# 2.0 in 2012 Focus vs. the 1.4 turbo in Cruze



## scidork (Jun 1, 2011)

Although I don't have any numbers (and in fact the numbers might state the opposite), I felt the Turbo 1.4 in the 2011 cruze had a much more satisfying pull than the 2012 Focus. Granted, I drove an auto focus and a manual Cruze but I tend to shift early so when the turbo kicks in, and it coincides with the powerband pretty well, its a nice pull at once compared to the Focus which seeks the highest gear it can manage. 

The focus looks more muscular but fell pretty short in the one test drive I took.

I did drive over the same route with both.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

This is a Cruze forum! You know which one we will say . But honestly, I looked at both. The focus looks more attractive at base model but I think RS Cruzes blow it out of the park. The thing to keep in mind with the Cruze is that it is a bit heavier than the focus and the powerband from 1.4T is as low as 1850 RPM vs. Ford Focus' 4400 RPM. I couldn't trust any website because all comparisons seemed to be written by Ford Fan-boys -_-. Overall, the ride quality and interior did it for me. I actually had to look at the Fusion more than the Focus to compete.

Ohh, random fact... They have similar fuel economy, but Cruze has the 15.6 gal vs. a 12.4 gal so be prepared for more stops at the pump!


----------



## tsc (Sep 11, 2011)

I looked at both- Manuals- cruze was more fun to drive and had a lot more headroom in the backseat.


----------



## 03glock (Sep 5, 2011)

I am a Ford fan boy big time. But I got the cruze... The cruze is not as fast and doesn't handle as well. I liked the cruze better because it has a smooth ride and is a little bigger. This is my personal observations. You might find the opposite.


----------



## feh (May 29, 2011)

We test drove a 2012 Focus when deciding what car to purchase back in June - I really didn't like the Focus interior. The Cruze has more low-end torque due to the turbo.


----------



## Crewz (Jul 12, 2011)

Well the Cruze has a forged rotating assembly cause it's built for boost, so I would guess the 1.4T Cruze.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

I test-drove a base Focus DSG and a 2011 Eco MT when deciding between them. The Eco pulled harder sooner, and longer thanks to the turbo and transmission. I chose the Eco since it had the options I wanted already included, MT Focuses are totally unavailable for any price, the Ford DSG shifted like a beginning MT driver, and I couldn't stand the interior switchgear on the Focus. The Cruze also felt far more substantial with better-feeling switches and more logical controls, at least to my mind. 

I'd guess the Cruze's 1.4t would be more durable because it needs to cope with a turbo, whereas the Focus doesn't. The Cruze also has a lot more room around the engine than the Focus, so doing common maintenance tasks looks easier.


----------



## mike7139 (Sep 10, 2011)

Thank you for all the replies. I have alot to think about. I just wasn't sure if the turbo on the 1.4 would cause it to wear out faster as compared to an engine without a turbo. I know the engine in the Focus is non turbo(160hp) but Ford plans to add a 2.0 Ecoboost in the Focus making 247hp but I hear its even possible that might get bumped up to 350hp. This shows me that the 2.0 may be pretty durable. I wonder what the HP on the 1.4 would be if it wasn't turbo? 

I will have to do more comparison test between the two. I currently drive a 2001 Grand Am GT that I purchased in October of 2000 and it has been reliable for me. I have always owned GM vehicles. I was originally going to go with a new Cruze but after seeing a few 2012 Focus vehicles on the road it kind of made me say to myself, hey maybe I should check out the new Focus.


----------



## LadyInBlue (Aug 26, 2011)

The LS is not a turbo. I am real pleased with mine and I have always had imports ( except for 1 Ford Ranger POS )!







mike7139 said:


> Thank you for all the replies. I have alot to think about. I just wasn't sure if the turbo on the 1.4 would cause it to wear out faster as compared to an engine without a turbo. I know the engine in the Focus is non turbo(160hp) but Ford plans to add a 2.0 Ecoboost in the Focus making 247hp but I hear its even possible that might get bumped up to 350hp. This shows me that the 2.0 may be pretty durable. I wonder what the HP on the 1.4 would be if it wasn't turbo?
> 
> I will have to do more comparison test between the two. I currently drive a 2001 Grand Am GT that I purchased in October of 2000 and it has been reliable for me. I have always owned GM vehicles. I was originally going to go with a new Cruze but after seeing a few 2012 Focus vehicles on the road it kind of made me say to myself, hey maybe I should check out the new Focus.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

Horsepower of the 1.4 without a turbo would likely be 90-95 hp and 90 ft/lbs of torque. It's not a particularly powerful engine off-boost. There's enough to maintain speed up okay size hills, and not much more. 

Given GM's history with forced induction and being on a forum with lots of modded supercharged 3.8 V6 (L67 and L32) cars all running quite well at 100k+ miles, I'd bet on GM getting the LUJ right.


----------



## eagleco (May 3, 2011)

I think it's important to keep in mind that this is not a high performance application of a turbocharger. The point is to allow the use of a smaller displacement engine for better gas mileage. As someone else pointed out, the engine is beefed up to handle the extra stress from what is a modest turbocharger. Also it is intercooled, and a semi synthetic oil is specified. 

Small displacement turbo engines will become very common over the next several years. The turbo V6 in the Ford F150 now outsells the standard V8.


----------



## alex725 (Apr 2, 2011)

I sell Fords and I drive a Cruze. Nuff said.


----------



## mike7139 (Sep 10, 2011)

LadyInBlue said:


> The LS is not a turbo. I am real pleased with mine and I have always had imports ( except for 1 Ford Ranger POS )!



The only thing I don't like about the 1.8 on the LS is that it has a timing belt instead of a timing chain. I would hate to put out money on getting the timing belt replaced at regular intervals.


----------



## Gritts (Jan 23, 2011)

I haven't driven a Focus--only looked at one on the lot. I like the exterior design and dislike the interior, but that's a matter of individual taste. I thought the interior on the Ford not as nice as the Cruze.

One thing to consider is the fact you can install a tune on the Cruze that significantly increases power for only a modest cost. This one thing could make all the difference down the road when you want a little more bang from your buggy.


----------



## mr_raider (Aug 13, 2011)

The GM is a small displacement iron block engine with a turbo, tech that's 2 decades old. Should be no issues. The Ford 2.0 is a direct injected aluminum engine, which is almost decade old tech also. Neither would concern me too much over the long run.

Of much more concern is Ford's dual clutch six speed which has pretty abrupt shifts. The Gm uses a good old fashion 6 speed slushbox, so I would consider it less failure prone. Remember how much trouble VW had when they first started using their DSG transmission.


----------

