Bought a Cruze 2LT
11-05-2010, 12:28 AM
#26
Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: 11-14-09
Location: Lethbridge, AB
Posts: 1,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reality that it's a small engine?
We have 2.0's 300, 350, 400 and beyond.
Why not a 1.4 at 200.
A stock LNF has .13HP per mL (Not doing the imperial conversion, too late for this haha).
A 1.4 with 200HP would be .14HP per mL.
a 350HP LNF (Not unheard of really.) Is already up to .16.
Provided the engine is not a piece of junk, I can't see a problem hitting it and going beyond.
Joel
We have 2.0's 300, 350, 400 and beyond.
Why not a 1.4 at 200.
A stock LNF has .13HP per mL (Not doing the imperial conversion, too late for this haha).
A 1.4 with 200HP would be .14HP per mL.
a 350HP LNF (Not unheard of really.) Is already up to .16.
Provided the engine is not a piece of junk, I can't see a problem hitting it and going beyond.
Joel
11-05-2010, 01:00 AM
#28
Reality that it's a small engine?
We have 2.0's 300, 350, 400 and beyond.
Why not a 1.4 at 200.
A stock LNF has .13HP per mL (Not doing the imperial conversion, too late for this haha).
A 1.4 with 200HP would be .14HP per mL.
a 350HP LNF (Not unheard of really.) Is already up to .16.
Provided the engine is not a piece of junk, I can't see a problem hitting it and going beyond.
Joel
We have 2.0's 300, 350, 400 and beyond.
Why not a 1.4 at 200.
A stock LNF has .13HP per mL (Not doing the imperial conversion, too late for this haha).
A 1.4 with 200HP would be .14HP per mL.
a 350HP LNF (Not unheard of really.) Is already up to .16.
Provided the engine is not a piece of junk, I can't see a problem hitting it and going beyond.
Joel
Whatever you say bro..it's gonna be a 300 hp highway monster with a tune
11-05-2010, 01:14 AM
#34
Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: 11-14-09
Location: Lethbridge, AB
Posts: 1,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I'm doing is throwing my hat in the ring and backing it up. Any Particular reason you don't think it would happen with "Full Bolton's" and a tune? It's only 200hp.
Joel
11-05-2010, 01:58 AM
#38
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: 06-23-09
Location: Chesterfield Missouri
Posts: 3,820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congrats! for the most part I think they are a lot nicer to look at than a cobalt.
While I like the interior I dont like the radio due to difficulty of upgrading it. Im also curious how well it will take to mods and how many electronic nannies gm has put into the car.
While I like the interior I dont like the radio due to difficulty of upgrading it. Im also curious how well it will take to mods and how many electronic nannies gm has put into the car.
11-05-2010, 04:31 AM
#40
Senior Member
11-05-2010, 09:03 AM
#41
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 11-15-08
Location: oklahoma
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Vince
Yes, it has an air-to-air intercooler. It sounds like it's built pretty stout - it uses a cast iron block, forged rods and hypereutectic pistons with a "thicker crown and unique ring pack" and sports a 9.5:1 compression ratio. It also uses oil jets to cool the pistons.
Conservatively, LNFs typically gain 24% horsepower (at low elevation) with a tune due to GM's factory programming going for consistency rather than maximum power. We might extrapolate a gain like that to this engine which would put it at 172HP/186TQ (crankshaft) conservatively (factory crankshaft rating is 138HP / 150TQ).
I just read about another interesting feature of both engines in the Cruze...
It has electronically (presumably ECM) controlled thermostat to allow different operating temperatures for best economy (or, in our case, performance)... You can program in a "low temperature thermostat"! ;-)
Yes, it has an air-to-air intercooler. It sounds like it's built pretty stout - it uses a cast iron block, forged rods and hypereutectic pistons with a "thicker crown and unique ring pack" and sports a 9.5:1 compression ratio. It also uses oil jets to cool the pistons.
Conservatively, LNFs typically gain 24% horsepower (at low elevation) with a tune due to GM's factory programming going for consistency rather than maximum power. We might extrapolate a gain like that to this engine which would put it at 172HP/186TQ (crankshaft) conservatively (factory crankshaft rating is 138HP / 150TQ).
I just read about another interesting feature of both engines in the Cruze...
It has electronically (presumably ECM) controlled thermostat to allow different operating temperatures for best economy (or, in our case, performance)... You can program in a "low temperature thermostat"! ;-)
11-05-2010, 12:29 PM
#42
Senior Member
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: 09-12-09
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,458
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Test drove one of these last week. Thought it would have a lot more power since its turbo. Felt slower than a stock auto 2.2 cobalt. Couldn't feel the turbo at all, when I was done I looked under the hood to make sure it was there.Manual shifting was delayed by about a second and a half. Good things: interior..seats were very comfortable, trunk was big, steering wheel is awesome.
11-05-2010, 12:54 PM
#45
Ya it may be slower, but the streets not for racing and I looked at one and took it for a drive and awsome car far superior to the Cobalt. Congrates on your new car
11-05-2010, 04:30 PM
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: 11-21-08
Location: Rio Rancho, N.M.
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to me it felt faster than a 2.2, but then again that's probably cause it caught my with ma pants down, lol, I was expecting it to be slow off the line, lol, and it actually sped off pretty good, also the suspension and brakes felt good too, better for commuting than the SS but not as far as actual performance and to me it looks more like a squared version of that new suzuki kashishi or whatever, either way is still my next car if my wife wants it, lol, or she can have the SS if I can get a c5 in good used condition for 17k'ish or a c6 for about 24ish,(I'm cheap, lol), the camaro was more fun to drive than the 5.0, but it's a heavy beast and I'm afraid to let one release some anger on a corner, like I do with the nimble cobalt lol
Last edited by Nal; 11-05-2010 at 04:39 PM.
11-05-2010, 11:53 PM
#48
Junior Member
Join Date: 03-20-09
Location: Montreal
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Test drove the 1.8L N/A and the 1.4L turbo both auto 6 speed today.
On top end both seemed about the same power wise, but the 1.4L is smoother , quieter and has more torque. Nothing close to the LNF though... lol but still impressive for a 1.4L.
Im sure they will be fun with a tune, liked the 6 speed auto minus you cant benefit that much from the torque on dowshift, the thing just rev too high and get out of steam... and the manual shifting is too slow, take like 1.5 second to shift... but at lest its 6 speed.
When they will get the Eco version that include the manual 6 speed ill do another test drive.
To be honest i would like to get one, even if i really like my Cobalt!
the fuel average on the dash was 7.5L/100km, mine is 10.1-10.5L/100km.
On top end both seemed about the same power wise, but the 1.4L is smoother , quieter and has more torque. Nothing close to the LNF though... lol but still impressive for a 1.4L.
Im sure they will be fun with a tune, liked the 6 speed auto minus you cant benefit that much from the torque on dowshift, the thing just rev too high and get out of steam... and the manual shifting is too slow, take like 1.5 second to shift... but at lest its 6 speed.
When they will get the Eco version that include the manual 6 speed ill do another test drive.
To be honest i would like to get one, even if i really like my Cobalt!
the fuel average on the dash was 7.5L/100km, mine is 10.1-10.5L/100km.
11-06-2010, 10:58 AM
#49
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 05-07-07
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Test drove the 1.8L N/A and the 1.4L turbo both auto 6 speed today.
On top end both seemed about the same power wise, but the 1.4L is smoother , quieter and has more torque. Nothing close to the LNF though... lol but still impressive for a 1.4L.
Im sure they will be fun with a tune, liked the 6 speed auto minus you cant benefit that much from the torque on dowshift, the thing just rev too high and get out of steam... and the manual shifting is too slow, take like 1.5 second to shift... but at lest its 6 speed.
When they will get the Eco version that include the manual 6 speed ill do another test drive.
To be honest i would like to get one, even if i really like my Cobalt!
the fuel average on the dash was 7.5L/100km, mine is 10.1-10.5L/100km.
On top end both seemed about the same power wise, but the 1.4L is smoother , quieter and has more torque. Nothing close to the LNF though... lol but still impressive for a 1.4L.
Im sure they will be fun with a tune, liked the 6 speed auto minus you cant benefit that much from the torque on dowshift, the thing just rev too high and get out of steam... and the manual shifting is too slow, take like 1.5 second to shift... but at lest its 6 speed.
When they will get the Eco version that include the manual 6 speed ill do another test drive.
To be honest i would like to get one, even if i really like my Cobalt!
the fuel average on the dash was 7.5L/100km, mine is 10.1-10.5L/100km.
11-06-2010, 12:20 PM
#50
Junior Member
Join Date: 03-20-09
Location: Montreal
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah they said early january for the Eco package wich include the manual transmission, one of my buddy is looking for a car and i convinced him to go look at the Cruze, thats why i decided to go with him and test drive it and give him my impression on that car.. he really like it,he was looking for the suzuki SX4 sedan wich is in the same price range as the LT turbo.