan. Just because we just never got them.... to say the era of the small performance car is over is assinine. The fact we've been legislated into having 2500+lb vehicles that think for us is our own fault. Face it, the Honda CRX HF I drove in high school got better milage, was lighter and a lot of fun to drive compared to most of the crud coming out. The new Honda CR-Z doesn't do much for me either though :\ it all comes down to weight. The cars of today are just too damn heavy.
With the AC off, tires @ 42 and 65mph cruise I'm able to get 33-34mpg avg. (on DIC) on my daily commute in my 2010 SS/TC Sedan. If I got bored and really got into some hypermiling techniques I'm sure I could add to that a bit. Point being is that if you don't drive like an ******* the fleet economy would be waaaay higher.
Ok I'm rambling.
06-10-2010, 04:15 PM
#142
New Member
Join Date: 11-26-09
Location: jersey
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
uhhh it's for mpg and price. Turboing an RC car engine for mpg is a pretty nice idea, I dont see Honda doing anything like it. (at least i dont think)
And as for people complaining that 40 mpg is only OK - dont forget the pricetag on this thing is going to be SMALLLL- which is cool
But I am sad to see yet ANOTHER economy coupe fly out the window. Whose left now?! Nissan? Blahhhhh!
and 0 domestics i know that - what a boner
And as for people complaining that 40 mpg is only OK - dont forget the pricetag on this thing is going to be SMALLLL- which is cool
But I am sad to see yet ANOTHER economy coupe fly out the window. Whose left now?! Nissan? Blahhhhh!
and 0 domestics i know that - what a boner
06-10-2010, 11:13 PM
#146
Senior Member
Thread Starter
I thought the Si dynoed around 180-185.
06-11-2010, 10:54 AM
#148
Gotta love those racing vids of turbo Hondas hauling ass... falling back... hauling ass again... falling back again... as they reach peak power during a tiny optimum power band. That's one of the reasons a six speed is good for them. You need to keep them in their small powerband and their gearing helps that. In an LNF, for instance, on the stock tune you have the same torque from 2,500-5,200RPM (it looks like a plateau on a dyno sheet), so this isn't an issue.
06-11-2010, 12:39 PM
#149
New Member
Join Date: 04-05-10
Location: nj
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All hope may not be lost for decent performance 'yet'. I just received my July Motor Trend and they tested the version of the Cruze that we will get here - they were unable to test fully with instrumentation yet though.. so we'll have to wait a month more or so for independent test evaluations. I'm a bit surprised by estimated performance (because the Euro version's were so slow)... Motor Trend estimates for the U.S versions are 0 - 60... 8.5 to 9.4.
To achieve that 40 mpg though.. it 'looks like' you would have to opt for an eco version (link) which one would guess is the 9.4 to 60 car. The 1.4 is more advanced than the old 2.2 it is replacing... but that old 2.2 will blow it's doors off with a penalty of only 3 mpg's less.
If it can indeed hit 8.5 (MT is guessing) then it won't be an embarrassment in the Cruze - but - still only about class average. Looking forward to a full test. And.. will be interesting to see what Ford's 2.0 DI in the new Focus can do.
To achieve that 40 mpg though.. it 'looks like' you would have to opt for an eco version (link) which one would guess is the 9.4 to 60 car. The 1.4 is more advanced than the old 2.2 it is replacing... but that old 2.2 will blow it's doors off with a penalty of only 3 mpg's less.
If it can indeed hit 8.5 (MT is guessing) then it won't be an embarrassment in the Cruze - but - still only about class average. Looking forward to a full test. And.. will be interesting to see what Ford's 2.0 DI in the new Focus can do.
North America gets first dibs on the 1.4-liter turbo engine, but it does not have direct fuel injection as we predicted in March 2009. This third-generation of the "Family Zero" engine features an iron block, which allows the casting to be so much smaller than a sleeved aluminum-block casting that the weight difference is negligible and the noise isolation is much better. Twin variable valve timing is included and the small turbo, optimized for low-end torque, is integrated into the exhaust manifold. Its single-scroll design flows more efficiently than could a twin-scroll on such a small engine.
Other tech highlights include a vane-type variable-displacement oil pump that tailors its output to supply the necessary pressure to the main oil gallery (i.e., lots of flow at high speeds, not so much at low speeds). And an electronically controlled thermostat raises the engine temperature at low speeds and light loads to reduce internal lubricant friction for improved fuel economy. Output ratings estimates are 138 horsepower at 4900 rpm and 148 pound-feet of torque at 1800 rpm.
Sprightlier gearing helped the Cruze accelerate with sufficient hustle to run with the Honda and Toyota, though I'm not ready to bet against the 1.8-liter Honda winning a drag race. Turbo lag is minimal and there's ample thrust down low, but it tapers off between 5000 and 6000 rpm (en route to a 6500-rev redline), belying that diminutive displacement. This car may demand short-shifting at the track. Turbos often muzzle an engine's exhaust note, and indeed this powertrain fails to project any performance personality through its soundtrack. That said, the quality is no better or worse than the somewhat grainy Honda engine, and it's muffled enough not to intrude except under hard acceleration.
Will the Cruze save General Motors? Frankly, by now it may no longer need to, as it's getting considerable help from some other pretty strong product offerings. This early taste has certainly whetted our appetite for more, and the flavor certainly compares favorably with the aging Honda and Toyota competition. But Ford is readying an equally mouth-watering new Focus that rides on a modernized version of a chassis we already love under the Mazda3. Its styling is similarly handsome and arguably more modern, and its range-topping 2.0-liter direct-injection engine will likely outperform the Cruze's 1.4T -- though probably at some cost to fuel economy. Of course, the real winner will be the patriotic American compact buyer, whose domestic options have never been better. Stay tuned for a more definitive report on the Cruze later this summer when it's fully baked and decorated.
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz0qYi0DTII
2011 Chevrolet Cruze
Base price $15,500-$20,000 (est)
Vehicle layout Front-engine, FWD, 5-pass, 4-door sedan
Engines 1.8L/138-hp (est)/125-lb-ft (est) DOHC 16-valve I-4; 1.4L/138-hp (est)/148-lb-ft (est) turbocharged DOHC 16-valve I-4
Transmissions 6-speed manual, 6-speed automatic
Curb weight 2800-3150 lb (est)
Wheelbase 105.7 in
Length x width x height 181.0 x 70.7 x 58.1 in
0-60 mph 8.5-9.4 sec (MT est)
EPA city/hwy fuel econ 24-27 / 35-40 mpg (est)
CO2 emissions 0.61-0.69 lb/mile (est)
On sale in U.S. September 2010
Other tech highlights include a vane-type variable-displacement oil pump that tailors its output to supply the necessary pressure to the main oil gallery (i.e., lots of flow at high speeds, not so much at low speeds). And an electronically controlled thermostat raises the engine temperature at low speeds and light loads to reduce internal lubricant friction for improved fuel economy. Output ratings estimates are 138 horsepower at 4900 rpm and 148 pound-feet of torque at 1800 rpm.
Sprightlier gearing helped the Cruze accelerate with sufficient hustle to run with the Honda and Toyota, though I'm not ready to bet against the 1.8-liter Honda winning a drag race. Turbo lag is minimal and there's ample thrust down low, but it tapers off between 5000 and 6000 rpm (en route to a 6500-rev redline), belying that diminutive displacement. This car may demand short-shifting at the track. Turbos often muzzle an engine's exhaust note, and indeed this powertrain fails to project any performance personality through its soundtrack. That said, the quality is no better or worse than the somewhat grainy Honda engine, and it's muffled enough not to intrude except under hard acceleration.
Will the Cruze save General Motors? Frankly, by now it may no longer need to, as it's getting considerable help from some other pretty strong product offerings. This early taste has certainly whetted our appetite for more, and the flavor certainly compares favorably with the aging Honda and Toyota competition. But Ford is readying an equally mouth-watering new Focus that rides on a modernized version of a chassis we already love under the Mazda3. Its styling is similarly handsome and arguably more modern, and its range-topping 2.0-liter direct-injection engine will likely outperform the Cruze's 1.4T -- though probably at some cost to fuel economy. Of course, the real winner will be the patriotic American compact buyer, whose domestic options have never been better. Stay tuned for a more definitive report on the Cruze later this summer when it's fully baked and decorated.
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz0qYi0DTII
2011 Chevrolet Cruze
Base price $15,500-$20,000 (est)
Vehicle layout Front-engine, FWD, 5-pass, 4-door sedan
Engines 1.8L/138-hp (est)/125-lb-ft (est) DOHC 16-valve I-4; 1.4L/138-hp (est)/148-lb-ft (est) turbocharged DOHC 16-valve I-4
Transmissions 6-speed manual, 6-speed automatic
Curb weight 2800-3150 lb (est)
Wheelbase 105.7 in
Length x width x height 181.0 x 70.7 x 58.1 in
0-60 mph 8.5-9.4 sec (MT est)
EPA city/hwy fuel econ 24-27 / 35-40 mpg (est)
CO2 emissions 0.61-0.69 lb/mile (est)
On sale in U.S. September 2010
06-11-2010, 01:51 PM
#150
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-05-09
Location: Sarasota, FL
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enter the LUJ: a turbocharged, VVT, 1.4L ECOtec that puts out 138hp and 148lb.-ft of torque. Weekend warriors rejoice, there is a new top dog in town.
Staying true to ECOtec form, the new 1.4L LUJ ECOtec is quite the potent, pint-sized little package. Seemingly having two engines in one package, the low displacement and high power output of the LUJ allow the engine to deliver fuel economy of 40mpg on the highway or 148lb.-ft of torque depending on what the situation requires – groceries: 40mpg, drag strip: 148lbs of torque! This kind of multiple personality disorder is possible because of the turbocharger that comes bolted to the 1.4L ECOtec and is part of the recipe for the domination of the Cruze over its competitors.
wtf
new top dog in town at 138hp. why the **** would u even ever want turbo 1.4l. what the **** such a waste.
wtf
drag strip - 148ft/lb torque. thats a ******* joke, a terrible joke at that.
wtf
domination over the competition... wtf is the competition, a goddamn lawn mower. even a go-kart could burn this **** on the street
Staying true to ECOtec form, the new 1.4L LUJ ECOtec is quite the potent, pint-sized little package. Seemingly having two engines in one package, the low displacement and high power output of the LUJ allow the engine to deliver fuel economy of 40mpg on the highway or 148lb.-ft of torque depending on what the situation requires – groceries: 40mpg, drag strip: 148lbs of torque! This kind of multiple personality disorder is possible because of the turbocharger that comes bolted to the 1.4L ECOtec and is part of the recipe for the domination of the Cruze over its competitors.
wtf
new top dog in town at 138hp. why the **** would u even ever want turbo 1.4l. what the **** such a waste.
wtf
drag strip - 148ft/lb torque. thats a ******* joke, a terrible joke at that.
wtf
domination over the competition... wtf is the competition, a goddamn lawn mower. even a go-kart could burn this **** on the street