Cruze 1.8L uses timing belt

[needsducktape]

Originally Posted By: pbm
My Cruze (1.4T) is a very nice car. The materials used in the interior are far, far superior to previous small Chevys like the Cavalier and Cobalt. It rides like a larger car.....the problem so far is that it uses fuel like a larger car too.
I'm not impressed with 25 mpg average in a car that is supposed to get 24/26. I'm hoping it improves (to at least 28 mpg average) as it breaks in. I was expecting an average of 30.
My Corolla gets over 30 in all around driving.

PS: In all fairness the Cruze is a much smoother and classier ride than my 2008 Corolla....and yes the timing chain over the belt in the 1.8 is a big positive in my book.



Its interesting you noticed the non-econo car gas mileage -So did motor-trend.

In fact the Hyundai -which brags about 40mpgs on every single commercial AVERAGED some of the worst. (I think it was 24mpg)
The civic had the best average gas mileage even though their Highway rating was "only" 38. a (Just an FYI -it was a great article and they tested just about every small car- Focus, Corolla, Cruze, Civic, 3, etc etc)

The thing people should pay attention to most- AVERAGE fuel economy.

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: pbm
My Cruze (1.4T) is a very nice car. The materials used in the interior are far, far superior to previous small Chevys like the Cavalier and Cobalt. It rides like a larger car.....the problem so far is that it uses fuel like a larger car too.
I'm not impressed with 25 mpg average in a car that is supposed to get 24/26. I'm hoping it improves (to at least 28 mpg average) as it breaks in. I was expecting an average of 30.
My Corolla gets over 30 in all around driving.

PS: In all fairness the Cruze is a much smoother and classier ride than my 2008 Corolla....and yes the timing chain over the belt in the 1.8 is a big positive in my book.


Part of that bigger car feel of the Cruze is the fact that it weights almost as much as a mid size car. That's why it feels solid and has a quiet ride, but at the expense of fuel economy. Physics still prevail and turbo charging will not magically make a 3200 lb car achieve same gas mileage as a 2800lb car, especially in city driving.

Cruze gas mileage is great considering its weight, but I would not expect great improvement in city mileage even after break in.

 

[Oldwolf]

I'm waiting for the Cruze Diesel to arrive.

As far as cam chains go, my daughter just drove my beloved Chevy Cavalier 2.4L from NC to CA last week. Did it in 3 days, whew. Engine runs fine at 200k+, although she said mpg was down. That was because of the car top carrier, all her stuff and a friend and cat stuffed in the car. Plus her habit of going speed limit + 5mph. The only thing I have needed to change on the engine is one of the coil packs.

I will never by a car with a cam belt if I have a say in the matter.

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
Originally Posted By: toyota62
I would buy 1.4T over [censored] 1.8L.Don't you guys have the diesel Cruze?


That car of legend is rumored to be hitting our shores in 2012 as a 2013 model. While I'd like to believe that, we've been burned on diesels so many times before.


The diesel was officially announced by GM just last week. So here it comes.

 

[Spazdog]

I think I am done with timing belts.

I remember [complaining] about doing it on my 2.3 Mustang. And that hooptie had about 18 inches between the radiator and the front of the engine.

They only got worse.

My Scoupe? bad.
Ex-Mother-In-Law's Sunbird? I hate this engine. I will burn the [darned] thing to the ground before I do another one.
The Convertible's 6G73? real bad.
Integra GS-R? not as bad but no picnic.
Wife's Eclipse GT 6G72? repeat of my convertible.
Wife's PT-Cruiser GT? Worst thing ever.

I've decided that I'm just not going to do them anymore unless they are on a 2.3 Fox body where I can practically stand in the engine compartment and change it.

 

[Jiles]

My personal opinion, concerning "timing belts" is that they are just a cheap way to activate valves!
I do not want a rubber belt used for this purpose, regardless of the change interval.
While searching for a newer automobile, I elemitated ALL vehicles with rubber timing belts and discovered something very interesting.
As most of you know Lexus is just a fancy Toyota. However Lexus uses the same V6 engine that is in a Toyota with one exception--They equip the Lexus with a timing chain, not the rubber belt!
That should be evidence of which is better.

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted By: Jiles
My personal opinion, concerning "timing belts" is that they are just a cheap way to activate valves!
I do not want a rubber belt used for this purpose, regardless of the change interval.
While searching for a newer automobile, I elemitated ALL vehicles with rubber timing belts and discovered something very interesting.
As most of you know Lexus is just a fancy Toyota. However Lexus uses the same V6 engine that is in a Toyota with one exception--They equip the Lexus with a timing chain, not the rubber belt!
That should be evidence of which is better.

Example?

 

[Quest]

I maybe the only one on this board that passionately supports (likes) T-belts, guess I've done enough T-belt jobs to become fond of it.

Pros: quiet, doesn't stretch much (the good ones I mean), easy to service (better than tearing apart the engine to get to the chain + guide rails, hydraulic-actuated chain tensioner, etc.)

Cons: cost for seriously good quality parts, some awkward engine locations, etc.

I personally not a big fan of chains, no matter how much general NA motoring joes fond of.

Q.

 

[Norm Olt]

Wonder what a replacement (OUT OF WARRANTY) turbo for a 1.4 will co$t in$talled?

Imagine: replacing a timing belt after ONLY 100,000 miles! Why most people will have to do that (how many times?) once (or never?) in the entire time they "own" (or "lease", maybe?) the vehicle!

I'd be a lot more concerned about the replacement cost of the 17 or 18" tires, myself!

 

[NateDN10]

Originally Posted By: Norm Olt
Wonder what a replacement (OUT OF WARRANTY) turbo for a 1.4 will co$t in$talled?

Imagine: replacing a timing belt after ONLY 100,000 miles! Why most people will have to do that (how many times?) once (or never?) in the entire time they "own" (or "lease", maybe?) the vehicle!

I'd be a lot more concerned about the replacement cost of the 17 or 18" tires, myself!

This guy has a point. They're only a problem if neglected. Other than that, it's just part of the TCO for a car.

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: Norm Olt
Wonder what a replacement (OUT OF WARRANTY) turbo for a 1.4 will co$t in$talled?

Imagine: replacing a timing belt after ONLY 100,000 miles! Why most people will have to do that (how many times?) once (or never?) in the entire time they "own" (or "lease", maybe?) the vehicle!

I'd be a lot more concerned about the replacement cost of the 17 or 18" tires, myself!



You bring up great points.

Oh and that turbo charger is GM part #55565353 and the GM list price is $665.64. Not very hard to change either but bet it would be around $1000 at a dealer.

 

[addyguy]

I'd still buy a 1.8L NA Cruze LONG before I bought a small, overworked turbo engine or a diesel.

Whether a belt or chain, the NA Ecotecs are a proven, bulletproof engine that will last a long time with little trouble.

 

[CBR.worm]

I used to hate timing belts, I changed enough of them.

Now I don't really care. A timing belt change at a good shop costs less than a set of 4 tires. As far as cost per mile over a couple hundred thousand miles, the timing belt is inconsequential. If you can do it yourself it is downright inexpensive.

I would rather have a timing belt than a broken A/C - not that there is any relation, but the last time I had an A/C failure it cost about the equivalent of 5 timing belt changes. And that was on a Chrysler - with a belt.

What bothers me slightly more is a car that is designed to be unserviceable.

 

[Spazdog]

Wait, it just occured to me....isn't the 1.8 with a timing belt actually a Daewoo "D-tec" with a cast iron block and more closely related to the Aveo than the actual ecotec in a Cavalier/HHR/Malibu...etc...?

OHHHHH!!! the "D-TEC" is a "Family 1" ecotec and the ones I was thinking of are "Family 2" ecotecs

 

[artificialist]

Originally Posted By: Norm Olt
Wonder what a replacement (OUT OF WARRANTY) turbo for a 1.4 will co$t in$talled?

Imagine: replacing a timing belt after ONLY 100,000 miles! Why most people will have to do that (how many times?) once (or never?) in the entire time they "own" (or "lease", maybe?) the vehicle!

I'd be a lot more concerned about the replacement cost of the 17 or 18" tires, myself!

Turbo durability depends on maintenance of the car, and proper design of the car.

Use synthetic oil only, and wait a minute before shutting off the engine.

There are many SAAB and Volvo engines with the OE turbo working at 200,000 miles.

However, it doesn't work on some cars, such as the Mazda RX-7.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: needsducktape
Its interesting you noticed the non-econo car gas mileage -So did motor-trend. . . .

In fact the Hyundai -which brags about 40mpgs on every single commercial AVERAGED some of the worst. (I think it was 24mpg)
The civic had the best average gas mileage even though their Highway rating was "only" 38. a (Just an FYI -it was a great article and they tested just about every small car- Focus, Corolla, Cruze, Civic, 3, etc etc)

The thing people should pay attention to most- AVERAGE fuel economy.


That is a good comparison article.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1107_best_selling_compact_sedan_comparison/viewall.html

Their fuel economy results:

VW Jetta TDI 32.3 mpg (30/42 EPA) 3207 lb
Honda Civic 29.4 (28/39) 2725
Ford Focus 27.9 (27/37) 3062
Mazda3 27.8 (24/33) 2897
Toyota Corolla 27.6 (26/34) 2792
Hyundai Elantra 25.7 (29/40) 2819
Kia Forte 23.9 (26/36) 2917
Chevrolet Cruze 23.8 (24/36) 3208

It seems curb weight is a better indicator of fuel economy than the EPA numbers. For the gasoline powered vehicles, there was a closer correlation between MT's results and curb weight than between the test results and the EPA numbers. Consumer reports found a similar discrepancy.

The Elantra did alright in CR testing though, at 29 mpg. It was behind the Corolla (32 mpg) and Civic (30) and just ahead of the Mazda3, Forte, and Focus (all at 28).

It seems like one should just throw the EPA numbers out and buy the car they like.

 

[sciphi]

Kinda why the Cruze Ecos are wiping the floor with their EPA estimates. They weigh 200 lbs less than a regular Cruze while being blessed with more efficient gearing. That little 1.4 doesn't need to work as hard gaining or keeping speed.

Make a good car, then add lightness. Looks like Chevy's engineers were listening to that axiom when management told them to make a "halo" MPG king Cruze.

 

[hattaresguy]

I'm surprised, the people who buy those kind of cars usually don't like to spend a whole lot on maintenance, and a T belt job is probably $400-$600.

GM should go to chains like all the Japanese cars are doing.

Or they can could use gears like Rolls Royce used to...each set for each engine were hand lapped for 80 hours...

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
...
Or they can could use gears like Rolls Royce used to...each set for each engine were hand lapped for 80 hours...


Gear drives make noise unless you use a phenolic plastic gear like the GM 151 "low"TechIV. And we all know how well that worked. About as well as a timing belt for longevity.

The gear drive on Honda VFRs make a distinctive sound. I kind of dig it on the VFR. I don't know if I would want to hear it all the time in a car.

 

[hattaresguy]

I never really noticed it when I was driving a Rolls Royce, I think they do a pretty good job.