TRIFECTA Performance

Gen 2 Cruze turbo upgrade currently under development and testing!

Some consumers choose to modify their vehicles, for many reasons. In some cases, it's to add or enhance function (e.g. a truck lift kit to provide better off-road clearance). In other cases, it's to customize the look of the vehicle (e.g. aftermarket wheels and tires, lowering suspension, etc.). And in some cases, it's to enhance the performance of the vehicle (e.g. aftermarket 'tuning', exhaust system upgrades, cold air intake systems). So, the question becomes: Is a vehicle manufacturer obligated to cover “warranty issues” on vehicles that have been modified with parts or software that were not designed by the manufacturer? The short answer is “yes, so long as the warranty claim is for a part which is shown to have a manufacturing defect.” However, given the increasing complexity of vehicle designs and the inter-dependence of cross-vehicle systems and components, it's getting easier for the manufacturer to claim that ANY modification could have wide-reaching consequences and lead to the failure of a part which is, in fact, not defective. We commonly joke about manufacturers denying a warranty claim because of the installation of aftermarket lug nuts, but here's an example of how a manufacturer might rationalize this: Let's say there's a wheel hub bearing failure. The vehicle is towed to an authorized service center, they inspect the vehicle and find there are aftermarket chrome lug nuts installed. At this point they could reasonably claim that the aftermarket lug nuts are not known to be manufactured to the same weight, and balance tolerances that the factory lug nuts use, and as such, their installation lead to unusual forces on the wheel hub bearing which lead to its “unnatural” failure. As such, the warranty claim is denied because there's a plausible theory as to how the bearing failure could in fact be due to the installation of an aftermarket part. It would be in the domain of the vehicle owner to prove the manufacturer's theory is false. The above scenario is assumed to be fictional, but this one appeared in automotive media in 2016: A customer buys a brand new Chevrolet Silverado pick up truck, and as part of the sales contract purchases an aftermarket frame lift kit for the truck, which is installed by the dealership. After he takes delivery of the truck, he drives it for some period of time, then the Service Airbag light comes on. He brings it in for service at the same dealership that he purchased the truck from and to the very service department that had installed the lift kit. The dealership refuses to fix the issue under warranty. The stated cause? The aftermarket lift kit caused changes in the way certain airbag sensors operate (because the suspension and frame geometry were modified), causing a false-positive condition in the airbag sensor diagnostics. In both of these scenarios, it would be difficult (and expensive) to push back on these assertions the manufacturer is making. At the same time, it also leads one to wonder whether the manufacturer ever engages in abuse of this power? At the end of the day, it's murky, because in some cases, vehicle owners are trying to stick the manufacturer with the cost of making warranty repairs to the vehicle that they almost certainly caused via modification, and in others the manufacturer is hiding behind the aftermarket parts argument to avoid making repairs to a legitimately defective part. In some cases, a dealership service department may even have incentive to refuse to honor a warranty claim when they could, by procedure, have it honored. The economics behind a dealership service department are not well known, but it is possible that service departments receive a different compensation rate from a warranty claim than they would from a direct-pay customer. The following scenario may illustrate this: The owner of a new (and warrantied) Chevrolet Cruze buys and installs an aftermarket intake system. He gets the vehicle tuned by an aftermarket company. At some point later, one of the pistons fails and replacement is required. The piston failure issue is a WELL known and WELL documented issue with this engine, and between the dealership and the manufacturer there would be almost no question that this failure is in fact because of whatever defect leads to the failure in the first place (which the manufacturer has made no formal statement on). However, instead of repairing this vehicle under warranty, the dealership instead effectively cancels the rest of the power train warranty and says the modifications to the vehicle are the cause of the failed piston. This vehicle owner now has no power train warranty left, and is on the hook to pay for piston replacement. Is this treatment justified? Or is it an abuse of power? Again it is murky. Dealership service centers are the “gatekeepers” in many cases to the policy of what gets fixed under warranty and what does not. They are the ones that may make the decision to look deeper (or the manufacturer may request it). When an obviously-modified Cruze comes in with broken pistons, whether its a known issue or not, the very fact the car is visibly and obviously modified may give cause to look into it deeper (or flat out deny the claim on the basis alone). If it's what appears to be a completely stock Cruze with broken pistons in the manner described in the technical bulletin, there's likely to be no question about it. The level of aggression the manufacturers might display in this regard is almost certainly related to the cost of the warranty repair. It's one thing for the manufacturer to be looking at having to replace pistons in a 4 cylinder engine, it's quite another to be looking at having to replace an entire V8 diesel truck engine because there's a connecting rod hanging out of the side of the block. As such, manufacturers have taken up certain countermeasures, some are known publicly, to identify when a vehicle has been tampered with, be it via hardware (parts), software (tuning) or some combination thereof. On top of that, there's been (as far as we know, unsubstantiated) rumors that manufacturers are even turning to social media to identify people who have openly discussed modifying their cars. Unfortunately, nobody in the aftermarket can ever be sure what tampering countermeasures are being taken by the manufacturer at any point in time, nor what countermeasures may be taken in the future. Nobody can be sure what “non official” countermeasures are being taken, either. A good example of this is GM's OnStar. Think of your vehicle as having a communications backbone, for all the ECUs to communicate with one another, as well as diagnostic tools and aftermarket flashing tools. The OnStar module can effectively operate as a bridge between your vehicle's network and GM's OnStar network in any location that the OnStar's connection to the network can be established (it operates over the cellular phone network). This means, on a technical level, at least, anytime an ECU in the vehicle is flashed, as long as the vehicle is active on the OnStar network, the manufacturer may know about it, and/or make a log of it. They may even know the contents of the flash itself. The above scenario is unproven, just a technical analysis of what's possible, but here's another one that shows to what extent countermeasures may be deployed. On the diesel truck engines, massive gains can be made in power with just tuning alone, mainly by changing the fuel rate and increasing the turbocharger boost. With the availability of low-cost commodity tuning software, one could recalibrate their diesel truck for about $500 plus the cost of a laptop computer. No training in diesel tuning is required. The unfortunate reality is that while it's “relatively straightforward” to make more power with tuning in your diesel truck, to do so reliably requires a much higher level of engineering skill, in some cases outside the scope of what the factory ECU software is even capable of. The manufacturer started getting suspicious when they saw all of these diesel truck engines coming in for warranty repair with melted pistons. Suspecting they might be caused by poor quality aftermarket recalibration, they devised a new technique for identifying whether the tuning had been tampered with. They added a new parameter to the transmission control module where it would record and “remember” the highest amount of torque the transmission was subjected to. How does this work? The engine control module has to estimate how much torque it's making mainly for the purpose of having the transmission shift with the correct amount of line pressure and also with regard to the traction control system operation. Every time the engine controller transmitted its estimated torque output to the transmission controller, the transmission controller would compare the value to the previous highest value, and if the new value was higher, it'd remember that one. The new procedure involved scanning this parameter out of the transmission controller if melted pistons in a diesel engine showed up at the service center. This number SHOULD never be higher than the factory specs of the engine, and if it was, it was considered possible evidence of tampering. The bottom line is there are upwards of 70 ECUs in modern day vehicles, and any one of them is capable of reading (and storing) information transmitted by other ECUs. Tampering “counter-countermeasures” of any type may afford some protection against abuse of power by an over-zealous (or morally impure) service center, but ultimately if there's some sort of suspicious vehicle component failure despite the lack of any evidence of modifications, the service center will almost certainly try to use social engineering to find out if the vehicle is or was modified previously: “Have you ever tuned this vehicle?” “Have you ever installed any performance parts on this vehicle?” “Our techs found some anomalous ECU data string widget constructs and say it was tuned.” “Are you Joe Smith on Facebook also?” Questions and statements like these put the vehicle owner in a potentially tricky situation. If it was modified, and they tell the truth, their warranty's probably gone and they're on the hook for repairs. If they lie about it, then they may have just committed fraud. Refusal to answer the questions at all may be construed as suspicious as well. The only true way to be sure the manufacturer power train warranty remains in effect for the full duration with regard to aftermarket modifications, is to not aftermarket-modify the vehicle. Not even the lug nuts. -TRIFECTA Performance, Inc.

Figure 1 – Racer X Manifold for the 1.4L Turbo (RPO:LUJ/LUV) Summary We found, with appropriate recalibration, the Racer X Fabrication intake manifold increases power as measured on the dyno, by up to 12 horsepower as measured at the wheel. Torque output peak was unchanged, but did shift up the RPM band by about 200 RPM (e.g. it took 200 RPM more to reach peak torque). Figure 2 – Dyno sheet showing Stock vs Racer X performance Beyond the power gains, it is our opinion this product will be popular in this market because it also permanently and effectively addresses the PCV issues this engine is known for, provides a custom upgrade part (and look) for these vehicles, and also allows for future expansion, as there are several unused ports in the end of the manifold which could be utilized for additional instrumentation, or water, water/methanol, and/or nitrous injection directly into the manifold. Comparison to Ported Intake Manifold (OE) Prior to the arrival of the Racer X manifold, the only other intake manifold modifications that had been widely used were the porting of the intake runners of the stock intake manifold, the so-called ported intake manifold, and the PCV system modification. Figure 3 – Stock Intake Manifold with “air tumblers” The OE intake manifold has a restriction in the runner near the intake port. It is believed these are actually air tumblers and are meant to induce intake charge swirl for more efficient combustion. However, it is also theorized that these air tumblers reduce and restrict airflow when higher levels of airflow are introduced (e.g. turning up the boost, upgraded turbocharger, etc.). We had performed a preliminary test on a ported manifold versus a stock manifold several years back and saw negligible change in power on the dyno, but a possible loss of efficiency (more timing advance was required to maintain similar power levels to unported manifold). Ironically, while the effect is the ECM reports the power output level has increased due to the additional timing advance (despite a wash on the dyno), the loss of efficiency could be attributed to less efficient mixing of the air and fuel charge due to the lack of tumblers, but a more conclusive test is needed. Figure 4 – OE Ported Intake Manifold The PCV system modification addresses PCV system failures that are prevalent on this engine by utilizing an external, and more robust check valve for introducing PCV vapors back into the intake manifold. This is achieved by installing a brass fitting in the bottom of the PCV chamber in the intake manifold, routing the PCV vapors either to a throttle body spacer, or the brake booster fitting. Figure 5 – OE Manifold PCV Modification While both of these modifications are popular in the community, they are also considered do it yourself (DIY) modifications which require special tools and skill. At the time this test was conducted, we did not have a ported intake manifold available, but we plan to do a comparison to it in the future. TRIFECTA Calibration Support We are pleased to announce immediate and full support for the Racer X manifold for the GM 1.4L turbo engine in our full custom calibration tier (Elite). Additionally, we will offer a free update for any TRIFECTA customer of record on or before 05/31/2018, regardless of which product tier they purchased! Test Vehicle The test vehicle is a 2016 Chevrolet Cruze Limited LT, equipped with the 1.4L Turbo engine (RPO: LUV), and the six speed automatic transmission. The vehicle has approximately 18,500 miles on the odometer, and aside from the manifold is also equipped with a catless down pipe, cat less mid pipe, and K&N cold air intake system. There were no other pertinent modifications to the vehicle. “92 octane” fuel, considered premium unleaded in the Seattle, WA area was used for all tests. Figure 6 – Test Vehicle Test Procedure In order to keep the test results as accurate as possible, we tested both manifolds on the same day, on the same vehicle, on the same chassis dyno, back to back. We tested the Racer X manifold first, since we had installed it previously for calibration procedure. After performing several test “pulls” on the dyno, in manual 4th gear, we let the car cool down, installed the stock manifold, warmed it to operating temperature, and performed several test “pulls”. From the beginning of the test procedure, to the end, the ambient air temperature only changed about 2*F. The dyno used was a Dynojet 424xLC all wheel drive dyno equipped with eddy current load cells (but were not used for the test). The vehicle was operated in manual 4th gear for all test pulls. After the dyno brake was released, the vehicle was put in manual 3rd gear, run up to 20 MPH, shifted to manual 4th gear, then decelerated to 1100 RPM, and then a wide open throttle maneuver was executed. The vehicle was operated until 6200 RPM, and the dyno “pull” was concluded. Figure 7 – Test Vehicle on the dyno, with Racer X manifold Installation The installation of this manifold is fairly straightforward, but isn't 100% “reversible” (more on this later). The manifold has an optional PCV system “add-on”, but we couldn't see how this manifold could be installed without it, unless one chose to simply vent PCV gases to the atmosphere, or perhaps someone wanted to fabricate their own PCV solution. Installation requires transferring (from the stock manifold): 1. The fuel rail and fuel injectors to the new manifold, 2. The EVAP solenoid, and 3. The Manifold Absolute Pressure (MAP) sensor. The installation instructions also call for retaining the turbo bypass valve (BPV) control solenoid so the Engine Control Module (ECM) won't set the check engine light, but we chose to skip this step and devised a means of installing the manifold without the BPV control solenoid without any negative effect via the ECM calibration. While we say this kit isn't 100% “reversible” (more like 90% “reversible”) it's of little consequence, in our opinion, because it would be unlikely an end customer would want to, or ever go back to their stock intake manifold. It's not fully reversible, because it requires cutting of some of the hard plastic lines that route to the brake booster and the PCV vent to the turbocharger inlet in order to complete installation. Initial Test Drive Our test vehicle was equipped with the production TRIFECTA Advantage calibration. On the first test drive, we noticed two issues with the vehicle, one was a hesitation and “dip” in power, in some cases accompanied by audible spark “knock” in the 5000 RPM range under full acceleration, and what seemed to be a somewhat laggy pedal response. While the manifold manufacturer states the manifold will work without issue on the stock calibration, it was clear to us that some additional calibration work would be needed for vehicles that have a more powerful aftermarket calibration. One net effect of using this intake manifold, which sports a larger intake plenum volume than the factory intake manifold is that actual manifold pressure levels end up lower than stock (while moving a higher amount of airflow due to flow and efficiency improvements). These changes in airflow and pressure dynamics showed us more in depth recalibration would be required. Dyno Calibration Session We spent most of a full day addressing the vehicle performance issues we had noted previously (the most time consuming being the full recalibration of the wastegate duty cycle table). We were able to resolve all of the performance issues and were able to regain the throttle response we experienced with the stock manifold. After completing the dyno calibration session, and resolving some minor calibration issues with street testing, we put approximately 1000 miles on the vehicle as a short term reliability test. No further issues were experienced. Airflow and Pressure Statistics When we performed the final back to back test on the dyno with the Racer X manifold vs the stock manifold, the following airflow and pressure statistics were observed: Airflow (mass air flow sensor) lb/min, 6020 RPM and Manifold Absolute Pressure: Compressor inlet pressure: 98 kPa RacerX: 18.55 lb/min, 211 kPa (113 kPa, 16.385 psi boost) Stock: 18.32 lb/min, 227 kPa (129 kPa, 18.705 psi boost) At 6020 RPM, in both cases, maximum pressure is obtained from the compressor. However, despite the manifold being at almost 2psi less boost pressure RacerX vs stock, the airflow is still higher, which is a more accurate measure of performance. We also sampled the data at 5500 RPM, the airflow differences were more pronounced (with similar manifold pressure): Compressor inlet pressure: 98 kPa RacerX: 18.62 lb/min, 229 kPa (131 kPa, 18.995 psi boost) Stock: 17.52 lb/min, 225 kPa (127 kPa, 18.415 psi boost) Conclusion Our testing has shown this product increases power, addresses several long-term issues with this platform (PCV system issues) all while offering a unique and customized look to the enthusiast's Chevrolet Cruze or Chevrolet Sonic! We believe it will continue to be a popular choice for people seeking the best for their vehicle!

We started with a 2017 Chevrolet Cruze hatch. We took the original engine and transmission out, and swapped in an engine and transmission from a 2017 Chevrolet Malibu Premier. This is the 2.0L turbocharged engine coupled with the 9T50 front wheel drive 9 speed automatic transmission. With proper calibration work, this engine and transmission in its stock form can deliver about 300HP at the flywheel. This equates to around 240HP at the wheels, which is about 70WHP more than the LE2 can produce with a proper tune. We didn't stop there, though. We also installed aftermarket cams to increase airflow and fuel pump supply. And we added our "T40" turbocharger, which produced darn near 400HP when we tested on a Chevrolet Malibu recently. We have an aftermarket front mount intercooler for tuned up 2.0T engines, a cold air intake, and a custom dual-outlet exhaust system. The challenges were many in building this car. Which axles to use? Which mounts? Where to move the radiator to make room for the turbocharger? The wiring! The engine may fit in this car like it was designed for it, but there couldn't be much more different with the wiring harness on the Cruze vs the Malibu. But, in the end, it all works, as if Chevrolet themselves built the car. You push the start button and the engine roars to life through the custom exhaust system with an aggressive yet tasteful note. It may seem like the little things, but it's the little things that matter: The gauges work. The heater works. The brakes work. Shift it into Drive, and you're off. The 9sp automatic transmission peels through the gears smoothly. Put the pedal down, and hold on. The car is a work in progress, there's still a few things that need to be done with it (like fabbing a bracket for the ECM instead of using zip ties lol), but make no mistake, the Cruze has entered a new age.

Initial testing puts this on par with a tuned LE2, and will cost a heck of a lot less than it would cost to trade up to one. Stay tuned as we move forward on this project!