hokman

With the new Vectra facelift, Opel took the chance to introduce a much needed replacement for the aging weak 1.8.

March 23, 2005
New 1.8 liter 140 hp Gasoline Engine to Extend Opel Engine Line-up

Adam Opel AG

* More power, reduced fuel consumption, improved elasticity, enhanced refinement
* Continuously variable camshaft phasing and two-step intake manifold
* Intelligent lightweight design further enhances efficiency

Rüsselsheim … Power output increased by up to 14 percent, fuel consumption decreased by about four percent, improved elasticity and enhanced refinement — these are the most important advantages of the brand new 103 kW/140 PS 1.8 L Opel ECOTEC gasoline engine, when compared with its same-displacement, 125 PS predecessor. The highly efficient four-cylinder unit will debut this summer in the new Opel Zafira and be available in the Vectra and Signum, as well as other Opel models, in the near future.

The all-new four-valve engine features numerous technology-highlights: Two continuously adjustable camshafts (DCVCP — Double Continuous Variable Cam Phasing) to optimize the charge cycle; a two-step intake manifold with a rotary sleeve instead of flaps to minimize flow losses; a highly efficient oil-water heat exchanger; a map-controlled thermostat; and a deep drawn exhaust manifold with an integrated catalytic converter. With a power output per liter of 57 kW/L, the new 1.8 ECOTEC engine is one of the most powerful in this displacement class. Ninety percent of the 175 Nm maximum torque is available over a wide range from 2200 to 6200 rpm, which ensures lively performance even at low engine speeds, for relaxed everyday driving.
"With its low fuel consumption and responsive performance, the highly efficient new 1.8 L gasoline engine is another example of Opel's long-standing tradition of offering innovations not for their own sake, but only when they deliver real benefits for the customer", says Hans H. Demant, GME Vice President, Engineering, and Managing Director, Adam Opel AG.

Tests with the Opel Vectra resulted in MVEG-cycle fuel consumption of 7.3 L/100 km — 0.3 L or four percent less than the previous Vectra 1.8. Maximum speed (213 versus 205 km/h) and acceleration (0 to 100 km/h in 10.5 versus 11.2 seconds) have also been significantly improved.
Mass reduction, achieved by consequent lightweight design, also contributes to the high efficiency of the engine. In spite of additional features such as DCVCP, the engineers succeeded in making the new engine three percent lighter than the previous version while achieving increased stiffness and structural strength through extensive stiffening measures in the head and block. The cylinder block alone is 20 percent lighter than its predecessor. Due to the hollow frame concept, the gray cast-iron block weighs just 27 kilograms including the bearing caps. The new 1.8 engine weighs a mere 118 kilograms according to the DIN 70020 standard, resulting in an excellent weight-to-power ratio of 1.14 kg/kW.
Camshaft phasing allows adjustment to operating conditions
Unlike conventional engines, where the crankshaft and camshaft are mechanically linked in a fixed Crank Angle (CA) via a toothed belt or a chain, this engine allows the intake and exhaust cam to twist relative to the crankshaft. This is continuously varied on the new 1.8 L engine using an extremely compact, lightweight hydraulic vane type phaser. The variable range is 60° CA on the inlet side and 45° CA on the outlet side.

Depending on the engine's speed and operating conditions, the valve timing can be selected for optimum performance or fuel consumption. Advantages of the double camshaft adjustment include higher power output and torque characteristics over a wide engine speed range due to optimized cylinder charging; reduced exhaust emissions thanks to high exhaust gas recirculation rates; and reduced fuel consumption via a de-throttled charge cycle.
Important data on the new 1.8 engine at a glance:
1.8 ECOTEC
Displacement (cm3) 1796
Bore/stroke (mm) 80.5/88.2
Cylinder distance (mm) 86.0
Compression ratio 10.5:1
Power output (kW/hp at rpm) 103/140 at 6300
Max. torque (Nm at rpm) 175 at 3800
Exhaust emission standard Euro 4

This engine would be a great addtion to the Cobalt line, because as a economic car the 2.2's fuel consumption is much higher than class norm. Corolla's 1.8 get 42 mpg while cobalt's 2.2 gets only 27. The new 1.8 will beat corolla's 1.8 power and almost match the 2.2 and gets much better economy. This will really rank up Cobalt's slow sales. With fuel prices so steep nowadays, the cobalt just couldn't survive with only the large 2.2 as the base model.

hokman

This brand new 1.8 is also very high tech with dual cam valve timing, variable intake manifold, and variable valve control (camphase).

Therefore this engine should be quieter and rev sweeter than the 2.2. While maintaining remarkable flexibility with maximum torque of 175Nm spanning from 2200-6200 redline like the new bentley continental flying spur! And it does so without a turbo.

moxjake

Hopefully some of these technological advancements will be introduced into the larger 2.0 and 2.2 litre models.

PenguinPIE

iTrader: (5)

exactly!....put it into the 2.2 and crank out 180 hp

brianfcp

screw 1.8, what about a 5.7L LS1 with 350hp/365tq? Im sure the cobalt will be quick then...

actually, come to think of it, id rather have the 1.8 with VVT. id lose 5hp from the 2.2, but a 1.8 being smaller and more technology, itll be quicker than the 2.2L.

All these things happening right now with cobalts makes me wish I bought one next year...

PenguinPIE

iTrader: (5)

yea....theres nothing wrong with 1.8....but personally i never want one>< its just that everytime i think of 1.8, ill remind myself that its a 1.8 ....so as the ones in corollas.......and I HATE IT...

brianfcp

But based on this information, the 1.8 with vvt will be better than the current 2.2L. (faster, higher mpg, etc)

stlurbanpunk

i voted yes.
it goes both way for me though.
yes- better gas milage, cleaner emissions, lighter
no- it IS a 1.8 L engine, this is america!
but the ss s/c is only .2 L more. so chew on that.
i think it sould be standard on the avao, but optional with the cobalt, like an economy package to bring the price down to like 10 g.
just my $.2

Maven

iTrader: (1)

While I do want GM to remain healthy, and to do so means lower operating costs, which would be realized by more engine sharing, I dont look forward to seeing the 1.8L ECOtec from GM Europe arrive in the states....this engine shares nothing with the L61,LSJ(and soon LE5) ECOtec that we all know and love. Its just badged as ECOtec because that is one of GM Powertrain engine brand names. the biggest reason I dont want to see this engine, and most likeyl reason we wont is that it has belt driven camshafts, not chain like virtually every North American GM powerplant. While it would make adding cam sprockets(pulleys) easier, it also increases maintenance and lowers reliability. I vote no.

philco_3

Whats in the Aveo? Cause I heard thats a rebadged Opel. If not that would a more suitable engine for it. The 2.0 SC, 2.2, and 2.4 should only be in the Cobalts, Pursuits and Ions. Just my thought.

Maven

iTrader: (1)

the Aveo is not an Opel its built by GM in Korea and used to be known as a Daewoo. it doesnt have an ECOtec. its got a belt-driven OHC 1.6L(in USA)

Scarred

I don't think I like it. Anything under a 2.0 just reminds me of like a Honda or VW.

jzchev28

how is it that you think a VVT engine is going to bring down the price????

avro206

As long as there is a significant fuel economyto justify it over the 2.2L I voted yes.

I still woud get a bigger engine though

bredick

Did I not read something right? From what I got out of the info it has a hydraulic cam drive, not belt or chain. If it is hydraulic, wouldn't that virtually eliminate maintence?

Maven

iTrader: (1)

No it has hydraulically adjustable cams....meaning the cams pulleys are two pieces have a helical spline(curved) in them and when they are forced away from each other by oil pressure routed into the pulleys chamber the cam moves in relation to the pulley, thereby adjusting its and the valve timing.

If anyone needs further clarification of GM's VVT systems I can post some more info.

hokman

Um.. Toyota has switched to VVT engine since 2001. So instead of still relying on displacement, GM should move forward with technology and use VVT. It's time NOW, or it'll be too late. To most customers, using 2.2 in a 1.8 class segment is just low tech.

Rival ford has just switched to a VVT 2.0 for the focus that's designed in cooperation with mazda.

And from the cobalt I driven, it's refinement and smoothness is below its rivals. Especially eagerness, the engine runs out of breath really quickly at 5000 rpm, rather like a diesel engine. The mazda5 I test drove 2 days ago is just the opposite, the car doesn't really move below 3000 rpm, but really wakes up after wards until 7000 rpm. The smoothness is much better and sounds really nice compared to cobalt 2.2.

GM needs to put in the 1.8 ecotec VVT for the cobalt now, or they will be together with the koreans.
The 2.4 should really be reserved for the Malibu. Most rivals are 2.4 like camry, accord, altima is 2.5. 2.2 for malibu is just outclassed, and the 3.5 V6 is so low tech and heavy even when compared to the koreans. 2.2 for the malibu would be alright if it at least has manual gearbox. But for now, the malibu is just a waste of the excellent epsilon european platform.

Maven

iTrader: (1)

GM has been using VVT techniques for several years now. The Trailblazer/Envoy/Ranier/Bravada/Saab9-7x all use VVT, the Cadillac Northstar V8 uses VVT, the 2.4L ECOtec LE5 uses VVT, the 3.9L V6 in the MalibuSS/G6GT/Impala/Monte Carlo and other vehicles uses VVT. As does the new Global High Feature V6 in displacements between 2.8L and 3.6L.

And that "lowtech" OHV V-6 in the Malibu/Impala/Monte Carlo gets 30mpg or more.

hokman

Yes, since GM is already using VVT in so many of its cars already, why not the cobalt?

And in a V6, people expect performance and is ready to pay the price of fuel. If people want economy, they would get a diesel. Especially when that ancient iron V6 lump burdens the nose that much and creates so much understeer, people doesn't really want that in a range topper. Nor the uninspiring noise it makes.

avro206

Thats a real blanket statement your making. "To most customers, using 2.2 in a 1.8 class segment is just low tech"
I would genralize that its mostly hp/litre freaks (notice I am generalizing and guessing since I don't have any polling data) that would even care.

I think its smart. A larger enigne makes more torque and won't need as agressive gearing to make ot acclerate fast.

Reveiew after review of the Matrix with the 1.8L complains about no low end torque---no one complians about that in the Cobalt.

All a GM dealer would have to do is compare the torque numbers--the 2.2L kills a 1.8L Toyota.

I have driven Honda engines, Mazda and the 2.2L---I found the sound and smoothness excellent. Better, no---but damn close. And light years ahead of any other GM 4 cly engine. While I didn't find the 2.2L to have alot of high rpm power--neither did I find the Mazda 3.

Reserving the 2.4L for the Malibu? NO! When GM builds an engine they need to maximize capacity---its called economy of scale---the more units you build, the cheaper they get.
Nissan drops that 2.5L in the Sentra you know.

"the 3.5 V6 is so low tech and heavy even when compared to the koreans"

Get back to me when you have some actual numbers stating enigne weights.
You see these OHC engines have really massive clyinder heads--and they aren't light.

A aluminum 2 valve Malibu head is easily lighter then A 4 valve ohc or dohc head.

"But for now, the malibu is just a waste of the excellent epsilon european platform"

Pretty much agreed. Gm could have done better.

VVT--sure add it--although GM version doesn't
seem to add much hp. 1.8L Eco-tec, sure but keep the 2.0L 2.2L and 2.4L (maybe the 2.0L S/C shuld be dropped for a blown 2.2L ?)

I wanna see direct injection! Cars that have added that pick up more power then VVT--and they run cleaner.

cobalt7801

The only benefit I see of Chevy introducing a Cobalt with a 1.8L is the fact it includes the vvt. If they brought this technology over to the 2.2L or 2.oL you would get even greater results out of an already well rounded engine.

Maven

iTrader: (1)

the 2.4L LE5 HAS VVT....it is going to be in the Cobalt SS.....and may be optional in other models(as it is in the HHR, which is just a Cobalt derivative)

zinner

My Honda VFR (motorcycle) has a gear driven cam system (16 valve , V4) and it sounds FREAKIN awesome.

As for belt driven cam's has anyone had a friend with a Honda who didn't change the timing belt out like they should of and it borked their ride ? I have

hokman

Actually, the main reason they should add the 1.8 to the line is because the 2.2 has too poor economy compared to rivals. Of course the power from a 2.2 is greater than a 1.8.

jzchev28

since when is 34mpg poor economy????