2011 Cruze tonight

[Kyle2k]

Originally Posted by Kyle2k

Is it going to be the same LNF or an updated version?

Bueller?

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by Kyle2k

Bueller?

I would think it's an updated version. Not sure though.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by All-Or-Nothing

In your link they are refering to the 2.4 DI non-turbo Ecotec. Your original comparison was to the 2.0 turbo version in the Cobalt SS. Do you remember talking about how good it's time was at "The Ring".

Now in 2006 the 2.0 supercharged LSJ was on Ward's list but that is not the turbo version engine you were mentioning. In fact the turbo version has not been on Ward's list at all.

The 2.4 DI that is on Ward's list is not a turbo engine either so I don't know what point you were trying to make.

My point is that it IS laughable to say that both the 2.0 Ecotec turbo engine and the Ford 2.0 EcoBoost engine are the same technology. Similar hardware but engine control and integration with the vehicle is no comparison. The engine management and control is the key to EcoBoost.

It is apparently hard to get you to understand that even the Ford engineers that worked on the ecoboost thought that they were first. When the 2.0 SIDI turbo was pointed out to them they were, ummmmmm sad because they thought they were first.

Of course Ford press releases make the ecoboost to be more special than you believe it to be.........and that's ok.

My point was that you said, "ecotec is laughable". My point is the SIDI non turbo is recognized as one to the 10 best engines. The 2.0 is part of that engine family. And since the 2.0 T is not currently in production (soon to be though) it isn't up for the 10 best.

Just thought you were wanting to engage in an actual powertrain discussion, not have me have to line by line disect the ecoboost for you. That's all.

My point is simply the ecotec is a fine engine and further the 2.0T beat Ford to market by 3 years. That's all. Your point and correct me if I'm wrong is that Ford tells you that "oh no! It's much more than a SIDI Turbo. It's "special"". Well even the Ford engineers didn't see it as more special than the ecotec when they were riminded of it. But you can and it will make Ford very happy that you do.

And to be clear, I've never said the ecoboost wasn't a great engine or a great effort by Ford.........only that the Ford engineers didin't know they were beaten to market by GM because simply believed they were first. They acknowledged they weren't so I take their word for that.

[DGthe3]

Isn't the ecoboost about being able to 'deliver the power of a V6, with the fuel economy of an I4' (or V8 power, V6 economy as the case may be) through the use of turbo charging, VVT, and direct injection? If so, the 2.0L Turbo from the Cobalt SS (and others) certainly fits the bill. It's output was the comparable to most V6's, delivered 22/30 mpg which is comparable to a lot I4's out there (and significantly better than most V6's and T4's). And, it only needed regular unleaded gas to do all this. You can argue about the 1's and 0's in the computer, but compare the tech and compare the results and they're nearly the same thing.

[Morepwr]

Did you get a chance to check gas mileage at all while you had the car? Just wondering what the real world numbers will be since thats what this car is built for.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Isn't the ecoboost about being able to 'deliver the power of a V6, with the fuel economy of an I4' (or V8 power, V6 economy as the case may be) through the use of turbo charging, VVT, and direct injection? If so, the 2.0L Turbo from the Cobalt SS (and others) certainly fits the bill. It's output was the comparable to most V6's, delivered 22/30 mpg which is comparable to a lot I4's out there (and significantly better than most V6's and T4's). And, it only needed regular unleaded gas to do all this. You can argue about the 1's and 0's in the computer, but compare the tech and compare the results and they're nearly the same thing.

+1

"Ecoboost" is a name. And if I recall correctly, it was supposed to be called something else before a genius (and I mean that sincerely) had the idea to give it a catchy name and hype up something that's not a new concept at all: SIDI + turbocharger + 4 cylinders equals one potent can of whoop-a$$.

The fact that Ford and GM "controls" their engines differently shouldn't.....really.....come as a shock. Plug an SSs ECM into a GT and see what happens. **DUH!!**

To say that one is 'laughable' and the other is not because of this...is, to be brutally honestly, laughable in itself. It's like arguing a MS Word for Apple is superior to MS Word for Windows because of the way its written.

[All-Or-Nothing]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

+1

"Ecoboost" is a name. And if I recall correctly, it was supposed to be called something else before a genius (and I mean that sincerely) had the idea to give it a catchy name and hype up something that's not a new concept at all: SIDI + turbocharger + 4 cylinders equals one potent can of whoop-a$$.

The fact that Ford and GM "controls" their engines differently shouldn't.....really.....come as a shock. Plug an SSs ECM into a GT and see what happens. **DUH!!**

To say that one is 'laughable' and the other is not because of this...is, to be brutally honestly, laughable in itself. It's like arguing a MS Word for Apple is superior to MS Word for Windows because of the way its written.

Twin force is what it started off as and no it is more in depth than your example.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by All-Or-Nothing

Twin force is what it started off as and no it is more in depth than your example.

What is so radically different about what Ford accomplished with turbocharging+direct injection+VVT that makes GM's use of the same combination of technologies laughable?

[TheCaptain]

I sure like this Cruze. A nice little car that hopefully owns its segment.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

What is so radically different about what Ford accomplished with turbocharging+direct injection+VVT that makes GM's use of the same combination of technologies laughable?

It's so different that it's specifically in depth with regards to the details of its vagueness.

Originally Posted by TheCaptain

I sure like this Cruze. A nice little car that hopefully owns its segment.