Originally Posted By: dlundblad
That thing looks greasier than my Jeep's 4.0.
Yep - it has oil leaks.
That thing looks greasier than my Jeep's 4.0.
Yep - it has oil leaks.
2012 Cruze 1.4T Turbo Replacement
- Thread starter The Critic
- Start date
- Status
Final update - the car has been done and was released back to its owners yesterday.
Upon arrival we scanned and found fault codes P0299, P0171, P015B, P0420, P2270 and P1101. The turbo had a crack (see pics below) and I found unmetered air entering from the pcv diaphragm on the valve cover.
Between diagnosing the issues, replacing the turbocharger (along with the oil lines and various gaskets), installing the new valve cover kit (included new bolts and gasket) and checking for an updated ECM calibration (car already had the latest one installed, but I went ahead and updated the BCM, EBCM and instrument cluster since they are already paying for the labor time and software charge from GM), the labor time was 6.3 hours. That breaks down to 1 hr for the diagnosis, 3.2 hr for the turbo, 1.1 hr for the valve cover and 1 hr for the software updates. The total list/msrp price for all of the parts (including the GM SPS access fee), including tax, was $1010.96. Labor rates vary by geographic area, but independent shops average $120/hr here and dealers are in the $160/hr range.
The customer approved replacing the spark plugs, oil and filter (found hard carbon deposits and some sludge in the oil return tube), air filter and cabin air filter for preventative maintenance, but declined resealing the engine oil pan, brake fluid flush, drive belt, the suggested cooling system updates (expansion tank, hose and water outlet), wiper blades, rear tires and the screaming engine water pump (there is a warranty extension to 150k).
Turbo:
The obligatory valvetrain picture:
New valve cover and turbo installed:
Checking for ECM software calibration updates using GM SPS and a CarDaq Plus 2:
Upon arrival we scanned and found fault codes P0299, P0171, P015B, P0420, P2270 and P1101. The turbo had a crack (see pics below) and I found unmetered air entering from the pcv diaphragm on the valve cover.
Between diagnosing the issues, replacing the turbocharger (along with the oil lines and various gaskets), installing the new valve cover kit (included new bolts and gasket) and checking for an updated ECM calibration (car already had the latest one installed, but I went ahead and updated the BCM, EBCM and instrument cluster since they are already paying for the labor time and software charge from GM), the labor time was 6.3 hours. That breaks down to 1 hr for the diagnosis, 3.2 hr for the turbo, 1.1 hr for the valve cover and 1 hr for the software updates. The total list/msrp price for all of the parts (including the GM SPS access fee), including tax, was $1010.96. Labor rates vary by geographic area, but independent shops average $120/hr here and dealers are in the $160/hr range.
The customer approved replacing the spark plugs, oil and filter (found hard carbon deposits and some sludge in the oil return tube), air filter and cabin air filter for preventative maintenance, but declined resealing the engine oil pan, brake fluid flush, drive belt, the suggested cooling system updates (expansion tank, hose and water outlet), wiper blades, rear tires and the screaming engine water pump (there is a warranty extension to 150k).
Turbo:
The obligatory valvetrain picture:
New valve cover and turbo installed:
Checking for ECM software calibration updates using GM SPS and a CarDaq Plus 2:
Last edited:
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
edyvw once mentioned who did the engineering … across the pond …
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Mine has 95k and have never seen anything unusual changing the oil 5k to 7k …
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Why not post this 6 times so it’s more meaningful than what actual owners draining normally looking oil out have to say…
What did they use and for how long and what was the driving pattern and what was the OLM percent on EVERY fill the car had … I did all of mine … normal stuff …
So since it’s not the normal car coming into this shop … we should of seen dozens of repairs posted for other stuff (don’t want to … just don’t recall all that air time featuring I’m not impressed comments) … news flash … as a very successful grownup … I’m not impressed either …
What did they use and for how long and what was the driving pattern and what was the OLM percent on EVERY fill the car had … I did all of mine … normal stuff …
So since it’s not the normal car coming into this shop … we should of seen dozens of repairs posted for other stuff (don’t want to … just don’t recall all that air time featuring I’m not impressed comments) … news flash … as a very successful grownup … I’m not impressed either …
Our 2012 Cruze 1.4 had a coolant leak at 49k. Took it to the dealer and it was the turbo coolant hose. On removal of the turbo to get to the hose they found the turbo cracked. So it was replaced under warranty. Also the one bolt on the cat was broken and so they had to replace the cat as well. We got lucky and this was all done under warranty. Along with the water pump replacement. The car drives 100% better than when we purchased it new. You can even hear the turbo now. Not much but to me I can at least hear it where before I didn't really notice it.
I've been running 0w-30 AZO in it since new and changing out at 8k miles. I figure the 0w would help with the turbo since oil would flow a wee bit faster on start up.
I've been running 0w-30 AZO in it since new and changing out at 8k miles. I figure the 0w would help with the turbo since oil would flow a wee bit faster on start up.
Originally Posted By: NoNameJoe
Quote:
2) As someone who primarily works on Toyota and Honda, I am not particularly impressed with how this car is put together.
It's a shock isn't it?
This car had 102k when it came in.
According to the service history from GM, it received a new valve cover at 50k and at 74k. So it is now on valve cover #4. Now I wonder if there is an issue with the check valve inside the manifold.
Similarly, the water pump was replaced at 73k and at 79k. From what I could tell, the water pump area is wet again.
Quote:
2) As someone who primarily works on Toyota and Honda, I am not particularly impressed with how this car is put together.
It's a shock isn't it?
This car had 102k when it came in.
According to the service history from GM, it received a new valve cover at 50k and at 74k. So it is now on valve cover #4. Now I wonder if there is an issue with the check valve inside the manifold.
Similarly, the water pump was replaced at 73k and at 79k. From what I could tell, the water pump area is wet again.
What about a new pcv valve? How did the oil look and was it low on oil? The work that was done should keep it alive for a while longer. Maybe get those other things done when it's in for the next service.
Originally Posted By: SatinSilver
What about a new pcv valve? How did the oil look and was it low on oil? The work that was done should keep it alive for a while longer. Maybe get those other things done when it's in for the next service.
The PCV is built into the valve cover. The reason I replaced the valve cover is because the PCV diaphragm went bad and was sucking in unmetered air.
The oil appeared dark but the OLM showed 70% remaining. I changed the oil and filter before releasing the car.
What about a new pcv valve? How did the oil look and was it low on oil? The work that was done should keep it alive for a while longer. Maybe get those other things done when it's in for the next service.
The PCV is built into the valve cover. The reason I replaced the valve cover is because the PCV diaphragm went bad and was sucking in unmetered air.
The oil appeared dark but the OLM showed 70% remaining. I changed the oil and filter before releasing the car.
Originally Posted By: The Critic
2) As someone who primarily works on Toyota and Honda, I am not particularly impressed with how this car is put together.
I was under the impression GM vastly improved from the 1980s-1990s. The Cruze is a "world car" with engineering resources spread between the US, Opel, Holden and Daewoo.
I think this motor was designed to be power dense, but cheap to assemble. GM doesn't make money off cars - they do from trucks as does Ford. A truck can be modularized and outsourced easier than than a car can.
2) As someone who primarily works on Toyota and Honda, I am not particularly impressed with how this car is put together.
I was under the impression GM vastly improved from the 1980s-1990s. The Cruze is a "world car" with engineering resources spread between the US, Opel, Holden and Daewoo.
I think this motor was designed to be power dense, but cheap to assemble. GM doesn't make money off cars - they do from trucks as does Ford. A truck can be modularized and outsourced easier than than a car can.
Originally Posted By: dblshock
the dipstick viscosity was like a heavy lumpy mud, I've never seen worse.
Do you think the oil was the reason for the failure?
Lumpy oil clogging up lines perhaps?
These sound like a good M1 0w40 candidate.
the dipstick viscosity was like a heavy lumpy mud, I've never seen worse.
Do you think the oil was the reason for the failure?
Lumpy oil clogging up lines perhaps?
These sound like a good M1 0w40 candidate.
The codes in this vehicle indicate failure of the pcv relieve valve in the intake manifold, resulting in excessive crankcase pressure. This pressure causes the pcv bladder in the cam cover to rupture. The turbo code, O2 code, and cat code are symptomatic of the poor running conditions resulting from the relief valve failure.
This vehicle may not have needed a turbo. The intake manifold, cam cover, and turbo return hose should have been replaced first, and the vehicle driven to see if cat, O2, and turbo codes returned.
This vehicle may not have needed a turbo. The intake manifold, cam cover, and turbo return hose should have been replaced first, and the vehicle driven to see if cat, O2, and turbo codes returned.
- Status
Similar threads
