Saturn Astra

kinkyllama · Post by **kinkyllama** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:08 am

I can't beleive no one has posted this yet...unless I missed it.

138hp & 126lbs.ft, ~2800#.

18" wheels, HID projectors, projector fogs, ect

No idea what engine or tranny it has though. It is a 1.8l ecotec..but that's all I could find. I would have guessed it uses the C18XEL or X18XE but the compression ratio isn't right. The top speed in each gear is with 4mph in each gear as my D20 was though.

daewoomofo · Post by **daewoomofo** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:33 am

http://www.daewootech.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9782

Rodd1s · Post by **Rodd1s** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:46 pm

ive driven a 1.8 astra... and their engines are realy not that perky. felt more like a heavyweight cruiser to me.
although, the one i drove only had around 125bhp & 125ft-lb, it still didnt feel much for what its supposed to be.

Pir0 · Post by **Pir0** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:44 pm

Was it a twin port?

The twin port 1.6 astra gives a 2.0 8v [c20ne] engined Nexia a run for it's money.

Was really shocked when i first seen this lol, they have a really viscious diff in them, and they're forever blowing them from wheelspin as the diff starts beating each wheel giving and taking away power to get traction. But i must admit, they can get off the line pretty quick with it. Pity about the strength of it, guess something has to give when it's as viscious as that.

Rodd1s · Post by **Rodd1s** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:19 am

nope, wasnt a twinport, as i said it was the lower power 1.8 with max-bhp just above 5000rpm (felt like a low-torque diesel) lol

i have driven one of the latest 1.6 twinport astras aswell (was one of the two cars i did driving lessons in) and that thing didnt realy seem all that either, even when he told me to boot it to get up to speed down the dual-carraige ways. the 1.8 turbo-diesel focus i had after that was better.

gse_turbo · Post by **gse_turbo** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:47 am

here is what I wrote about it after my test drive. There is one thing I have to say that I didn't mention before, there is a hell of a blind spot on the D-pillar. once you get used to it the car is great and to argue with Rodd1s, I think the car is pretty damn peppy, far more than the Lanos or Aveo.

gse_turbo wrote:Well this weekend I started R&D on the "Saturn" Astra and the car is a champ!

as everyone know, the 1.8 is based on the 1.6 but they are NOTHING alike. everyone knows that the new model has a VVT head but the bottom end is completely redesigned as well and I'm VERY impressed.

one good thing is that the mounting flange for the rear disc's look to be a direct bolt on to the lanos rear beam (in no way are the rear beams interchangeable) but I'm still waiting on the cad files from Saturn's before I end up putting my foot in my mouth.

this 1.8 puts puts out more hp than the 2.0 OR 2.2 and I can see why. the exhaust system is well done and is nothing like what you would come to expect from a manufacturer. there are no unnecessary bends and the ones there are mandrel bent and don't seem to pass 50degrees at any point. it also appears to have only one cat, a long glass-back like resonator and a muffler.

the tranny is an F17 yes that implies a mechanical clutch system. the linkage is the same use since the early 80's so this means the short shift linkage that I'll be offering shortly for the D16, F16... will be a direct fit. the flywheel... it uses the traditional 6-bolt mount for the flywheel (like other 1.6, current euro eco's, and early 8v motors) but for the first I've seen it uses the dish or pot style flywheel like the C20LET.

the front calipers look to be based on the GSI calipers and there for would use the same pads as the 1.6 lanos (theoretically).

the car is stout and it looks like it is getting great support from the manufacturer (importer in this case) with factory sport spring and suspension options and several trim packages.

there seams to be little room for needed improvements the intake is relatively well put together and I don't see a reasonable gain with most CAI systems. however, I highly recommend a short shift linkage because the throws are quite long. I don't remember looking specifically but from all the picks I believe they went with returnless fuel system for the better emissions rating so that may be an area of aftermarket improvement.

Pir0 · Post by **Pir0** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:44 am

I thoguht the 1.6 twin port was nippy, for a 1.6, and for the size of the car, it aint small like.

Rodd1s · Post by **Rodd1s** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:40 am

the car itself is pretty heavy though, which is probly why they dont feel too nippy.
the 1.6 twinport i drove had all the extras (a/c, leather(/vinyl?) seats) and it was a 5dr - which could explain sluggishness.

ive even seen an astra 1.8 16v cabriolet getting spanked by a 1.3 8v Pug 106 rallye - which realy shows the difference between lightweight vs. heavyweight

i reckon if one of those 1.8 astra's were stripped to make it as light as possible, and minor engine mods it could go like hell.

and personally, i cant compare an astra to a lanos or aveo/kalos yet, cos ive never driven a 1.6 version of either. ive only got my 1.3, which at the moment is slow as anything due to the boot being loaded to and astra gte's complete suspension set-up. lol

another car thats good for its engine size is the Corsa C 1.2 16v - beats a Lanos 1.3 8v to 60 and top end.

Pir0 · Post by **Pir0** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:54 pm

astra gte's complete suspension set-up. lol

Would prefere a GTE any day, but seeing as it's a daewoo, it's cool ;D

Yeah, i've been in one of those 1.2 16v SXI Corsa C's, and we out ran a quad-cam Subaru legacy on backroads, was amazing.
They're EXTREMELY nose heavy though. Hit a bump and lifted off the ground and the front bumper almost scraped off the ground we went that far nose down.

Was completely standard btw.

gse_turbo · Post by **gse_turbo** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:59 pm

I've been doing a ton of R&D for the Saturn Astra 1.8 and I can say beyond any doubt that the 1.8 is in NO WAY related to the A16 as previously suggested. It's not related to the R90, A16, 4ZC1 or any other motor that could mount to an F16, F17... atleast now that I can remember. I'll look into it more today but I have a feeling that the 1.8VVT is a completely new motor (and I am in love with it!)

there is one really cool thing, it uses floating piston pins and uprated rods like the redtop motors and the CR is 10.5:1.

there are a ton of other cool facts but until I can find out what the motor is related to I'll keep back some of the specs.

Cheers

jidasas · Post by **jidasas** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:29 am

I just read today that they may produce a redline version which will get the 2.0 turbo

Chevy is also gonna put that motor into the 2008 HHR SS and 2008 Cobalt SS later this year. The manual tranny ones will get 260 hp versions and the autos will get 224 hp versions.

Personally I think Chevy should look at producing a Camaro with an available 2.0 turbo. I mean driving a 4 cylinder camaro and having more power than a V8 mustang (the 240 horse versions) would be awesome.

Jimmy

gse_turbo · Post by **gse_turbo** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:04 pm

the only thing I don't like is that if they do that it is most likely that they are going to use the aluminum ecotec which I think is WAY over rated. I was on GM performance parts site yesterday and I noticed that the 2.2 all aluminum "golden child" only puts out 145hp! the 1.8 puts out 138! the aluminum motors are a joke.

figure a modest turbo system will add 60% hp. this can be sean with the 2.0 S/C motor only getting 205. if they just lower the compression on the 1.8 and turboed that you would see as much hp as the 2.0 turbo. again, THE ALUMINUM MOTORS ARE OVER RATED!

I just pray they don't stick that lump of crap in another Opel that has come over seas like the Opel GT (Sky) and the Vectra (Ion I think).