Just curious. I see that the 2017 cruze is rated at 153hp / 177tq compared to sonic 138 hp / 148tq which I understand that there are a lot of variables for the difference. I see that the part numbers are different and seems it may be a direct bolt on. Just wondering if a 2017 cruze turbo is a bigger turbo and with a tune would be compatible on the sonic. I even see on BNR that the tune on the cruze is more than the sonic with no upgrades. Chevy cruze stock turbo replacement onto a sonic is less than $400 and probably with bigger injectors seems that it may have the potential to be a nice upgrade with a tune for the price. Just a thought so feel free to discuss.
2017 cruze 1.4 turbo bigger than the sonic?
- Thread starter dtbrown
- Start date
JesusTheAgnostic
New member
Could be that the cars have different transmissions. Horsepower and torque vary when you change gear ratios, at least I'm pretty sure they do.
mja
Site Supporter
The LE2 is a new design, head+manifold is integrated like a lot of newer engines have. There's not a dedicated exhaust manifold like the LUV/LUJ. The LE2 bolt-on turbo can't work on a Sonic's LUJ/LUV. At least not without a custom exhaust manifold.
From Trifecta's site, LE2 1.4t and the LUV/LUJ 1.4t will make the same power after tuning. LE2 is 44 lbs lighter with an aluminum block and forged crank. LUJ/LUV is an iron block, with reinforced cast crank and forged rods. If both are upgraded with forged pistons, they'd probably handle about the same max big turbo power.
2.3 Ecoboost Mustangs guys running larger turbos with the integrated head+manifold have savage pre-ignition at low load. Its claimed that the heat of the turbo so close to the head causes this, but remains to be seen if this is a poor tuning issue, bad MazdaFord engine design, or a fault of the turbo placement. Maybe its Mustang drivers lol.
From Trifecta's site, LE2 1.4t and the LUV/LUJ 1.4t will make the same power after tuning. LE2 is 44 lbs lighter with an aluminum block and forged crank. LUJ/LUV is an iron block, with reinforced cast crank and forged rods. If both are upgraded with forged pistons, they'd probably handle about the same max big turbo power.
2.3 Ecoboost Mustangs guys running larger turbos with the integrated head+manifold have savage pre-ignition at low load. Its claimed that the heat of the turbo so close to the head causes this, but remains to be seen if this is a poor tuning issue, bad MazdaFord engine design, or a fault of the turbo placement. Maybe its Mustang drivers lol.
albuquerqueith
New member
Even though they are both 1.4L, Cruze is actually slightly bigger 1399 cc's vs Sonic 1364 cc's
Blue Moon Sonic
New member
lol MJA. I'll agree on the bad mustang drivers. There's a reason they crash at cars and coffee all the time.
All jokes aside, It almost sounds like a combination of all three.
As far as the LE2 goes, You'll probably notice better fuel economy because of the lighter engine and transmission combo vs the LUJ/LUV. So while they'll put out roughly the same power after tuning, the LE2 sonic will be faster because of the power to weight ratio.
All jokes aside, It almost sounds like a combination of all three.
As far as the LE2 goes, You'll probably notice better fuel economy because of the lighter engine and transmission combo vs the LUJ/LUV. So while they'll put out roughly the same power after tuning, the LE2 sonic will be faster because of the power to weight ratio.
mja
Site Supporter
Lol I had to throw in a dig there, the avg Mustang driver isn't prepping for Pikes Peak 
The direct injection + integrated head/exhaust manifold will be universal in a few years, & most will have turbos. What's surprising is the new 1.4t LE2 on the Cruze has VVT but not VVL. Larger displacement Opel's had VVL some time ago, but maybe it's not needed for a 1.4L?
I think the problem with the 2.3 Ecoboost, getting back to that, is integrating the exhaust manifold & head, making things even hotter on a motor that has a known issue with pre-ignition, while not adopting VVL.
They don't even need to go full retard like the Fiat multiair, BMW valvetronic, Toyota valvematic, Nissan VVEL. A 2 or 3 step variable valve lift should fix a lot of ecoboom issues. Like GM IVLC that still uses a throttle body. This is nothing new, Mitsubishi MIVEC and Honda i-VTEC have been around forever.
But then previous GM DI turbo motors aren't notorious for blowing rods like the Fords or Mazdas, AFAIK both had similar VVT cam phasing. Could be the 2.0t LNF/LDK/LHU 9.2:1 compression ratio vs the Ecoboost 9.5:1-10:1, or engine internal strength.
Ford is dragging knuckles while other manufacturers are 1-2 steps ahead. The 2.3's are recommended to change plugs every 10-12k miles. This is nuts, proactive Ecoboost owners are changing plugs every 6-8k miles like it's 1962.
The direct injection + integrated head/exhaust manifold will be universal in a few years, & most will have turbos. What's surprising is the new 1.4t LE2 on the Cruze has VVT but not VVL. Larger displacement Opel's had VVL some time ago, but maybe it's not needed for a 1.4L?
I think the problem with the 2.3 Ecoboost, getting back to that, is integrating the exhaust manifold & head, making things even hotter on a motor that has a known issue with pre-ignition, while not adopting VVL.
They don't even need to go full retard like the Fiat multiair, BMW valvetronic, Toyota valvematic, Nissan VVEL. A 2 or 3 step variable valve lift should fix a lot of ecoboom issues. Like GM IVLC that still uses a throttle body. This is nothing new, Mitsubishi MIVEC and Honda i-VTEC have been around forever.
But then previous GM DI turbo motors aren't notorious for blowing rods like the Fords or Mazdas, AFAIK both had similar VVT cam phasing. Could be the 2.0t LNF/LDK/LHU 9.2:1 compression ratio vs the Ecoboost 9.5:1-10:1, or engine internal strength.
Ford is dragging knuckles while other manufacturers are 1-2 steps ahead. The 2.3's are recommended to change plugs every 10-12k miles. This is nuts, proactive Ecoboost owners are changing plugs every 6-8k miles like it's 1962.
JTee2017
Well-known member
One reason i bought the Sonic with the "lowly" 1.8L is that it doesn't have nearly as much problem prone hardware as newer engine designs. It has enough with the variable intake and VVT. But I did not even want a turbo.
You pay for it in a somewhat less MPG (what - - 3 to5mpg?). I get 30MPG all around town mixed driving and 36 to 38MPG highway at 65 to 70mph. . . unless I'm bucking a wind or hills.
But I would rather have that then self destructing engines and/or turbo issues that seem to plague others.
Last edited:
Blue Moon Sonic
New member
To be honest, I can see why they would integrate the manifold with the head for manufacturing reasons after watching an engineering explained video on the "headifold". However, the technology is still in it's infancy. It's just going to suck for a lot of us in the future. Those who want to build fast cars and not buy them, won't really have that option in the next 15-20 years when everything becomes integrated or when EV's take over the globe.
For anyone who wants to watch the video for integrated manifold. Integrated Manifold & Head
For anyone who wants to watch the video for integrated manifold. Integrated Manifold & Head
mja
Site Supporter
From GM's website the LE2 will find its way into the Sonic, Trax, Orlando (like an HHR), Equinox, and Terrain.
JTee, I read a while back that a new n/a Ecotec coming out will have a mechanically baffled intake manifold, rather than the current dual plane setup. I want to say its an n/a version of one of the new turbo ecotecs. So maybe in a few years even n/a's will be complicated.
Blue Moon, Lotus used an integrated headifold, lol like that word, 10 years ago. Supposedly their priority was weight and packaging. I like engineering explained videos, he gets a lot right, sometimes he doesnt get everything but who cares, love the white board talks. There's a ton of pressure on manufacturers to decrease CO2 emissions, any way to move the cat toward the motor or turbo will help with startup emissions, provided the exhaust charge at high EGT isn't cooking the solid state metal catalyst-zeolite or whatever compounds are used now for cats.
dtbrown, I don't understand that because VVL is more important with headifold DI turbo motors, esp larger displacement ones. BMWs with blown motors and carbon deposits were really common a while back, so much that they created their ridiculous valvetronic to address the problem. Increased control over lower lift conditions makes AFRs from demanded lambda more precise. There are also less hot spots or carbon buildup in the cylinder. Manufacturers claim thiese VVL techniques are for fuel efficiency or power, and maybe 10 years ago this was more true. Now, its more for decreasing CO2 and aiding low load cylinder pressures of efficient (by BMEP) DI headifold turbo motors.
JTee, I read a while back that a new n/a Ecotec coming out will have a mechanically baffled intake manifold, rather than the current dual plane setup. I want to say its an n/a version of one of the new turbo ecotecs. So maybe in a few years even n/a's will be complicated.
Blue Moon, Lotus used an integrated headifold, lol like that word, 10 years ago. Supposedly their priority was weight and packaging. I like engineering explained videos, he gets a lot right, sometimes he doesnt get everything but who cares, love the white board talks. There's a ton of pressure on manufacturers to decrease CO2 emissions, any way to move the cat toward the motor or turbo will help with startup emissions, provided the exhaust charge at high EGT isn't cooking the solid state metal catalyst-zeolite or whatever compounds are used now for cats.
dtbrown, I don't understand that because VVL is more important with headifold DI turbo motors, esp larger displacement ones. BMWs with blown motors and carbon deposits were really common a while back, so much that they created their ridiculous valvetronic to address the problem. Increased control over lower lift conditions makes AFRs from demanded lambda more precise. There are also less hot spots or carbon buildup in the cylinder. Manufacturers claim thiese VVL techniques are for fuel efficiency or power, and maybe 10 years ago this was more true. Now, its more for decreasing CO2 and aiding low load cylinder pressures of efficient (by BMEP) DI headifold turbo motors.
Last edited:
MaD
Member
I was going to ask this very question about the Cruze... I have a rental one now that my 1.4T is in the shop, this Cruze feels like it has more power and its a bigger car than my HB... a few horses makes the feel difference. But with the Cruze you can see the turbo right on top of the engine.
orangeltz13
Member
I have a 2013 1.4 MT. I have not had any problems with me car... I have 73K miles 85% highway miles. The only thing I have changed are the brake pads. I suspect others have had engine troubles probably because of the aftermarket tunes. I am still rolling with the oem tune. I do have a K&N CAI and a ZZP cat exhaust but that's it. I hope this helps. The one thing I don't like is the throttle response, it hesitates before the power kicks in...
Papasonic
Active member
Good to hear as I have a 2012 1.4 MT with 49,000 miles. My only gripe is lack of power; especially with the AC on. Another 50 hp would really make a big difference; also unwilling to tune for longevity/reliability concerns.
