Ive heard a lot of talk about the 1.8 and 1.4 turbo engines on the sonic. I know I have the 1.8l but I wanna know what the difference is from the 1.4? Is it the exact same engine but just 1.4 is turbo? Ive read on a couple of threads here that if someone is able to turbo the 1.8l, it would be a funner car to drive than the 1.4. I just want to know what the difference is. Maybe some of you could explain it to me or provide some links? thanks
Difference between 1.8l and 1.4l turbo
- Thread starter Mexigga
- Start date
$ub$onic
The Sticker Guy
1.8 and 1.4 are two different engines. The 1.8 is harder to make power with because it's n/a.
The turbo is able to make way more power due to fact it's forced induction.
Other differences are 1.8 is a timing belt.
1.4 is a timing chain.
1.4 will also generally get better mpg over the 1.8
The turbo is able to make way more power due to fact it's forced induction.
Other differences are 1.8 is a timing belt.
1.4 is a timing chain.
1.4 will also generally get better mpg over the 1.8
sx sonic
New member
Oh boy this is a doosey.
There's alot of fundamental differences between the 2 engines.
Google "ice", "4 strokes of combustion", "turbochargers".
There's just too many basics to cover 1st before the differences can be explained
Some links:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/engine1.htm
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm
There's alot of fundamental differences between the 2 engines.
Google "ice", "4 strokes of combustion", "turbochargers".
There's just too many basics to cover 1st before the differences can be explained
Some links:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/engine1.htm
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm
Last edited:
laborsmith
New member
One is Family 0 and the other is Family 1 - completely different in every respect (well they are both gasoline fueled internal combustion engine so not quite every respect).
The 1.4 internals are upgraded compared to the 1.8 internals so it seems to me boosting the 1.8 could be effective compared to an un-modded 1.4 but . . . .
Laborsmith
The 1.4 internals are upgraded compared to the 1.8 internals so it seems to me boosting the 1.8 could be effective compared to an un-modded 1.4 but . . . .
Laborsmith
Swordsmith
242hp/252 ft-lbs BNR EFI
Besides different construction details that you probably aren't ready to learn about, there are two basic differences:
1) the number indicates the total volume of the inside of the cylinders: 1.4 liters versus 1.8 liters. this means all things being equal that the 1.8 uses more fuel and generates more power. Outside the US there are 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6 models of Sonic that work exactly this way, less available power but more economy.
But the other difference is the key here; the turbocharger. In a normally aspirated engine, air is sucked into the cylinders mixed with fuel in the correct ratio, and ignited. The expansion drives the pistons, then the gasses are dumped out the exhaust. But in the turbo those rushing gasses drive a fan which forces air in under pressure... which means for example that at double atmospheric pressure you can mix in twice the fuel and still have the correct ratio...essentially the equivalent of a 2.8 liter engine... but you usually don't need all that power, and drive around at no or very low boost, using less fuel.
1) the number indicates the total volume of the inside of the cylinders: 1.4 liters versus 1.8 liters. this means all things being equal that the 1.8 uses more fuel and generates more power. Outside the US there are 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6 models of Sonic that work exactly this way, less available power but more economy.
But the other difference is the key here; the turbocharger. In a normally aspirated engine, air is sucked into the cylinders mixed with fuel in the correct ratio, and ignited. The expansion drives the pistons, then the gasses are dumped out the exhaust. But in the turbo those rushing gasses drive a fan which forces air in under pressure... which means for example that at double atmospheric pressure you can mix in twice the fuel and still have the correct ratio...essentially the equivalent of a 2.8 liter engine... but you usually don't need all that power, and drive around at no or very low boost, using less fuel.
Last edited:
ChrisJ
Active member
My 1.8 did suck a lot of fuel compared to my 1.4s. Same person, same driving habits and same exact commute day after day 33MPG vs 41 MPG. 8 MPG difference can add up over 100-200K miles.
The 1.8 Sonic gets good gas mileage, the 1.4 Sonic gets almost unrealistic gas mileage.
Also keep in mind my response was to your comment about adding a turbo to a 1.8. Your mileage would drop even further.
barch88
New member
Don't get me wrong. I'd LOVE to have the 1.4 Turbo over the 1.8L N/A, like I said it IS the better engine and anyone considering this car should get the 1.4 if they can.
At the time of purchase I got what I got though, given what I wanted to spend and what dealer had in inventory and the finance rate I got on my car, that's my reasoning behind my 1.8 purchase (paid about 14k for an LT 1.8 with super low interest).
No real point to trade in a car of this caliber and take a loss though, at least IMO. I'd trade it in and jump up to a Camaro or Jetta GLI/VW GTI, or Subaru WRX/STi...but that's just because I'm more performance based rather than MPG and if I'm going to spend more money I'm going to get a faster car.
So I'm going to drive and mod my 1.8 as far as I can go, turbo it and decrease mpg if need be. My tune and other mods do improve MPG though so I have a feeling it's not so bad
. I guess I'm happy with my MPG because coming from cars with not so great MPG and lifted trucks this car is like a dream come true for me and seeing 30+ MPG is awesome, but I can see where you're coming from.
ChrisJ
Active member
Don't get me wrong. I'd LOVE to have the 1.4 Turbo over the 1.8L N/A, like I said it IS the better engine and anyone considering this car should get the 1.4 if they can.
At the time of purchase I got what I got though, given what I wanted to spend and what dealer had in inventory and the finance rate I got on my car, that's my reasoning behind my 1.8 purchase (paid about 14k for an LT 1.8 with super low interest).
No real point to trade in a car of this caliber and take a loss though, at least IMO. I'd trade it in and jump up to a Camaro or Jetta GLI/VW GTI, or Subaru WRX/STi...but that's just because I'm more performance based rather than MPG and if I'm going to spend more money I'm going to get a faster car.
So I'm going to drive and mod my 1.8 as far as I can go, turbo it and decrease mpg if need be. My tune and other mods do improve MPG though so I have a feeling it's not so bad
100% understood.
If someone owns a 1.8 I don't see a reason to change. But for newcomers I would always recommend a 1.4.
ChrisJ
Active member
You can call them what you want but it was originally a Opel design and its a damn good design as is the 1.4. Daewoo and Opel are both owned by GM.
the 1.8 is a "Family 1" engine and the 1.4 is a "Family 0" engine. Family 0 is a newer design.
bbaaspencer
New member
1.8l or 1.4l
The dealer told me the 1.8l engine needs a new timing belt way before it hits the 100k mark. This is part of the regular maintenance and will cost possibly $700. The 1.4l has a timing chain and does not not have a maintenance schedule, so this assumes it will last the life of the engine. So, if it cost $700 to change the timing belt and it cost $700 for the optional 1.4l, why not buy the 1.4l in the first place? I would sure hate that my timing belt broke while driving through Detroit at midnight!
The dealer told me the 1.8l engine needs a new timing belt way before it hits the 100k mark. This is part of the regular maintenance and will cost possibly $700. The 1.4l has a timing chain and does not not have a maintenance schedule, so this assumes it will last the life of the engine. So, if it cost $700 to change the timing belt and it cost $700 for the optional 1.4l, why not buy the 1.4l in the first place? I would sure hate that my timing belt broke while driving through Detroit at midnight!
mitdr774
also a dinner prick
I have herad the timing belt needs done anywhere from 60k to 95k miles. I never bothered to look it up. I plan on doing mine soon just to see how it looks at 60K. Belt or chain does not matter to me. Chains fail as well. 100k on a chain and it would be wise to at least inspect it for wear.
Looks like about $150 and a saturday in the driveway to do the belt and water pump on my own. Im okay with that. Detroit at midnight isnt as bad as Detroit at 8-10 PM or 2-4 AM. Either way, Im not worried.
Looks like about $150 and a saturday in the driveway to do the belt and water pump on my own. Im okay with that. Detroit at midnight isnt as bad as Detroit at 8-10 PM or 2-4 AM. Either way, Im not worried.
ChrisJ
Active member
Every dealer I called wanted $1000-1200 to change the timing belt on the Honda J series I had. A local shop wanted $700.
Where do you get $300? Is there that big of a difference between a 4 and 6 cylinder?
I'm still betting 200+K out of the timing chain on the 1.4 until I see otherwise. All of my previous chains went this long.
$ub$onic
The Sticker Guy
I was quoted $300 at a local shop, that was parts and labor. That was before I found out the belt was changed by the previous owner.
The 1.8 looks much easier to change then the Hondas. But I will find out soon. I have to do a belt in my new Honda and I am changing the belt in the sonic this winter.
I do imagine a v6 would be a pita.