Interesting Find at Gas Station....Non-Ethanol Gas

[$ub$onic]

With all of the gas that pig of a 1.8 is wasting you'll be able to buy 5 turbos by the time you junk the car.



:banana: opcorn: :banana:

The 1.8 is really not that much worse.

Say you take a 1.8 getting 35 and a 1.4 getting 40.

1.8= 420 miles over 12 gallon
1.4= 480 miles over 12 gallons.

A whole 60 miles further.

So is gas was 3.50 a gallon. You save a whopping... $5.25......

Of course all mpg numbers are average, blah blah blah. You get the point.

This fill up I am expecting 40 mpg out of my 1.8. (Will post when I fill up)

 

[ChrisJ]

The 1.8 is really not that much worse.

Say you take a 1.8 getting 35 and a 1.4 getting 40.

1.8= 420 miles over 12 gallon
1.4= 480 miles over 12 gallons.

A whole 60 miles further.

So is gas was 3.50 a gallon. You save a whopping... $5.25......

Of course all mpg numbers are average, blah blah blah. You get the point.

This fill up I am expecting 40 mpg out of my 1.8. (Will post when I fill up)

Comparing my mileage to yours is irrelevant. Being I owned a 1.8 for 11,000 miles and nothing has changed that is the perfect comparison. Same person, same trips every day, same driving habits etc.

33MPG vs 40MPG consistently.


I drive 1800 miles a month.

1.8 = $185.64
1.4 = $153.00

Average savings of $32.64 a month. Over 5 years that's $1958.40
Glad I spent the $700 for the 1.4 option.

Not to mention the better low end power and nicer sound.

If I try, I can squeeze 48+mpg out of my 1.4 on my normal commute, but I gotta try for that. Normal driving gets me 40 all the time.

 

[$ub$onic]

Comparing my mileage to yours is irrelevant. Being I owned a 1.8 for 11,000 miles and nothing has changed that is the perfect comparison. Same person, same trips every day, same driving habits etc.

33MPG vs 40MPG consistently.


I drive 1800 miles a month.

1.8 = $185.64
1.4 = $153.00

Average savings of $32.64 a month. Over 5 years that's $1958.40
Glad I spent the $700 for the 1.4 option.

Not to mention the better low end power and nicer sound.

If I try, I can squeeze 48+mpg out of my 1.4 on my normal commute, but I gotta try for that. Normal driving gets me 40 all the time.

No arguments with the sound.


And I was using highway mpg for a 1.8 5 speed and a 1.4 6 speed from fuel Economy.gov.




It's only 700 if you are already buying a lt+

It's a couple grande + 700 to go from a Ls.


So you maybe break even over 5-7 years

 

[ChrisJ]

No arguments with the sound.


And I was using highway mpg for a 1.8 5 speed and a 1.4 6 speed from fuel Economy.gov.




It's only 700 if you are already buying a lt+

It's a couple grande + 700 to go from a Ls.


So you maybe break even over 5-7 years

For the better lowend power I feel it's worth the upgrade alone.
It's shame the LS isn't available with the option to get the 1.4 for $700. Some people flat out don't want power windows and crap regardless of the cost.

Problem is,
We have now thrown the thread off topic, and it's a good thread IMO.

 

[mitdr774]

I suspect the majority of the economy advantage the 1.4 has is purely due to the transmission.

I have never felt as though I need an extra 20ft-lbs of torque while driving around town or getting on the highway

 

[ChrisJ]

I suspect the majority of the economy advantage the 1.4 has is purely due to the transmission.

I have never felt as though I need an extra 20ft-lbs of torque while driving around town or getting on the highway

Yeah well,

I'm fat. That 20 extra ft-lbs goes a long way.


I'd have to look, but are you sure it's only a 20ftlb difference @ 2000rpm?

 

[mitdr774]

I rarely go wot, so I'm sure its a lot more than 20 ft-lbs.

 

[SuperFudd]

Yeah, well,

My 1956 Chevy had no timing belt OR turbo so it was trouble free.
Except for the time I only had low gear 50 miles from home at 3am.
And the time a wheel fell off.
And the time the main bearing seized.
And the time...
At least I could count on 16 mpg highway.

 

[Swordsmith]

The reason the 1.4 gets better mpg is not because it gives you more power, but rather because it gives you less. Most of the time, you aren't in boost, you're just driving along sipping gas in what is for all intents and purposes, a smaller less powerful engine, requiring less fuel to do the same job. But when you need power, the turbo kicks in, turning your engine into the equivalent of a larger more powerful (and more fuel hungry) one. Stock, there's little difference between the two engines at full power, just a bit more torque, which as it happens, is what you're using when you are accelerating.

In another recent thread, someone pointed out that to cruise down the highway at 60 only requires about 11 hp.

If the difference was the transmission, then there would be no difference in mpg between the 1.4t and the 1.8 automatics, since those both have the same 6 speeds.

 

[ChrisJ]

The reason the 1.4 gets better mpg is not because it gives you more power, but rather because it gives you less. Most of the time, you aren't in boost, you're just driving along sipping gas in what is for all intents and purposes, a smaller less powerful engine, requiring less fuel to do the same job. But when you need power, the turbo kicks in, turning your engine into the equivalent of a larger more powerful (and more fuel hungry) one. Stock, there's little difference between the two engines at full power, just a bit more torque, which as it happens, is what you're using when you are accelerating.

In another recent thread, someone pointed out that to cruise down the highway at 60 only requires about 11 hp.

If the difference was the transmission, then there would be no difference in mpg between the 1.4t and the 1.8 automatics, since those both have the same 6 speeds.

Are they both geared the same with the automatics? If I recall 1.8 has 6T30 and the 1.4T 6T40?

Doesn't mean they don't have identical gearing, just wondering.

 

[mitdr774]

6T30

First 4.449
Second 2.908
Third: 1.893
Fourth: 1.446
Fifth 1.00
Sixth 0.742
Reverse: 2.871
Final Drive Ratio: 3.47


6T40

First 4.58
Second 2.96
Third: 1.91
Fourth: 1.45
Fifth 1.00
Sixth 0.75
Reverse: 2.94
Final Drive Ratio: 3.87


While the gear ratios appear to slightly favor the 1.8 trans for economy, we do not know the efficiency of the transmissions.

The 1.8 5MT will sit at just shy of 2500 RPM at 60 MPH on the highway. Where does the 1.4 sit? It depends on what trans you have but if not mistaken I think the RS sits right around the same spot as the 1.8 does. RS and a 1.8 5MT get roughly the same economy. I suspect that with the correct M32 the 1.8 is more than able to match 1.4 numbers for economy.

 

[Natesriv]

IIRC I'm below 2K at 60mph in 6th...

 

[ChrisJ]

6T30

First 4.449
Second 2.908
Third: 1.893
Fourth: 1.446
Fifth 1.00
Sixth 0.742
Reverse: 2.871
Final Drive Ratio: 3.47


6T40

First 4.58
Second 2.96
Third: 1.91
Fourth: 1.45
Fifth 1.00
Sixth 0.75
Reverse: 2.94
Final Drive Ratio: 3.87


While the gear ratios appear to slightly favor the 1.8 trans for economy, we do not know the efficiency of the transmissions.

The 1.8 5MT will sit at just shy of 2500 RPM at 60 MPH on the highway. Where does the 1.4 sit? It depends on what trans you have but if not mistaken I think the RS sits right around the same spot as the 1.8 does. RS and a 1.8 5MT get roughly the same economy. I suspect that with the correct M32 the 1.8 is more than able to match 1.4 numbers for economy.

Several problems with that assumption.
They mate certain ratios to certain engines in certain vehicles for a reason. The 1.8 with the M32 might be awful.

Next, you're assuming a larger displacement engine would get the same fuel economy was a smaller one running at the same rpms. Why would you ever make this assumption? With that logic a 1.8 should get the same economy as a 5 liter running at the same rpms under the same conditions.

We know that isn't true, therefore it can't be true for 1.4 without boost vs 1.8.

 

[mowcowbell]

I've ran 100% gas through dozens of tank fills and noticed absolutely no difference. Mine averages around 32 mpg whether it's 87 E10 or 91 100% gasoline.

So in my case, it's a waste of money.

 

[Natesriv]

I suspect mine will be the same way.

 

[tommylama]

I have no idea what my rs is at on the tac at 60 mph. I'm normally sitting at 3k for 80mph.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[mitdr774]

Several problems with that assumption.
They mate certain ratios to certain engines in certain vehicles for a reason. The 1.8 with the M32 might be awful.

Next, you're assuming a larger displacement engine would get the same fuel economy was a smaller one running at the same rpms. Why would you ever make this assumption? With that logic a 1.8 should get the same economy as a 5 liter running at the same rpms under the same conditions.

We know that isn't true, therefore it can't be true for 1.4 without boost vs 1.8.

GM is famous for not putting a whole lot of effort in properly matching ratios to engine/vehicle combinations. If its something that is currently available and will be close enough, it gets used.

The additional 0.4L is not a massive jump in displacement. I still stand by my theory that a 1.8 and 1.4 will achieve about the same economy if given equal transmission ratios. Based on some very quick math it appears as though the RS should be within about 100 RPM of a 1.85mt at 60 MPH. Both are rated at just about the same highway economy. If the lack of displacement was such an advantage then the RS should be higher than the 1.8 by more than 1 MPG.

I never claimed that a 1.4, 1.8, and 5.0 would get the same economy at the same RPM. The jump to a 5.0 is just a bit asinine. Even with the 5mt I can still run low to mid 40s without much effort. I suspect that the proper M32 would bump that up to 50mpg. My best is still 51.92. I am sure there was a slight tail wind there though, but a Cruze Eco running 5 mph faster than I was only managed 50.8 for the same trip on the same day.

a 1.4 without boost will be even more gutless than you suggest the 1.8 is so by your suggestion the 1.4 should be running at a higher RPM than the 1.8 does. If a 1.4 can run at low RPM without and positive manifold pressure then a 1.8 sure can. When my 5 MT calls it quits I plan on swapping to a M32 and testing out my theory.

 

[ChrisJ]

GM is famous for not putting a whole lot of effort in properly matching ratios to engine/vehicle combinations. If its something that is currently available and will be close enough, it gets used.

The additional 0.4L is not a massive jump in displacement. I still stand by my theory that a 1.8 and 1.4 will achieve about the same economy if given equal transmission ratios. Based on some very quick math it appears as though the RS should be within about 100 RPM of a 1.85mt at 60 MPH. Both are rated at just about the same highway economy. If the lack of displacement was such an advantage then the RS should be higher than the 1.8 by more than 1 MPG.

I never claimed that a 1.4, 1.8, and 5.0 would get the same economy at the same RPM. The jump to a 5.0 is just a bit asinine. Even with the 5mt I can still run low to mid 40s without much effort. I suspect that the proper M32 would bump that up to 50mpg. My best is still 51.92. I am sure there was a slight tail wind there though, but a Cruze Eco running 5 mph faster than I was only managed 50.8 for the same trip on the same day.

a 1.4 without boost will be even more gutless than you suggest the 1.8 is so by your suggestion the 1.4 should be running at a higher RPM than the 1.8 does. If a 1.4 can run at low RPM without and positive manifold pressure then a 1.8 sure can. When my 5 MT calls it quits I plan on swapping to a M32 and testing out my theory.

If you swap a m32 into your car and prove all of us 1.4T owners wrong, I'll admit it when the time comes.

Of course something tells me it would've been cheaper in the long run to just buy an LT with a 1.4 than to go through all of that.

 

[mitdr774]

Sometimes a manual car is only available with the 1.8 and you need a car right now. Initially I wanted the 1.4T, but can not complain about how the 1.8 has performed compared to my expectations for it. It has actually exceeded my expectations. I mainly purchased the car to have a reliable work car that got decent economy. It has been reliable and has returned great economy. Even with playing with the car it has been a great purchase.

I have had one warranty claim and that was for a shift knob issue. I plan to change my timing belt soon, but only due to my lack of experience with belts and not wanting to risk anything. I am sure the belt is good for just as long as a chain would have been. Past experience tells me that a modern DOHC timing chain really needs to be looked at and most likely replaced by 100k miles. If I recall correctly the service interval for the belt in the 1.8 is 90k miles, I am far from that.

 

[Insanika]

Since I discovered that we actually have 91 fuel here, I have been using it. It is non-ethanol. I skipped up from 32.x average to 35.x average. Pretty happy with the even out.