ChrisJ
Active member
If I recall belt on 1.8 should be changed at 100K.
The chain, as most modern chains does not have a change interval.
So when most of us 1.4 owners are approaching 200K on the original chain, let us know how the belt is doing.
Interesting Find at Gas Station....Non-Ethanol Gas
- Thread starter Natesriv
- Start date
If I recall belt on 1.8 should be changed at 100K.
The chain, as most modern chains does not have a change interval.
So when most of us 1.4 owners are approaching 200K on the original chain, let us know how the belt is doing.
mitdr774
also a dinner prick
You have more faith in the chain than you should. This isnt a chain like an old SBC had. I have come across plenty of newer (as in 2002+) DOHC timing chains with less than 100k on them that needed replaced. I have also come across a bunch that let loose well before 100k. Even if I had a 1.4 I would be looking to replace the chain by 100k anyways.
Belts work, chains work. They both have advantages and disadvantages. Either way, if it fails you are looking at a new head. If the only insult you can come up with is about the belt then it must not be as bad of an engine as you claim. I have many reasons to no longer have a desire to own a 1.4T. Talking with people that work on them way to often almost makes me glad I ended up with a 1.8. Afterall I did buy the car for reliable transportation for work that would return decent economy.
Belts work, chains work. They both have advantages and disadvantages. Either way, if it fails you are looking at a new head. If the only insult you can come up with is about the belt then it must not be as bad of an engine as you claim. I have many reasons to no longer have a desire to own a 1.4T. Talking with people that work on them way to often almost makes me glad I ended up with a 1.8. Afterall I did buy the car for reliable transportation for work that would return decent economy.
mitdr774
also a dinner prick
I always check the pump when i fill up, but have had very limited success in finding E0 fuel. Last time I looked it up I think the closest road fuel station with E0 was about 20 miles away. What brand is the station you are using?
ChrisJ
Active member
Back up a second.
How bad of an engine have I claimed the 1.8 is?
So bad that I bought one?
We've been down this road many times.
1.8 good
1.4T better
$ub$onic's 1.8 = a pile of junk.
Them's the rules.
Yes, I bust chops of those that own 1.8s mainly because they are so sure it's a "better engine" even though it falls short on practically everything compared to a 1.4T.
But a bad engine!?! No sir.
BTW, back in the day at least according to my old man SBCs needed new timing chains by 100k. My 1980s-1990s ones went 200K+ though. Not sure what changed, I can only assume oil quality.
mitdr774
also a dinner prick
What I see and what those i know that work on them see is:
1.8 reliable
1.4 not so reliable
You get high and mighty about how much better the 1.4 is and bash the 1.8. You may not see it or mean it that way, but you do. The only place it really falls short and can be shown to be actually related to the engine is power curve and peak torque. That being said the 1.8 has more power than I need to get around at an acceptable pace, returns great economy, has been completely reliable, and still has plenty of pep for autocross.
Modern DOHC chains are still no where near the long term durability of what a pushrod engine from the 90s was. Back when I was in the dealer I must have pulled at least 5 out of 2.2L L61 engines just by pulling the cam cover and upper guide, all with less than 75k miles on them. Chains break as well. Newer ones are fairly weak. GM has had issues with several engines recently as far as chain failures.
1.8 reliable
1.4 not so reliable
You get high and mighty about how much better the 1.4 is and bash the 1.8. You may not see it or mean it that way, but you do. The only place it really falls short and can be shown to be actually related to the engine is power curve and peak torque. That being said the 1.8 has more power than I need to get around at an acceptable pace, returns great economy, has been completely reliable, and still has plenty of pep for autocross.
Modern DOHC chains are still no where near the long term durability of what a pushrod engine from the 90s was. Back when I was in the dealer I must have pulled at least 5 out of 2.2L L61 engines just by pulling the cam cover and upper guide, all with less than 75k miles on them. Chains break as well. Newer ones are fairly weak. GM has had issues with several engines recently as far as chain failures.
ChrisJ
Active member
Aww, you called me high and mighty, thank you!
Simple Google search came up with this.
Ethanol-free gas stations in the U.S. and Canada
I don't know who you know, or what you have done, all I have to go buy is the Sonic's service schedule. Keep in mine the family 0 engines have been around a long long time and are a newer design than family 1.
Attachments
-
2.jpg
Last edited:
mitdr774
also a dinner prick
For some reason that one wasnt coming up for me, but it is the one I was looking for. Thank you.
ChrisJ
Active member
ChrisJ
Active member
Scot
Athletic Supporter
There's an E0 pump by MPG; opposite of your way home, but it's the BP on the corner of M59 and Hickory Ridge. Saw the pump yesterday - looks like they're branding it as "ATV" fuel. Did not check the price - it's 90 octane, so I'll skip using it since I can get 93 E10 everywhere.
Scot
Athletic Supporter
Back up a second.
How bad of an engine have I claimed the 1.8 is?
So bad that I bought one?
We've been down this road many times.
1.8 good
1.4T better
$ub$onic's 1.8 = a pile of junk.
Them's the rules.
Yes, I bust chops of those that own 1.8s mainly because they are so sure it's a "better engine" even though it falls short on practically everything compared to a 1.4T.
But a bad engine!?! No sir.
BTW, back in the day at least according to my old man SBCs needed new timing chains by 100k. My 1980s-1990s ones went 200K+ though. Not sure what changed, I can only assume oil quality.
PlayCrackTheSky
Member
I'm pretty sure they are required to post ethanol content on the pumps here. I've yet to see one that didn't say "less than 10% ethanol". However, there is a place down the road from my work with a huge sign reading " No corn in our gas!". I stopped and filled up with some ethanol free 93 yesterday (3.99/gal). I noted MPG on the way to work this morning...showing 38 at 100 miles into the tank. This would be a nice increase compared to my usual avg of about 34-35 in the RS. I will finish out the tank and report back with final hand calculated MPG. Hopefully it isn't just a placebo effect and I'm overly babying it just to see the numbers go up.
Last edited:
Insanika
Super Moderator
It's Cenex. The only station in town with branded fuel. Says right on the pump "contains no ethanol" station owner asked for it for his Mercedes and Lexus and BMW lol.
red hot sonic
New member
Why is my 1.4 sonic average 31.5
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
Swordsmith
242hp/252 ft-lbs BNR EFI
Complicated question, we would have to know a lot more about your driving habits and environment and testing in order to hazard a guess realistic guess.
However, my wild stab in the dark is that you drive short distances in stop and go traffic, punch the accelerator to get up to speed quickly, apply gas until you get close to a stop or slow down, then use the brakes, and when you are on highways, you drive in excess of the posted limits.
Some combination of the above seem to account for most of the "why is my mpg low" questions. There -are- some instances where something has been found wrong with the car itself, instead of just the nut behind the wheel, but they seem to be a relatively small minority.