# Some say the Cruze is slow????? i say BS



## chaser x (Sep 3, 2012)

I was hauling *** up a hill at 85 mph lucky no CHP around. Very quiet scary quiet i could sleep while driving not.


----------



## cruzester (Apr 26, 2011)

_Wow, you must have got a lucky car because I think they forgot to include the engine package in mine..._


----------



## iCruze2 (Dec 16, 2011)

Hahahahaha, sorry op, our car is slow. It's an economy car not a race car. :lol:


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Lol at this thread. The Cruze is not fast. Fun, yes. Fast, no. 

Most cars could do 85 if you floor em long enough. Show me 150, I'll be impressed. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## Mick (Dec 31, 2011)

Most Phoenicians do 85 on their morning commute sir.


----------



## firehawk618 (Feb 24, 2013)

LOL fast? Of course this is all one's opinion but my opinion is NOT!

Quick? Not really.

My 90hp TDi feels like it pulls 3x harder than our Eco does and the TDi is definitely NOT fast. That diesel torque feels great.


----------



## iCruze2 (Dec 16, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> Lol at this thread. The Cruze is not fast. Fun, yes. Fast, no.
> 
> Most cars could do 85 if you floor em long enough. Show me 150, I'll be impressed.
> 
> ...


0-85mph in 20.7 seconds is fast!!! bahaha


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

iCruze2 said:


> 0-85mph in 20.7 seconds is fast!!! bahaha


Hey, that's about how long it took my dad's VW Beetle to hit 60! 

But the Cruze is really, really cute when it tries so hard.


----------



## cruzester (Apr 26, 2011)

_C'mon guys. Who knows, it is possible there is some fresh gas in his area..._


----------



## CruzeTech (Mar 23, 2012)

Something I noticed was how much tinting my windshield made the car so much quieter inside. The Cruze is very quiet on the highway. At least mine is 


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## DamanC (Mar 4, 2013)

I've been driving my girls Cruze lately, and while my DD is a V8 sedan, I've noticed that its at least got more pull to it than my last 4 cylinder car (a 2002 lancer) 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## iCruze2 (Dec 16, 2011)

DamanC said:


> I've been driving my girls Cruze lately, and while my DD is a V8 sedan, I've noticed that its at least got more pull to it than my last 4 cylinder car (a 2002 lancer)
> 
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com App


Daman, the cruze is great from 20-65mph...useless for pickup after that


----------



## Poje (Aug 2, 2012)

The 1.4T in stock tune gives the Cruze acceptable performance for its price point and class. (Sedan under 30k)

But b4 the Dart came out, it was the only Turbo gas engine available in its price point, (in Canada), so that made it the easiest to modify and make more power and that's one of the main reasons why i bought mine.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

This car is not fast by any stretch of the imagination. It does _feel_ fast thanks to the torque. A whole host of V6 and 2.0T powered cars can clean a Cruze's clock to 60 mph. Those cars also cost $4-5k more, and are at a significant fuel economy deficit. 

For what it is, the 1.4T is a great daily-driver engine. It's quick enough, fuel-efficient, and decently refined.


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

Guys leave OP alone.

Fast is a relative term... Maybe his previous car was a Kia Pride.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

No complaints whatsoever with my 2012 2LT holding exactly 55 mph with the cruise on some very hilly Wisconsin roads in sixth gear with a MT. But if following other vehicles going up dem hills, have to release the cruise, that tees me off.

Even my Supra that is capable of well over 150 mph with an AT will downshift up those same hills with the cruise on.

I would have to state that the horsepower in my Cruze, is ample.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

NickD said:


> No complaints whatsoever with my 2012 2LT holding exactly 55 mph with the cruise on some very hilly Wisconsin roads in sixth gear with a MT.
> 
> I would have to state that the horsepower in my Cruze, is ample.


You're confusing torque with HP.


----------



## chaser x (Sep 3, 2012)

What a bunch of smart ass jerks in here i though this site was cool in all but now sucks. I was just saying how well the car handles compared to others in its class my. Maybe it time for me to exit this dump of a site.


----------



## OnlyTaurus (Mar 20, 2012)

chaser x said:


> What a bunch of smart ass jerks in here i though this site was cool in all but now sucks. I was just saying how well the car handles compared to others in its class my. Maybe it time for me to exit this dump of a site.


Relax man. If you don't want to be here then leave, but that gives you no right to insult other members.

I really don't see any smart remarks. The other guys are just stating the hard truth, and all are still complimenting the Cruzes ability to move when needed.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

sciphi said:


> This car is not fast by any stretch of the imagination. It does _feel_ fast thanks to the torque. A whole host of V6 and 2.0T powered cars can clean a Cruze's clock to 60 mph. Those cars also cost $4-5k more, and are at a significant fuel economy deficit.
> 
> For what it is, the 1.4T is a great daily-driver engine. It's quick enough, fuel-efficient, and decently refined.


Wait for the diesel, the one in my Cruze which is like the European 2liter turbo which has been driven at 209kph (130mph) on the Autobhan for about 20 miles.


----------



## giantsnation (Oct 11, 2012)

With the Trifecta tune, the Cruze is a quick car. No it won't make it much past 120mph but for around $20K, this car has some balls. Most performance V8s are still not match but it can hold its own against most V6s.


----------



## Vetterin (Mar 27, 2011)

Well, at 100 mph I will put my Cruze up against ANY other car (doing 100 mph). Now GETTING to 100 mph my car is a turd!


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Vetterin said:


> Well, at 100 mph I will put my Cruze up against ANY other car (doing 100 mph). Now GETTING to 100 mph my car is a turd!


Yeah, it'll hold 100 just fine...once you get there 

I went down to Florida for Spring Break back in 2005. With 5 people in my 88 Honda, I was running flat on the floor with traffic in the RIGHT LANE at 95-100 MPH on the Florida Turnpike. An old 1.9L Saturn just cruised on past at 110 MPH. I didn't even know they could go that fast.

Later, a cop passed me going 90 MPH without even a glance, then pulled over someone that had gone flying past me earlier.


----------



## chaser x (Sep 3, 2012)

Most people in sound unhappy with the cruze so go trade up for a sports car etc a ford focus they seem to be out selling the cruze i tons of them in my area. I might go check one out myself to see why they are so popular.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> You're confusing torque with HP.


Not hardly, torque is a force, power is the rate of the doing work based upon the force moving an object in respect to time. Relationship is _HP_ = _Torque_ x RPM/5252. Its power that gets you up those hills. RPM is that time relationship. 

Consider this lesson a freebe.


----------



## chaser x (Sep 3, 2012)

Maybe buyers skip the Cruze to the ford focus because the size of engine. I am stuck in mine for the next 5 years all well maybe the Cruze will change out the engine in the next coming years.


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

chaser x said:


> Maybe buyers skip the Cruze to the ford focus because the size of engine. I am stuck in mine for the next 5 years all well maybe the Cruze will change out the engine in the next coming years.


Just tune it with trifecta. My car is a different animal right now.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

NickD said:


> Not hardly, torque is a force, power is the rate of the doing work based upon the force moving an object in respect to time. Relationship is _HP_ = _Torque_ x RPM/5252. Its power that gets you up those hills. RPM is that time relationship.
> 
> Consider this lesson a freebe.


Not even gonna go there. It's the Cruze's flat torque curve that helps it achieve that low RPM HP. 

The HP is more consistent and less peaky than a non-turbocharged motor because of the flat torque curve. Therefore, you don't have to rev it up much to get power out of it.

PEAK HP, for flat-out acceleration, is something the Cruze lacks.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

chaser x said:


> Most people in sound unhappy with the cruze so go trade up for a sports car etc a ford focus they seem to be out selling the cruze i tons of them in my area. I might go check one out myself to see why they are so popular.


If a Focus is considered a sports car, people have really lowered their standards these days.


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> If a Focus is considered a sports car, people have really lowered their standards these days.


Everyone here thinks they are sports car, i see them racing, er, driving over the limit all the time. Stupid psychology in commercials.


----------



## chaser x (Sep 3, 2012)

I do hate ford but wonder why they are selling i see new ones on the road three out of one Cruze.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> If a Focus is considered a sports car, people have really lowered their standards these days.


I'm sure they're referring to the Focus ST given GMs lack of sport compact offerings. Fords proving to be the most tuner friendly out of the Big 3 (or even internationally). The plethora of EcoBoost engines across almost the entire line up really helps their image in that niche of the market.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> Lol at this thread. The Cruze is not fast. Fun, yes. Fast, no.


Speak for yourself brother. How many sub 200 HP cars can go 0-60 in 7.0 seconds? Didn't think so.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> Speak for yourself brother. How many sub 200 HP cars can go 0-60 in 7.0 seconds? Didn't think so.


Video/timeslip or lies.


----------



## Sunline Fan (Jul 29, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> If a Focus is considered a sports car, people have really lowered their standards these days.


Unless it's an ST, then I'll feel a little less sorry for them.

I'm going to LOL when I see the first Shelby Focus on the road.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Sunline Fan said:


> Unless it's an ST, then I'll feel a little less sorry for them.
> 
> I'm going to LOL when I see the first Shelby Focus on the road.


I will admit, I do like the ST. It just looks a heck of a lot better than the normal Focus. And hey, at least it's not a SRT Neon 

GM has a great Vauxhaul hatch (yes, it's essentially a Cruze on the inside and outside) with 276 HP in England that we'll likely never see here. It would be a great marketshare gap-filler on their part if they were to introduce it in the US.


----------



## Poje (Aug 2, 2012)

Last week i went to my Dealer and my salesman was there. (Hes now a friend)

He said to me : "With the mods you did on your car, you're changing my mind on the Cruze, i love it." (He drives an ATS 3.6)

So if you find that your Cruze isnt fast enough, modify it and its easy. (Thx to Turbo engine, just a lil tune from Vermont tuning cost 500$ and you gain already 1 second on the Quarter mile, no NA engine can do that in this price range.)


----------



## Sunline Fan (Jul 29, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> I will admit, I do like the ST. It just looks a heck of a lot better than the normal Focus. And hey, at least it's not a SRT Neon
> 
> GM has a great Vauxhaul hatch (yes, it's essentially a Cruze on the inside and outside) with 276 HP in England that we'll likely never see here. It would be a great marketshare gap-filler on their part if they were to introduce it in the US.


I'd take a first gen Focus wagon any day before I'd take a Neon SRT-4.

I beat the snot out of the one my grandpa had just before we sold it. Locked up the e-brake, squeaked the tires, etc. Tried to make it slightly more fun, despite the geiser wagon feel.

It sat in the driveway for about two months or so after we cleaned out/turned the keys in to my grandpa's apartment, because we had no garage space for it. Since it was parked on a hill, I pulled up the e-brake. **** thing rusted on there in that time (late spring/early summer) and wouldn't move. Took heating up the rear drum with the torch and beating on it with a hammer to break it loose. And that's when I really went to have fun with that e-brake...


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Certainly seeing enough TV commercials about ECOboost. Didn't GM trademark that Eco name?

Test driving a new Focus, was distracted by those crazy head restrains forcing my head to look at my feet. Salesman riding in the back seat told me most people that buy these things pitch the head restrains after buying them. Just replied, would love explaining that to an insurance company with a broken neck if rear ended. That was another thing, my Chevy dealer let me take a Cruze all by myself, Ford insisted a salesman ride alone. 

What played a minor role in purchasing a new Cruze was that 4,300 bucks sitting in my old GM card account that came off the discounted price. So how come Ford doesn't have a GM card?


----------



## giantsnation (Oct 11, 2012)

Saw the new Fuckus ST on the road this past weekend and its a lot ugly than the pictures or commercials. Big rear end and almost too big from the side - closing in on grandma's station wagon. Seriously! 

What I love about the Cruze (especially with Trifecta) is that it seems like an ordinary ECO car with no balls. Then out of no where, I step on the gas and fly! Turbos are great. I can say this because I had a 2008 Civic Si. And while this had lots of high RPM power, it also screamed rice burner and everyone just assumed all I did all day was race. Everytime I pulled up to a light people would try to race me. Not in the Cruze and I can't say how much I love a sleeper car.


----------



## Maxzillian (Sep 16, 2012)

The idea of this thread cracks me up, but regardless:

Did I buy the Cruze because of the broad torque curve? Yes.
Did I buy the Cruze because it is great on fuel? Yes.
Did I buy the Cruze because I thought it was fast? No!

The car has ample power to do exactly what it needs to do, but by no means it is a quick car. Able, yes. Quick, no. There's a difference.

The way I looked at it, I already have a sports car (1987 Chrysler Conquest) and my truck (1985 C-10 with a 350HO engine) is equally able. I didn't need another fast car.


----------



## 20131pz69 (Oct 22, 2012)

our cars are fast- I pulled on a Ferrari at the light .....











Then I noticed the driver was texting


----------



## brian v (Dec 25, 2011)

Snow snow and some more snow my car goes just enough to get through the snow........
Dang will this winter please go ...I want to go to the beach and think that my car can surf ......


----------



## Mick (Dec 31, 2011)

chaser x said:


> What a bunch of smart ass jerks in here i though this site was cool in all but now sucks. I was just saying how well the car handles compared to others in its class my. Maybe it time for me to exit this dump of a site.





chaser x said:


> Most people in sound unhappy with the cruze so go trade up for a sports car etc a ford focus they seem to be out selling the cruze i tons of them in my area. I might go check one out myself to see why they are so popular.


If your original post would have been you think the Cruze handles great compared to others in it's class I'm sure the responses would have been more positive. Saying you were hauling *** and glad you weren't caught by the cops made you come out as a teenager who loves to street race civics.

I don't think they're unhappy with the Cruze, just being honest on it's power. For the most part we didn't get the Cruze to be a track killer. It would be nice to have a little extra fun power but for what the car is, there isn't anything better in it's price range and looks.


----------



## brian v (Dec 25, 2011)

Right .............. I follow you the Ideas can get obsurd....the cruze is a great vehicle in it's own right the gas mileage on the highways is phenomenal . Not a lot of vehicles in it's class can compete , given the cost factors involved . I drove over 2.000 ,00 miles round trip . 68 miles per hour . 36 .9 miles per gallon. Yes the ls..


----------



## 20131pz69 (Oct 22, 2012)

chaser x said:


> What a bunch of smart ass jerks in here i though this site was cool in all but now sucks. I was just saying how well the car handles compared to others in its class my. Maybe it time for me to exit this dump of a site.


whoa! Easy there- the cruze feels fast- thanks to the awesome engine/ broad torque curve. But if you pit it against the fast cars- ex. 135i, not really. I think most folks are simply comparing differently & we are sharing our opinions, just as you did. 

The handling is excellent. Handling is different from acceleration (original post), though, so i'm a little confused, now ...

No one made a personal attack on you, but you lash out at everyone + site & change your opinion of the site because we don't all agree you on one post- wow! 

hope when you chill, you find you just took things personally, when you shouldn't have & move on ...


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

> So if you find that your Cruze isnt fast enough, modify it and its easy. (Thx to Turbo engine, just a lil tune from Vermont tuning cost 500$ and you gain already 1 second on the Quarter mile, no NA engine can do that in this price range.)





> What I love about the Cruze (especially with Trifecta) is that it seems like an ordinary ECO car with no balls. Then out of no where, I step on the gas and fly! Turbos are great. I can say this because I had a 2008 Civic Si. And while this had lots of high RPM power, it also screamed rice burner and everyone just assumed all I did all day was race. Everytime I pulled up to a light people would try to race me. Not in the Cruze and I can't say how much I love a sleeper car.


Yep. I like my tuned ECO. I am very happy with the performance for how much I paid for the car and the cost of mods.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

This is where the 1.4L Cruze engine fits in with 0-60 times with other vehicles. Famous 1957 super hot rod Chevy would barely break 10 seconds in 0-60 times.


1973 Ford Torino 351ci 0-60 








8.8 seconds 1993 Dodge Intrepid ES 0-60 








8.8 seconds 1998 Chevrolet Cavalier Z24 Convertible 0-60 








8.8 seconds 1986 Ford Mustang LX V6 0-60 








8.8 seconds 2002 Honda CR-V EX 0-60 








8.8 seconds 1998 Ford Crown Victoria Police Edition 0-60 








8.8 seconds 1996 Honda Civic EX Coupe 0-60 








8.8 seconds 2003 Subaru Legacy L Special Edition 0-60 








8.8 seconds 2001 Chrysler Sebring LTD Convertible 0-60 








8.8 seconds 2001 Mercedes-Benz C240 0-60 








8.8 seconds 1996 Honda Accord EX V-6 0-60 








8.8 seconds 1996 BMW 525i Touring 0-60 








8.8 seconds 1991 Mazda RX-7 Conv. 0-60 








8.8 seconds 1986 Acura Integra LS 0-60 








8.8 seconds 1990 Nissan 240SX SE 0-60 








8.8 seconds 1990 BMW 318is 0-60 








8.8 seconds 1989 Volkswagen Jetta GLI 16V 0-60 








8.8 seconds 1994 Pontiac Grand Prix SE 3100 (auto) 0-60 








8.8 seconds 1996 Volvo 850 GLT 0-60 








8.8 seconds 1995 Honda Civic EX 0-60 








8.8 seconds 1994 Nissan Maxima SE (auto) 0-60 








8.8 seconds 1994 Ford Thunderbird LX V6 0-60 








8.8 seconds


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

In contrast, here are some of the slower cars, had to break this list up due to site limitations.


1980 Chevrolet Caprice Classic 0-60 








18.5 seconds 1981 Volvo Diesel 0-60 








18.5 seconds 1976 Mazda Mizer 0-60 








18.5 seconds 1974 Chevrolet Vega 0-60 








18.5 seconds 1981 AMC Eagle (4spd I4) 0-60 








18.6 seconds 1972 Fiat Wagon 0-60 








19.1 seconds 1973 Honda Civic 0-60 








19.3 seconds 1980 Volkswagen Dasher Diesel 0-60 








19.4 seconds 1980 Chevrolet Caprice Wagon (Diesel) 0-60 








19.6 seconds 1980 Mercedes-Benz 240D (4spd) 0-60 








19.7 seconds 1976 Chevrolet Chevette Rallye 0-60 








19.7 seconds 1983 Isuzu I-Mark Diesel 0-60 








19.9 seconds 1931 Chrysler CG Custom Imperial Lebaron Sports Roadster 385ci 0-60 








20.0 seconds 1968 Fiat 850 Spider 0-60 








20.0 seconds 1980 Audi 5000S Diesel 0-60 








20.4 seconds 1981 Audi 5000S Diesel 0-60 








20.5 seconds 1981 Cadillac Seville Diesel 0-60 








21.0 seconds 1976 MGB 18.5 0-60 








21.0 seconds 1979 Volkswagen Rabbit (Diesal) 0-60 








21.3 seconds 1974 Datsun B210 2-door Hatchback 0-60 








22.6 seconds 1973 Volkswagon Super Beetle Convertible 0-60 








23.8 seconds 1968 Fiat 850 Idromatic 0-60 








25.5 seconds


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Cruse certainly doesn't fit in this category, but based on over several hundred cars tested, far above the average. This is not an opinion, but a fact.


2002 Chevrolet Corvette (Lingenfelter 427 twin turbo) 0-60 








1.9 seconds 1996-2002 Viper Hennessey Venom 1000TT 0-60 








2.3 seconds 2006 Bugatti Veyron 16.4 0-60 








2.5 seconds 1994 McLaren F1 0-60 








2.6 seconds 2006 Bugatti Veyron 16.4 0-60 








2.6 seconds 1998 Mercedes-Benz CLK-GTR 0-60 








2.7 seconds 2002 Mosler MT900 Photon 0-60 








3.1 seconds 2004 Volkswagon Golf HPA R32 0-60 








3.2 seconds 2004 Ferrari Enzo 0-60 








3.3 seconds 2003 Saleen S7 0-60 








3.3 seconds 2004 Ford GT 0-60 








3.3 seconds 1999 Porsche 911 GT1 0-60 








3.4 seconds 1999 Mercedes-Benz CLK-GTR 0-60 








3.4 seconds 1966 AC Cobra 427 0-60 








3.5 seconds 2001 Chevrolet Corvette C5-R 0-60 








3.5 seconds 2005 Factory Five Racing Mark 2 roadster 0-60 








3.6 seconds 1997 Porsche 911 Turbo S 0-60 








3.6 seconds 2002 Lamborghini Murcielago 0-60 








3.6 seconds


----------



## giantsnation (Oct 11, 2012)

What the fastest anyone could dare get a cruze to 60mph? 6.25sec, maybe? I know with the tune and a few bolt on parts, you can get close to the 7 sec mark but I haven't seen anyone prove they can beat that mark.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

giantsnation said:


> What the fastest anyone could dare get a cruze to 60mph? 6.25sec, maybe? I know with the tune and a few bolt on parts, you can get close to the 7 sec mark but I haven't seen anyone prove they can beat that mark.


Drop it from a crane, and it'll get there in around 3 seconds.


----------



## titan2782 (Nov 4, 2011)

chaser x said:


> Very quiet scary quiet i could sleep while driving not.


This is one issue I have with the car. I'm used to hearing how fast I'm going, but in the Cruze I frequently do 90-100 because I can't hear/feel the car! I've been using the DIC speedo to make sure I'm not speeding.


----------



## giantsnation (Oct 11, 2012)

titan2782 said:


> This is one issue I have with the car. I'm used to hearing how fast I'm going, but in the Cruze I frequently do 90-100 because I can't hear/feel the car! I've been using the DIC speedo to make sure I'm not speeding.


Cruise control is my friend! Without it, I'd be getting tickets left and right.


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

Well today my car proved to not be slow,

Went to staples picked up invitations (~7 miles), went to apartment told off manager because the things i needed weren't fixed (10 miles from staples), went to Wendy's ate like a beast (1 mile) got back to work (7 miles). 

Took me 2 hours, but zipped me around and the best part...

My gas needle, DIDN'T MOVE. Suckas. And i did floor it past everyone.


----------



## Anrosphynx (Feb 24, 2013)

Not sure anyone buys a cruze thinking its fast, or because they want to go fast..


----------



## giantsnation (Oct 11, 2012)

No, but they quickly realize that it has a lot of power for its class. Even without a tune, it'll eat the elantra, civic, fuckus, and corolla for breakfast.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> Video/timeslip or lies.


You are more than welcome to do the math on my 10.1 second 1/8 mile timeslips. 330' is 6.6, 1/8 mile is 10.1. Using the excel timeslip calculators you get 7.0-7.2 seconds on all of them.

Vince of trifecta got 6.8 seconds on his Cruze 0-60. VTuner using Stage 0 basic tune also got 6.8 in a 0-60. With the Cruze's gear ratios and 170 HP - 180 HP, you get just under 7 seconds 0-60.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

giantsnation said:


> No, but they quickly realize that it has a lot of power for its class. Even without a tune, it'll eat the elantra, civic, fuckus, and corolla for breakfast.


This...I will agree with. It is definitely powerful for its class. 

Saying it's a "fast" car is still laughable, though.



> With the Cruze's gear ratios and 170 HP - 180 HP, you get just under 7 seconds 0-60


I love turbo engines for this reason alone. Although you pay more up front, power increases are CHEAP and easy since the engines are built to withstand being beat on.



> This is one issue I have with the car. I'm used to hearing how fast I'm going, but in the Cruze I frequently do 90-100 because I can't hear/feel the car! I've been using the DIC speedo to make sure I'm not speeding.


It doesn't help that once you get past 75-80, the thing is right in the powerband and wants to fly. 80-90 is quick, even in 6th gear.


----------



## steve333 (Oct 23, 2010)

chaser x said:


> What a bunch of smart ass jerks in here i though this site was cool in all but now sucks. I was just saying how well the car handles compared to others in its class my. Maybe it time for me to exit this dump of a site.


Maybe it's time to hone up on your english studies :th_coolio:
Seriously, though, you will read all things and reactions, and most of them were actually just mildly sarcastic. 
A reply like that one will bring out the biting witty retorts


----------



## steve333 (Oct 23, 2010)

chaser x said:


> I do hate ford but wonder why they are selling i see new ones on the road three out of one Cruze.


The Focus has a sedan, a hatch, a sport model, an optional larger engine plus the name has history and a reliability record.
The Cruze is sedan only with a choice between a way underpowered engine and a slightly underpowered engine.

Ford feasts while GM sleeps


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> plus the name has history and a reliability record.


Uhhh...the original Focus was never very reliable or good.

I mean, sure, it was a better car than the Cavalier, but that ain't saying much.

The Focus and Dart are also slow until highway speeds. Then their peak HP wins out.


----------



## rmass09 (Apr 17, 2011)

I wouldn't call it fast, but its speed with the tune in on par with my previous V6 with +8 MPG so I'm more than happy. Might trade up to the diesel in the fall for more umph(if it has any)


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

giantsnation said:


> With the Trifecta tune, the Cruze is a quick car. No it won't make it much past 120mph but for around $20K, this car has some balls. Most performance V8s are still not match but it can hold its own against most V6s.



As long as you don't run into an Impreza, or a Mazda 3, or a Ford Focus, or a Chevy Sonic, or a Hyundai Elantra, or a Kia Optima or a Dodge Dart you should be just fine in your price class.


----------



## titan2782 (Nov 4, 2011)

:signs042:


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

chaser x said:


> What a bunch of smart ass jerks in here i though this site was cool in all but now sucks. I was just saying how well the car handles compared to others in its class my. Maybe it time for me to exit this dump of a site.


As a smart ass jerk, I've taken the liberty of giving you a 7-day forced vacation for this post and the other offensive ones we've had to delete. I guess this "dump of a site" has been too much for you lately. A cool-down period sounds like a perfect solution. 

See you in 7 days...or not...doesn't make a difference to me. Come back with the same attitude and I'll be more than happy to make it permanent.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

giantsnation said:


> Cruise control is my friend! Without it, I'd be getting tickets left and right.


I second the motion!


----------



## Mick (Dec 31, 2011)

Tisk tisk tisk. Maybe he was an immature teenager after all...


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

NBrehm said:


> As long as you don't run into an Impreza, or a Mazda 3, or a Ford Focus, or a Chevy Sonic, or a Hyundai Elantra, or a Kia Optima or a Dodge Dart you should be just fine in your price class.


My brother and I did some informal testing of his Mazda3 Skyactiv manual against my Eco with a Trifecta premium tune. They're pretty evenly matched. Mine's a wee bit faster, his corners a wee bit better. He likes his MZ3, I like my Eco. We're both happy, and enjoying the cars.


----------



## steve333 (Oct 23, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> Uhhh...the original Focus was never very reliable or good.
> 
> I mean, sure, it was a better car than the Cavalier, but that ain't saying much.
> 
> The Focus and Dart are also slow until highway speeds. Then their peak HP wins out.


The Focus fared poorly when it was first introduced then improved after that.
I test drove the Focus and while pick-up wasn't earth shattering, if the car had slowed to a crawl on the freeway and then had to pick up speed quickly it would do it. I had this happen while test driving the Cruze and almost had a heart attack because the car just wouldn't move and traffic was coming up behind me very quickly.
Judging from the sound the tiny T was making it actually was having a heart attack!
For general purposes and without any emergency maneuvers I'm sure it's fine but I stand by my impression that the Cruze is too much car for it.
Keep the 1.4T in the Sonic and put the 1.6T in the Cruze


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

steve333 said:


> The Focus fared poorly when it was first introduced then improved after that.
> I test drove the Focus and while pick-up wasn't earth shattering, if the car had slowed to a crawl on the freeway and then had to pick up speed quickly it would do it. I had this happen while test driving the Cruze and almost had a heart attack because the car just wouldn't move and traffic was coming up behind me very quickly.
> Judging from the sound the tiny T was making it actually was having a heart attack!
> For general purposes and without any emergency maneuvers I'm sure it's fine but I stand by my impression that the Cruze is too much car for it.
> Keep the 1.4T in the Sonic and put the 1.6T in the Cruze


I can't say I had that experience with any Cruze I drove, and I've driven the 1.4T Eco Manual and an LTZ Auto. Both were capable of gaining speed on the highway safely. The only way I can imagine that this scenario would be plausible would be if you were driving a manual and left it in too high of a gear for the amount of acceleration you needed. If you feel unsafe driving the Cruze because you have to stop and then gain speed again, you should be more concerned about your driving than about your car.


----------



## rmass09 (Apr 17, 2011)

Anyone who calls the cruzes acceleration at highway speeds unsafe needs to drive a transit connect....weighs 5000lbs and only 128lbs torque and 136hp...i manage fine


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

rmass09 said:


> Anyone who calls the cruzes acceleration at highway speeds unsafe needs to drive a transit connect....weighs 5000lbs and only 128lbs torque and 136hp...i manage fine


Lol, I drove a Bug for about a year. That was scary even once you were on the highway...and hit a hill. It made my Saab look like a race car.

Traffic around here stops and then accelerates briskly to 55-65 for no reason at all. The only cars I really have trouble keeping up with are V6s/V8s. That's ok though. The most common cars here are Honda Civics, Camrys, and Priuses. 

If you have to change lanes quickly at low speed, the Cruze is 2nd best only to the V6 Camry I had. Very spunky and responds instantly. At high speed, such as a quick full throttle pass around someone moving slow, it's near the bottom. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## steve333 (Oct 23, 2010)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I can't say I had that experience with any Cruze I drove, and I've driven the 1.4T Eco Manual and an LTZ Auto. Both were capable of gaining speed on the highway safely. The only way I can imagine that this scenario would be plausible would be if you were driving a manual and left it in too high of a gear for the amount of acceleration you needed. If you feel unsafe driving the Cruze because you have to stop and then gain speed again, you should be more concerned about your driving than about your car.


Tell that to the freeway. Traffic had come to a near dead stop in the lane I was in, switched lanes to get out of it and since this lane wasn't blocked I had to speed up quickly. The car just did not respond anywhere near as fast as it should have and not near as fast as my lowly Cobalt. 
Getting up to speed without any impediments was no issue, but when pushed this engine is just gutless (could also be a tranny issue) but that was some scary ride.
This is a fairly frequent occurrence on the freeways near me


----------



## Maxzillian (Sep 16, 2012)

Can't say I've had response problems with my car. Find a gear that brings the engine up to 2500-3000 rpm and it pulls off just fine.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

steve333 said:


> Tell that to the freeway. Traffic had come to a near dead stop in the lane I was in, switched lanes to get out of it and since this lane wasn't blocked I had to speed up quickly. The car just did not respond anywhere near as fast as it should have and not near as fast as my lowly Cobalt.
> Getting up to speed without any impediments was no issue, but when pushed this engine is just gutless (could also be a tranny issue) but that was some scary ride.
> This is a fairly frequent occurrence on the freeways near me


I will say highway speed acceleration was slightly better on my 2.2ecotec cavalier as well, but that engine lacks low/mid range torque & required downshifting on every big hill to maintain speed. 

If you were driving an automatic cruze the trick is not using full throttle for the best acceleration. Press the pedal all the way down the motor screams to redline(or close to it) in every gear. Getting the motor to shift around 5,000RPM seems to keep it in the power band better. 

Also if the trans has not got at least 250-3,000 miles on it the programing seems to need to learn every new type of input you do. If you drove thousands of miles & were easy on it or used the same driving style, the first time you floor it it seems to not know what to do. once you drive may different throttle input levels it seems to learn what you are expecting.


----------



## giantsnation (Oct 11, 2012)

The bottom line is that if you have an Auto, I feel sorry for you. If you have a manual and think this car has a highway getting up to speed issue, learn to drive manual properly (it also helps to know where peak power is ~4500 RPM).


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Okay, so I am a grandpa, but still have concerns about acceleration, without it, would never be able to enter a freeway. So I did kind of gun the heck out of that 1.4L MT demo, but admittedly, am a bit more gentle with my own car. Its okay.

3rd gear with a MT, can safely hit over 80 mph to find a spot on the interstate, only had to do that a few times.

Wife is getting bored of me saying on hilly roads, if we were in the Supra, could pass this guy, just have to wait until we get over the next hill.


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

steve333 said:


> !
> For general purposes and without any emergency maneuvers I'm sure it's fine but I stand by my impression that the Cruze is too much car for it.
> Keep the 1.4T in the Sonic and put the 1.6T in the Cruze


Which, coincidentally, is exactly what Chevy is doing in, I think, 2014?


----------



## Hoon (Mar 18, 2012)

The cruze has adequate power. There have been times when i'm headed to the track towing 1100lbs (2 bikes+trailer) and after awhile i forget i'm towing, look down and i'm cruising at 80+mph. 

It's certainly not a race car by any means, nor is it even respectably quick, but if you buy a 1.4L car and think it's going to be fast than that's your fault. 

Personally i think the engine does it's job (torquey little mill with great MPG) very well. Probably the best Econo-box motor on the market, hence why i own the car.


----------



## dby2011 (May 14, 2011)

If steve333's experience is with a 2011 Cruze auto then I would think it is accurate. The auto in the 2011 Cruze behaved drastically different then the 2012 I had. That was why I ended up getting a 2012 over the 2011s on the dealer's lot. The 2012 upshifted much quicker and was smoother then the 2011. I remember a few times on my test drive I put my foot down and there was a long delay before it even shifted on the 2011. The 0-60 is very quick and smooth with the 2012 Cruze 1.4 turbo. I had no issues with the power. It was after 60-65 mph that you had to pre-plan your passing, but it was never that bad. With my Dart it is the opposite, I would say the 0-60 is not as quick- maybe a second slower but the power is right there when cruising at 65. In either scenerio you just adjust your driving to what power you have. I don't recall any time feeling unsafe when driving my Cruze.

On a side note- I spent all day at our auto show in Cleveland last Friday. I sat and spent a lot of time in all manufacturer's c-class cars and compared them. It is scary how good they all are- the competition is cut throat. Interior wise I was shocked how good they all were assembled and the materials used. I was prepared to criticize the Korean cars and to be honest there was nothing to be that critical about- the Elantra and new redesigned Forte seemed to be really well done. Design wise they all seem to be good- it probably comes down to price and drivetrain more then anything else. I will say the most uneven manufacturer in quality was Ford and that includes the Focus. The designs are good but the materials used in some of their cars are a joke. There were some interior pieces in the Focus I could take one finger and snap off. The A piller pieces were flimsy and I could squeeze them. The headliner in the Fiesta was like it was made by Nerf. The Sonic was way ahead of the Fiesta in material quality and assembly as was the Cruze over the Focus. I though the Chevy Spark had better interior assembly and materials then what I saw in the Focus or Fiesta. I also spoke to a couple who was looking at the new Escape (which was nice and actually had good quality materials inside) and they were specifically checking out to see if the Sync system was changed and they said it wasn't. The said they hate their Sync system, even after the update by Ford they said it still was horrible- very slow to react and hard to navigate. To me, the design and material quality seemed to be very consistent with GM across their models- Ford has a long way to go.


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

My big gripe with the Cruze ECO is the gearing, which is obviously for fuel mileage and I get that. But having to downshift at least 2 gears to pass a vehicle is a bit much to gain 2 MPG over the other manual Cruzes. Plus if you ever needed to accelerate quickly to say, avoid an accident, it just isn't there in higher gears. That's really my only gripe with the speed, it is after all an economy car and if you expected it to perform well than you bought the wrong car. In a perfect world I would like to see the Cruze ECO chassis with a 2.0T, rear discs, watts link rear and the LT's 6 speed and just be the "Cruze Turbo" ( I don't think it will ever be worthy of an SS moniker, course I didn't think the Cobalt was either). Now that would be something to buy for better performance


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

NBrehm said:


> My big gripe with the Cruze ECO is the gearing, which is obviously for fuel mileage and I get that. But having to downshift at least 2 gears to pass a vehicle is a bit much to gain 2 MPG over the other manual Cruzes. Plus if you ever needed to accelerate quickly to say, avoid an accident, it just isn't there in higher gears. That's really my only gripe with the speed, it is after all an economy car and if you expected it to perform well than you bought the wrong car. In a perfect world I would like to see the Cruze ECO chassis with a 2.0T, rear discs, watts link rear and the LT's 6 speed and just be the "Cruze Turbo" ( I don't think it will ever be worthy of an SS moniker, course I didn't think the Cobalt was either). Now that would be something to buy for better performance


Even the LT Cruze has no highway passing power, especially on hills. You have to drop to 4th or 3rd. 

On flat ground though, pushing the pedal down in 6th above 70 results in pretty good pickup though. 

There's a huge "dead spot" in acceleration between 55-70. That said, it was obviously designed for in-town power and highway fuel economy.


----------



## steve333 (Oct 23, 2010)

NBrehm said:


> Which, coincidentally, is exactly what Chevy is doing in, I think, 2014?


Supposedly they decided to do nothing since a major redesign in 2015. Need confirmation on that. This would be a big mistake, IMO. They really don't need to redesign the front end for one model year which was the original plan. There's nothing wrong with the way the front end looks, IMO.



dby2011 said:


> If steve333's experience is with a 2011 Cruze auto then I would think it is accurate. The auto in the 2011 Cruze behaved drastically different then the 2012 I had. That was why I ended up getting a 2012 over the 2011s on the dealer's lot. The 2012 upshifted much quicker and was smoother then the 2011. I remember a few times on my test drive I put my foot down and there was a long delay before it even shifted on the 2011.


Yes, it was a 2011 loaner, maybe that was the issue. No compact, I don't care which, should drive that way.
As for everyone saying it's not meant to be fast, sometimes a slightly larger engine which doesn't have to strain as much will get even better MPG. I personally think the 1.6T would get better MPG than the 1.4.
At the very least, adding DI to the 1.4T would improve everything-0-60 and MPG.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

1.6T is the way to go for the Cruze. 1.4T is too small, 1.8T would be nice for performance because I think Mercedes is at some 200 / 200+ numbers with that and 32-33 MPG. 2.0T just won't ever happen for the Cruze, burns too much gas.


----------



## Anrosphynx (Feb 24, 2013)

A lot is having to do with optimizing gear selection (in a 6MT). From what i can tell, the Cruze requires you to be in the right gear at the right RPM to get up to speed or overtake/pass. 

Additionally, hills and/or inclines tend to really take their toll on the Cruze and requires quite a bit of downshifting to maintain speed. 

However, to call this car fast/quick/ect.. is still a fallacy.


----------



## titan2782 (Nov 4, 2011)

Raise your hand if you bought the Cruze because it was a fast car (or you planned to make it a fast car). 

Now, look in the mirror and feel foolish.


----------



## H3LLON3ARTH (Dec 16, 2011)

It handles **** good and its quick for a 1.4l I wouldn't turn it into a drag car.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Anrosphynx said:


> A lot is having to do with optimizing gear selection (in a 6MT). From what i can tell, the Cruze requires you to be in the right gear at the right RPM to get up to speed or overtake/pass.
> 
> Additionally, hills and/or inclines tend to really take their toll on the Cruze and requires quite a bit of downshifting to maintain speed.
> 
> However, to call this car fast/quick/ect.. is still a fallacy.


In its class, it is quick. It's not fast, but it's not a 1/4 mile dragster either. Its ability to produce lots of torque down low is a great strength (2011 transmissions exempted). It is often compared to a V6 for that torque, although it falls flat at higher RPMs. It's not meant to be an engine you wind up. The catch is that you need to be sitting around at least 1850RPM to get that torque. That's almost always the case with the automatic when it's not in TCC lockup, but it takes more thought with the manual. Compared to other cars like the Elantra, Civic, and Corolla, it moves pretty well. Try cramming 4 full grown people into an Elantra and trying to merge onto a busy highway. You'll sh*t bricks, but the Cruze holds its own and has the torque to keep going.


----------



## steve333 (Oct 23, 2010)

It doesn't have to be fast, it needs to be responsive through all power ranges and speeds up to 80 MPH. It isn't. 
Easy fix if GM can get an electric shock to wake them up


----------



## Anrosphynx (Feb 24, 2013)

XtremeRevolution said:


> In its class, it is quick. It's not fast, but it's not a 1/4 mile dragster either. Its ability to produce lots of torque down low is a great strength (2011 transmissions exempted). It is often compared to a V6 for that torque, although it falls flat at higher RPMs. It's not meant to be an engine you wind up. The catch is that you need to be sitting around at least 1850RPM to get that torque. That's almost always the case with the automatic when it's not in TCC lockup, but it takes more thought with the manual. Compared to other cars like the Elantra, Civic, and Corolla, it moves pretty well. Try cramming 4 full grown people into an Elantra and trying to merge onto a busy highway. You'll sh*t bricks, but the Cruze holds its own and has the torque to keep going.


Having driven pretty much all of these cars at one time or another (not with four people in it), I would say that there isn't much of a difference. Ok, maybe the Corolla is a bit slower, but my butt dyno doesn't feel the difference. Its still slow. I keep reading the reference of the Cruze power to a v-6. Are we comparing the Cruze to a V6 from 10-15 years ago? Because i don't know of a modern V6 that the Cruze feels similar to. Please elaborate.....


----------



## Patman1776 (Feb 8, 2013)

Anrosphynx said:


> Having driven pretty much all of these cars at one time or another (not with four people in it), I would say that there isn't much of a difference. Ok, maybe the Corolla is a bit slower, but my butt dyno doesn't feel the difference. Its still slow. I keep reading the reference of the Cruze power to a v-6. Are we comparing the Cruze to a V6 from 10-15 years ago? Because i don't know of a modern V6 that the Cruze feels similar to. Please elaborate.....


You drive a Cruze LS with the 1.8, right???????? The 1.4 is much more responsive based on what I've read on this forum. I was pretty happy with my test drive of the 1.4 MT Eco, but not at all impressed with the 1.8 LS I tried. Night and Day.....Also, I have no biases regarding performance. My last "sporty" car was a 1991 Nissan NX2000, which was only slightly quicker 0 - 60 (7.7 vs 8.1). Back then, that car was considered a "Pocket Rocket". My car before that was a 1988 Honda Prelude Si 4WS which cost me 20K, new. That car was sweet, and I considered it a sports car, but it only did 0-60 in 8.8 seconds. My other cars were family oriented - 2002 Honda Odyssey and a 2007 Explorer XLT V8. I can tell you that my test drive in the ECO was much more fun (felt faster) than those two vehicles. If I had 30 - 50k to spend, and tons of disposable cash for gas, I'd definitely be looking for more punch, but I'm more than happy to be getting a fun, comfortable car, at a reasonable price, that's as safe as there is on the road, and that sips gas.


----------



## titan2782 (Nov 4, 2011)

Patman1776 said:


> You drive a Cruze LS with the 1.8, right???????? The 1.4 is much more responsive based on what I've read on this forum. I was pretty happy with my test drive of the 1.4 MT Eco, but not at all impressed with the 1.8 LS I tried. Night and Day.....Also, I have no biases regarding performance. My last "sporty" car was a 1991 Nissan NX2000, which was only slightly quicker in the quarter mile (7.7 to 8.1). Back then, that car was considered a "Pocket Rocket". My car before that was a 1988 Honda Prelude Si 4WS which cost me 20K, new. That car was sweet, and I considered it a sports car, but it only did the quarter mile in 8.8 seconds. My other cars were family oriented - 2002 Honda Odyssey and a 2007 Explorer XLT V8. I can tell you that my test drive in the ECO was much more fun (felt faster) than those two vehicles. If I had 30 - 50k to spend, and tons of disposable cash for gas, I'd definitely be looking for more punch, but I'm more than happy to be getting a fun, comfortable car, at a reasonable price, that's as safe as there is on the road, and that sips gas.


Do you mean 1/8th mile or maybe 0-60? 1/4 mile in 8.8 is incredible.


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

Anrosphynx said:


> Having driven pretty much all of these cars at one time or another (not with four people in it), I would say that there isn't much of a difference. Ok, maybe the Corolla is a bit slower, but my butt dyno doesn't feel the difference. Its still slow. I keep reading the reference of the Cruze power to a v-6. Are we comparing the Cruze to a V6 from 10-15 years ago? Because i don't know of a modern V6 that the Cruze feels similar to. Please elaborate.....


I agree, are they comparing it to a V6 full size pick-up? I'd like to know what V6 car it supposedly performs like. Using the Chevy Malibu V6 as a comparison it is almost a full 2 seconds faster to 60 and stretches to almost 3 in the 1/4 mile. That is significant differences.


----------



## Patman1776 (Feb 8, 2013)

titan2782 said:


> Do you mean 1/8th mile or maybe 0-60? 1/4 mile in 8.8 is incredible.


 Sorry....My bad. 8.8 0-60. Gotta go back and edit my post....(7.7 vs 8.1 0-60)


----------



## Patman1776 (Feb 8, 2013)

Patman1776 said:


> Sorry....My bad. 8.8 0-60. Gotta go back and edit my post....(7.7 vs 8.1 0-60)


Done


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I drove my 2012 ECO MT from Denver to Grand Junction on Sunday and back today. This drive goes over the two highest points on the US interstate system - Eisenhower Tunnels at 11,158 ft and Vail Pass at 10,662 ft. My wife and I were in the car with about 80 lbs of luggage in the trunk. I was actually able to accelerate up hill in 4th and 5th gears and my ECO was only the second car I've driven west to east over these two passes that was able to maintain or exceed the posted speed limit. I blew past full and mid-sized SUVs with engines two and three times the displacement of my Cruze. The few times I needed passing power it was available simply by selecting the correct gear. I averaged a little over 60 MPH for the trip and had a DIC measured average MPG of 46+.

Over the past 14 months and 23K miles I have found my ECO MT to be a surprisingly quick car at any speed with more than sufficient passing and merging acceleration in every situation I have been in. No it's not a race car or a $50,000 sports sedan, but for a $21,000 car it's has unbeatable fuel economy and more than sufficient acceleration performance and steering handling.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Anrosphynx said:


> I keep reading the reference of the Cruze power to a v-6. Are we comparing the Cruze to a V6 from 10-15 years ago? Because i don't know of a modern V6 that the Cruze feels similar to. Please elaborate.....


One word... Torque.

I have driven many different 4 cylinder cars & with the hills in my area they all have to downshift into the 3,000-5,000RPM range to maintain speed on hills. The cruze has V6 like low end toque, even on some pretty steep grades at highway speeds it does not need to downshift at all to maintain speed. 

0-60, 1/4mile or any other speed related category it is no V6, however I will take the MPG of a 4cylinder with the torque of a v6 any day. What other 4 cylinder car has even close to the 2,000-4,000RPM every day driving power band of the cruze in such a cheap car & still gets awesome MPG? I can't think of any.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

spacedout said:


> One word... Torque.
> 
> I have driven many different 4 cylinder cars & with the hills in my area they all have to downshift into the 3,000-5,000RPM range to maintain speed on hills. The cruze has V6 like low end toque, even on some pretty steep grades at highway speeds it does not need to downshift at all to maintain speed.
> 
> 0-60, 1/4mile or any other speed related category it is no V6, however I will take the MPG of a 4cylinder with the torque of a v6 any day. What other 4 cylinder car has even close to the 2,000-4,000RPM every day driving power band of the cruze in such a cheap car & still gets awesome MPG? I can't think of any.


Engines these days have come a very very long way. 4 cylinders especially. The Honda 2.4 and Toyota 2.5 both have more HP than our old 3800 did and darn near as much or more low-end power as the Cruze. I rarely see our Camry rev over 3000 (usually shifts at 2000) unless its being pushed hard, and it's got a transmission that knows what it's doing keeping the car in the powerband. Chevys 2.4/2.5 Ecotec is pretty good too, though it likes to rev a bit. 

V6s these days are mostly in the upper 200s-300 HP and are no comparison power wise whatsoever. A Honda Odyssey or something can probably race a Mustang from 10 years ago and win. GMs V6 engines were a joke until very recently. Ford used the 3.0 Duratec since the early 90s until very recently, very much unchanged. 

The Cruze really will pull hills better than any other car I've driven without downshifting though. 

Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

spacedout said:


> One word... Torque.
> 
> I have driven many different 4 cylinder cars & with the hills in my area they all have to downshift into the 3,000-5,000RPM range to maintain speed on hills. The cruze has V6 like low end toque, even on some pretty steep grades at highway speeds it does not need to downshift at all to maintain speed.
> 
> 0-60, 1/4mile or any other speed related category it is no V6, however I will take the MPG of a 4cylinder with the torque of a v6 any day. What other 4 cylinder car has even close to the 2,000-4,000RPM every day driving power band of the cruze in such a cheap car & still gets awesome MPG? I can't think of any.


Kia Optima SX has 276HP/269 Ft Lbs, costs around the same as an LTZ, gets 22MPG in town and 34 on the highway, has a 2.0 4Cyl. Hits 60 in 6.2 seconds and runs the 1/4 mile in 14.5 at around 100MPH. I'd say that is a pretty good thrashing from the Koreans. The Cruze is not a bad car, but nothing about it is impressive acceleration wise. Haven't seen the numbers but fairly sure the Ecoboost Focus will beat it up pretty good too. The car is too big and heavy for a 1.4L engine and to be honest if it had a slightly bigger engine it would probably return even better fuel mileage.


----------



## Patman1776 (Feb 8, 2013)

NBrehm said:


> Kia Optima SX has 276HP/269 Ft Lbs, costs around the same as an LTZ, gets 22MPG in town and 34 on the highway, has a 2.0 4Cyl. Hits 60 in 6.2 seconds and runs the 1/4 mile in 14.5 at around 100MPH. I'd say that is a pretty good thrashing from the Koreans. The Cruze is not a bad car, but nothing about it is impressive acceleration wise. Haven't seen the numbers but fairly sure the Ecoboost Focus will beat it up pretty good too. The car is too big and heavy for a 1.4L engine and to be honest if it had a slightly bigger engine it would probably return even better fuel mileage.


According to "zeroto60times.com", 2013 Focus Titanium MT did 7.3 0-60, 15.8 Quarter Mile, while the 2012 Cruze ECO MT did 7.9 0-60, and 16.1 Quarter Mile. The Focus Titanium is not their ECO model, while the Cruze ECO IS. For a car that can get 50+ mpg on the highway, you can't ask for much more (I refuse to pay the premium $ for a clean diesel) performance. Again, the ECOs performance numbers are as good or better than the "pocket rockets" I used to own. Plus, the mileage is much better.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

My torque comes from gear selection.


----------



## Anrosphynx (Feb 24, 2013)

Patman1776 said:


> According to "zeroto60times.com", 2013 Focus Titanium MT did 7.3 0-60, 15.8 Quarter Mile, while the 2012 Cruze ECO MT did 7.9 0-60, and 16.1 Quarter Mile. The Focus Titanium is not their ECO model, while the Cruze ECO IS. For a car that can get 50+ mpg on the highway, you can't ask for much more (I refuse to pay the premium $ for a clean diesel) performance. Again, the ECOs performance numbers are as good or better than the "pocket rockets" I used to own. Plus, the mileage is much better.



But that's the point. 8 seconds to 60 and 16+ quarter mile isn't fast, quick or any adjective that describes speed. There is no other way to say it. The Cruze is pretty slow. Period. Did anyone here buy the Cruze because it was quick/fast/ect? I know for sure I didn't..

And to the posters that said they can do hills no problem. Yeah, sure you can accelerate up a hill if you are two gears lower than you were before you started going up the hill. This just further illustrates the lack of power. Most modern V-6s don't need to downshift.


----------



## socalcruze (Aug 4, 2012)

Anrosphynx said:


> Most modern V-6s don't need to downshift.


The ones mated to a 6-speed transmission geared for fuel economy certainly do.


----------



## Anrosphynx (Feb 24, 2013)

socalcruze said:


> The ones mated to a 6-speed transmission geared for fuel economy certainly do.


Name one....


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Anrosphynx said:


> But that's the point. 8 seconds to 60 and 16+ quarter mile isn't fast, quick or any adjective that describes speed. There is no other way to say it. The Cruze is pretty slow. Period. Did anyone here buy the Cruze because it was quick/fast/ect? I know for sure I didn't..
> 
> And to the posters that said they can do hills no problem. Yeah, sure you can accelerate up a hill if you are two gears lower than you were before you started going up the hill. This just further illustrates the lack of power. Most modern V-6s don't need to downshift.


For most hills I don't have to downshift at all in my ECO MT as long as I'm running 1800 RPM or higher. I do have to downshift one or two gears to climb the side of a mountain, however. This is to be expected as every single car climbing west out of Denver has to downshift. About half the cars going west on I-70 can't even maintain the speed limit when climbing Genesee, Floyd, and Georgetown hills or up either side of the two high passes on I-70. I have even accelerated up these hills in my ECO MT, which is something I've been able to do in only one other car.

What I did realize this morning was that the idiot shift light kept flashing on and off while climbing on I-70. If I had been in an automatic I suspect the poor transmission wouldn't have been able to shift fast enough to keep up with the shift light. As it was I ignored it because I could see the next steep climb rapidly approaching. 

I didn't purchase my ECO MT because it was fast in the Ferrari sense of fast. I did purchase it for the fuel economy and knowing that it would be more than quick enough to get out of trouble when required. What I didn't realize was how deceptive the car would be - I started an up hill entrance onto I-70 yesterday and didn't realize I was doing 80 (and still accelerating) at the merge point until I actually looked at my speedometer after I safely merged onto the highway. I was at 7600 ft above sea level at the time and both the entrance ramp and I-70 were going up hill.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

Anrosphynx said:


> But that's the point. 8 seconds to 60 and 16+ quarter mile isn't fast, quick or any adjective that describes speed. There is no other way to say it. The Cruze is pretty slow. Period.


It was sports car fast 10 years ago.


----------



## Patman1776 (Feb 8, 2013)

ErikBEggs said:


> It was sports car fast 10 years ago.


Absolutely! I've only had one other car in my life (out of 9 cars) that was faster (1991 NX2000). For me, the Cruze is plenty fast and quick. I've driven many cars over the years which took WAY over 10 seconds to reach 60. My top of the line 1988 Honda Prelude Si 4WS cost me 20K new, back then (expensive for the time), and only did 8.8 seconds 0-60. It was considered pretty **** fast, at the time, and was considered a sports car. It's ALL about perspective. In this class (ECO cars), it IS fast.


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

I need to admit, that for a gas saving car, and a cheap tune, this thing really really opens up. I doubt my 0-60 changed much but if i shaved put .5 seconds i will be happy.


----------



## Anrosphynx (Feb 24, 2013)

ErikBEggs said:


> It was sports car fast 10 years ago.


Seriously? On what planet? What sports car from 2003 are you comparing it too??

in 2003, a Honda Accord four banger was faster than the current cruze..
in 2003, a Corolla XRS was faster than a current cruze
in 2003, a Nissan Sentra SER was faster than a current cruze
in 2003, a Dodge Neon (NON SRT) was as fast or faster than a cruze..


Are those sports cars??


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

Anrosphynx said:


> Seriously? On what planet? What sports car from 2003 are you comparing it too??
> 
> in 2003, a Honda Accord four banger was faster than the current cruze..
> in 2003, a Corolla XRS was faster than a current cruze
> ...


Accord- Not the same class more expensive
Corrolla *XRS*- Wastes more gas, was a 1.8L @ 170 HP. The difference was probably miniscule
Nissan Sentra SER- REALLY? An SER? More expensive. Was obviously made for performance, not ECO.
Neon-Not faster than a Cruze. SUCKS

Erik- make that 20 years ago lol. 10 Years ago is too soon, we are in 2013.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

An Accord 10 years ago cost about the same as a Cruze now. Good MPGs too. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## Anrosphynx (Feb 24, 2013)

iKermit said:


> Accord- Not the same class more expensive
> Corrolla *XRS*- Wastes more gas, was a 1.8L @ 170 HP. The difference was probably miniscule
> Nissan Sentra SER- REALLY? An SER? More expensive. Was obviously made for performance, not ECO.
> Neon-Not faster than a Cruze. SUCKS
> ...


Ok, lets throw out the Accord.
Yes, the corolla XRS- 170 horse, EPA rating of 25/32 and had a low 7 0-60 time. (Toyota 0-60 Times & Toyota Quarter Mile Times | New Toyota Camry, 2013 Corolla LE, Prius 0-60, TRD Tundra, Supra Turbo and 2012 Toyota RAV4 0 to 60 stats!)
The neon RT was rated at 150 horses, had an EPA rating of 29/36- 0-60 times were 7.5 and under 16 quarter- (Dodge 0-60 Times & Dodge Quarter Mile Times | 2013 SRT Viper GTS, Avenger RT, Challenger SRT8, Hemi Charger 0-60, Neon, Ram Trucks and Dodge Nitro 0 to 60 stats!)
Sentra SER started at 17k- and it had 175 horses...

And the whole point of this thread is not "ECO"... its about if this car is quick/fast/ect...

Again I ask, what modern V-6 does the cruze feel like??
Again I ask, what *sports car *from 10 years ago does the cruze feel faster than??

Look, I like the cruze as much as the next guy. I wouldn't have bought it if i didn't, but lets just understand its limitations. Its a nice cruising car, quiet, with good options and only enough power to be adequate.


----------



## socalcruze (Aug 4, 2012)

Anrosphynx said:


> Name one....


Buick Enclave. I'm sure there are dozens more.


----------



## Anrosphynx (Feb 24, 2013)

socalcruze said:


> Buick Enclave. I'm sure there are dozens more.


that's not even a CAR.... lets compare apples to apples here..


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Patman1776 said:


> Absolutely! I've only had one other car in my life (out of 9 cars) that was faster (1991 NX2000). For me, the Cruze is plenty fast and quick. I've driven many cars over the years which took WAY over 10 seconds to reach 60. My top of the line 1988 Honda Prelude Si 4WS cost me 20K new, back then (expensive for the time), and only did 8.8 seconds 0-60. It was considered pretty **** fast, at the time, and was considered a sports car. It's ALL about perspective. In this class (ECO cars), it IS fast.


LOL @ a Prelude as a sports car. My 1988 Accord had that same engine. Soooo slow.


----------



## Patman1776 (Feb 8, 2013)

Anrosphynx said:


> that's not even a CAR.... lets compare apples to apples here..


You drive an LS.......NOT comparable to the 1.4T.....You also drive a Viper.......Kinda skews your perspective, don't ya think?


----------



## Patman1776 (Feb 8, 2013)

jblackburn said:


> LOL @ a Prelude as a sports car. My 1988 Accord had that same engine. Soooo slow.


88 Accord much heavier car with different gearing........Never said it was super fast, but it was considered afairly pricey sports coupe.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Anrosphynx said:


> But that's the point. 8 seconds to 60 and 16+ quarter mile isn't fast, quick or any adjective that describes speed. There is no other way to say it. The Cruze is pretty slow. Period. Did anyone here buy the Cruze because it was quick/fast/ect? I know for sure I didn't..
> 
> And to the posters that said they can do hills no problem. Yeah, sure you can accelerate up a hill if you are two gears lower than you were before you started going up the hill. This just further illustrates the lack of power. Most modern V-6s don't need to downshift.


I'm not going to respond to all of your posts as it would take me forever, but I'll respond to this one just so you understand where some of us are coming from. 

How do you determine how "fast" a Cruze is? How do you gauge performance? Do you gauge it by 1/4 mile or 0-60 times? Do you gauge it by how quickly power is achieved when you put your foot down? How much power it has off the line to spin tires or get you up through the first two gears? How much (or little) turbo lag you have? 

It seems that the conventional definition of "fast" refers to 1/4 mile and 0-60 times. If you want slow, drive a comparable brand new Corolla, Civic, or Elantra. I won't go out and say that the Cruze is fast by any means. My 3800 Supercharged swapped 95 Regal Coupe runs 13.5 in the 1/4 mile, and that's not even fast by some peoples' standards. 

What the Cruze has is torque due to cylinder head design and a small enough turbo that produces little turbo lag. You achieve 100% of torque at 1850rpm, which was done intentionally to make the car feel more like a V6 than a 4-cyl in the conditions 90% of people expect to experience on a day to day basis. Sure, a modern V6 will overtake a 1.4 Turbo once you wind it up, but the level of torque is similar. Keep in mind that when people compare the 1.4T to a V6, they are usually referring to older V6 engines. For example, I have a 1997 Accord V6 parked at home that nobody drives that feels lethargic compared to the Cruze until you wind it up to at least 4.5k.

Is the Cruze fast if all you care about is 0-60? No. Is it fast if all you care about is 1/4 mile times? No. Is it fast if all you care about is having enough torque to have the power you want and when you want it without having to constantly downshift and rev like a madman? Yeah, I'd say the Cruze does pretty well in that regard. For a grocery-getting 4-banger that you can grab for well under 20k and hit over 38mpg on the highway with, it's pretty fast.

Oh, and for the record, I've driven the 1.8L and 1.4L Turbo in both the Cruze and the Sonic, and the 1.4L Turbo wins every time. I don't mean to offend LS owners, but the 1.4 Turbo just feels so much quicker.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Patman1776 said:


> 88 Accord much heavier car with different gearing........Never said it was super fast, but it was considered afairly pricey sports coupe.


2500 lbs isn't heavy, and the gearbox was the same. I raced my friends and beat him. Granted...that car had had a hard life, but it was still funny. 

The little Cruze actually reminds me A LOT of that car. Similar power, fun to drive, but not quick. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## socalcruze (Aug 4, 2012)

Anrosphynx said:


> that's not even a CAR.... lets compare apples to apples here..


Enclave: not a car
Cruze LS: car
Viper: car
Yugo: car
Equinox/Terrain: ??
PT Cruiser: ??
El Camino: ?????????

whatever.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Son tells me I drive too carefully and slow, but respond, only when driving his out of warranty vehicles. If they fall apart when I am driving them, would have to repair them. 

Way past that stage in learning the 0-60 times or how fast my vehicles will go, just read like Car and Driver reports for that dats. That kind of driving will wreck my own vehicles.

By carefully choosing my lanes, driving 3-4 blocks ahead, observing traffic light timing, stay far ahead of these idiots that are slamming on either their brakes or gas pedals at each traffic light. Ever notice a lot of idiots on the road? Save gas, and extend the life of my vehicle. Bearing life decreases by the square of the speed and by the cube with load.


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

ErikBEggs said:


> It was sports car fast 10 years ago.


Maybe 20-25 years ago.


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> What the Cruze has is torque due to cylinder head design and a small enough turbo that produces little turbo lag. You achieve 100% of torque at 1850rpm, which was done intentionally to make the car feel more like a V6 than a 4-cyl in the conditions 90% of people expect to experience on a day to day basis. Sure, a modern V6 will overtake a 1.4 Turbo once you wind it up, but the level of torque is similar. Keep in mind that when people compare the 1.4T to a V6, they are usually referring to older V6 engines. For example, I have a 1997 Accord V6 parked at home that nobody drives that feels lethargic compared to the Cruze until you wind it up to at least 4.5k.



While I agree with your analysis, an unmodified Cruze makes about 140 peak Ft LBS of torque, that is nowhere near sufficient for a 1.5 ton car. When you add the tune and get up to around 175ish FT LBS that is more in line with a standard economy car. But to claim it has V6 like torque when most V6's now are cranking out close to 250 or more in cars that only weigh a few hundred pounds more is silly. With the exception of decent handling there is nothing quick about the Cruze, stop lying to yourselves. I don;t care how fast your torque peak comes in or how little turbo lag there is, if the car doesn't make enough torque to move it forward without dropping gears all the time it is underpowered. There is no reason anyone should have to drop 2 or 3 gears to make a car accelerate. And to be honest, overall I like my Cruze a lot, it is a good all around car. Had I driven it on the highway prior to purchase there is 0 chance I would have bought it because lack of throttle response is, has and always will be a HUGE pet peeve of mine. I've learned to tolerate the 2 gear downshift, still don't like it, but the car needs a bigger engine unless it is going to be an urban cruiser. 

Edit: If you think the torque of the 1.4T Vs a modern V6 is an advantage off the line and the V6 needs to Rev-up, give it a shot someday. Take it to the track and take on a late 90's, early 2000's grand prix (non S/C) watch how badly you get spanked by a 20 year old V6. There are some garbage V6's out there, no doubt, but most N/A cars make torque almost instantaneously unless they are a really hi-po/hi revving engine (like the above mentioned V-Tech honda motor). The Cruze would get wupped off the line and most V6's would just continue to pull away. Also you can limit turbo lag, but an N/A car doesn't have any. Cruze isn't by any means the slowest horse in the race, but it is still way at the back of the pack.


----------



## rmass09 (Apr 17, 2011)

This thread makes me feel like suicide Elmo.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

HP race started back in the 20's when Chevy came out with the straight six, Henry Ford burnt the midnight oil trying to figure out how to cast a V-8. Really got going strong in the 50's ending abbutly in the early 70's when OPEC was formed and suddently, we only had an eight year supply of gas left.

But all this dealt with the oil companies wanting the feds to deregulate the price of gas, they got that. LP gas was never regulated. Was paying 9 cents a gallon, and within a year, shot up to $1.55 per gallon. Instead of paying 72 bucks to fill my tank, suddently it was$1,240.00, that hurt.

Cars like the Chevette became very popular, dealers were adding floor maps and slapped on rear window defrosters so that could jack up the MSRP up another couple of thousand. Unbeleiveable how many suckers paid this.

But never was the HP race greater than it is today with over 70 vehicles exceeding 500 HP. Power that you can't even use. Back then we could drive 70 mph on a two lane highway, today, that is 55 and 55 means 55. Try using 500+HP on the Dan Ryan in Chicago. Could back then, but certainly not today.

Was one of the very first to try out the Edens, wow, three lanes, holy cow! But was all farm fields back then, still 3 lanes today after 57 years, and a tad bit more crowded. 

US 41 was the most advanced highway in the USA, four divided lanes with even some over passes built in the 30's, even much older than the Edens. Same highway today some over 80 years older. Only modifications, a **** of a lot more pot holes. North Shore was the best way to travel at close to 100 mph. But GM and Exxon purchased that for six million bucks and ripped it out. But were severely fined by the government for doing that, having to a pay a 5,000 buck fine for breaking the then anti-trust act.

So tell me about buying a fast car. By the year 2000, we should be driving over 300 mph, 3 mph is more like it.


----------



## Jabbo (Nov 1, 2012)

Relatively speaking, the Cruze is slow. I found this out right away when I made a right turn on red onto a road with a 50 m.p.h limit. Although I chose to enter the road during what seemed to be ample time to accelerate to 50 quickly and not get in the way of oncoming traffic, the Cruze failed miserably. I'm sure I ticked off a couple of people that morning. Besides the Cruze gets angry with jack rabbit starts, if you could call it that.


----------



## Patman1776 (Feb 8, 2013)

Jabbo said:


> Relatively speaking, the Cruze is slow. I found this out right away when I made a right turn on red onto a road with a 50 m.p.h limit. Although I chose to enter the road during what seemed to be ample time to accelerate to 50 quickly and not get in the way of oncoming traffic, the Cruze failed miserably. I'm sure I ticked off a couple of people that morning. Besides the Cruze gets angry with jack rabbit starts, if you could call it that.


What are you driving, Jabbo......1.8, 1.4T, AT, or MT???


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

NBrehm said:


> While I agree with your analysis, an unmodified Cruze makes about 140 peak Ft LBS of torque, that is nowhere near sufficient for a 1.5 ton car. When you add the tune and get up to around 175ish FT LBS that is more in line with a standard economy car. But to claim it has V6 like torque when most V6's now are cranking out close to 250 or more in cars that only weigh a few hundred pounds more is silly. With the exception of decent handling there is nothing quick about the Cruze, stop lying to yourselves. I don;t care how fast your torque peak comes in or how little turbo lag there is, if the car doesn't make enough torque to move it forward without dropping gears all the time it is underpowered. There is no reason anyone should have to drop 2 or 3 gears to make a car accelerate. And to be honest, overall I like my Cruze a lot, it is a good all around car. Had I driven it on the highway prior to purchase there is 0 chance I would have bought it because lack of throttle response is, has and always will be a HUGE pet peeve of mine. I've learned to tolerate the 2 gear downshift, still don't like it, but the car needs a bigger engine unless it is going to be an urban cruiser.
> 
> Edit: If you think the torque of the 1.4T Vs a modern V6 is an advantage off the line and the V6 needs to Rev-up, give it a shot someday. Take it to the track and take on a late 90's, early 2000's grand prix (non S/C) watch how badly you get spanked by a 20 year old V6. There are some garbage V6's out there, no doubt, but most N/A cars make torque almost instantaneously unless they are a really hi-po/hi revving engine (like the above mentioned V-Tech honda motor). The Cruze would get wupped off the line and most V6's would just continue to pull away. Also you can limit turbo lag, but an N/A car doesn't have any. Cruze isn't by any means the slowest horse in the race, but it is still way at the back of the pack.


Where are you getting 140 peak? It's actually 148lb-ft if I remember correctly, and that's SAE certified power. Not all manufacturers certify their power ratings the same way GM does, and that also applies to EPA fuel economy reporting (cough Kia/Hyundai cough). We've had people put down numbers on the dyno that were close to the crank ratings with the Cruze. Not only does GM certify their power ratings according to the SAE certification, but they also pay a 3rd party to come in to make sure that they're doing it correctly and to act as a witness to validate the results. 148lb-ft on a Cruze 1.4 Turbo and 148lb-ft on any other non-SAE certified car is not the same 148lb-ft of power. 

I get a feeling that you're using "peak" to indicate that the rest of the power band is significantly reduced. On a normal power curve, you might be right, but with the Cruze, it holds pretty close to that peak torque for the entire power band. In fact, if you're driving an automatic, you are pretty much guaranteed to always be in that power curve. 

It seems like my previous post went completely over your head. You are still stuck on the notion that fast = 1/4 mile and 0-60. I'm not going to argue that point a second time. 

There are levels of extremes I prefer not to get into, such as comparing the 1.4L Turbo to the 3.8L V6, which was specifically designed for gobs of torque due to being used in much heavier cars such as the LeSabre, Park Avenue, and various minivans. How about we throw in some other V6s, such as the 3.1L, and the 3.4L (not the LQ1 mind you, although the LQ1 is pretty gutless down low as well), and the 2.7L V6 that's in the Accord parked outside my house. In a discussion where I'm referring to the torque and power band of the 1.4L Turbo being comparable to an older V6, you brought up arguably the biggest torque-monster V6 motor any manufacturer produced for a passenger car in the 90s and early 2000s. 

Take that a notch down to the Series 1 3800 (L27) (in any car equipped, including the regal coupe), and you'll find the Cruze is likely to hit the exact same times all the way down the track. 

Let's not forget, you as a car enthusiast knowingly bought a Cruze *Eco*, which with a little bit of research would have told you that it not only has *three overdrive gears*, but also a taller final drive ratio. The very fact that the car is even drivable with *three overdrive gears* pretty much confirms my statements regarding the 1.4L motor's torque. The biggest reason why you find yourself downshifting 2 gears is due to the Eco-specific transmission you're using. I'm not seeing where there's much of a reason to complain, unless you had no idea what you were buying when you bought the car.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Those are crappy V6 examples. My moms 2.4L Honda Accord 4 cyl has the same HP and close to the torque as an old 3800. 

Engine technology has changed. A lot. VVT and overhead cams have drastically changed power and fuel economy. 

I'd say the Cruze feels like a modern 4 cyl with larger displacement. Nothing more. 

Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

If, as some of you have claimed, the Cruze is so slow, why do I have to keep slowing down on freeway entrance ramps to avoid rear-ending the <insert "fast" car make/model here>?


----------



## Patman1776 (Feb 8, 2013)

This thread is getting tiresome......I didn't buy my ECO for 0-60, or quarter mile times. I don't care whether it can hit 120, or 150 mph. During my test drive, I was VERY happy with the acceleration and handling, and had no complaints with it on the highway. I KNOW how to drive a manual transmission to get the best performance, and there were NO apparent issues with the car doing anything I asked it to do. I am NOT racing, nor do I normally beat the snot out of my cars. Rarely do I ever floor any of them, but I do cruise at 70 - 80 mph, so I don't drive like a grandpa.........For me, this car is not slow. It's all the speed that I need, and my wallet will be thanking me for a longg time. For enthusiasts on this site complaining about the cars' performance, why would you buy the car in the first place??? If you bought it for the RIGHT reasons, you would have much less to complain about.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> Those are crappy V6 examples. My moms 2.4L Honda Accord 4 cyl has the same HP and close to the torque as an old 3800.
> 
> Engine technology has changed. A lot. VVT and overhead cams have drastically changed power and fuel economy.
> 
> ...


I didn't bring that point up to start a page-long argument over whether or not the 1.4L Turbo is actually as "fast" as a V6. I simply clarified why some people have validly made that statement in the past. Poor examples or not, they are what people have said and that's as far as it really should have gone. I shouldn't have had to explain exactly which engines were being referred to.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

obermd said:


> If, as some of you have claimed, the Cruze is so slow, why do I have to keep slowing down on freeway entrance ramps to avoid rear-ending the <insert "fast" car make/model here>?


Idiot drivers are why. I can't stand people that merge on the highway at 40 and then hit the gas to speed up quickly and merge. My Cruze can't do that kind of acceleration without flooring it if I'm behind them. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## Anrosphynx (Feb 24, 2013)

Patman1776 said:


> This thread is getting tiresome......I didn't buy my ECO for 0-60, or quarter mile times. I don't care whether it can hit 120, or 150 mph. During my test drive, I was VERY happy with the acceleration and handling, and had no complaints with it on the highway. I KNOW how to drive a manual transmission to get the best performance, and there were NO apparent issues with the car doing anything I asked it to do. I am NOT racing, nor do I normally beat the snot out of my cars. Rarely do I ever floor any of them, but I do cruise at 70 - 80 mph, so I don't drive like a grandpa.........For me, this car is not slow. It's all the speed that I need, and my wallet will be thanking me for a longg time. For enthusiasts on this site complaining about the cars' performance, why would you buy the car in the first place??? If you bought it for the RIGHT reasons, you would have much less to complain about.


Agreed, it is getting tiresome. For those of us that think the car isn't "fast", we are never going to convince you that your cruze is not. I can't compete with the comparison of someone's 1988 Honda Prelude or 1991 Nissan that was "fast" and the Cruze feels faster. It sounds to me like the reason you bought your car is ECO, not speed. And that is our point. If you bought it for ECO, good for you! but don't (i'm not saying you specifically) proclaim that the car is "fast" or "quick", because it is not.


As to why some of us "enthusiasts" bought the car in the first place? I will give you my personal reasons as I can't speak for someone else:

1) Size- the cruze is a good size car with enough space to accommodate stuff and people. Sorry, but a spark/500/yaris isn't going to cut it.
2) Comfort- for a car in its class, its pretty comfy. Ergos are good, amenities good, and console is nicely laid out.
3) Gas mileage- as a person with predominately gas guzzling cars, its nice to have one vehicle that gets decent gas mileage. I don't need it to be a hybrid, just better than average, which this car accomplishes.
4) Keep the mileage off other cars- I drive alot. I can put mileage on this car, or i can put it on another car. For the price, this car makes more sense for me.


----------



## Jabbo (Nov 1, 2012)

Patman1776 said:


> What are you driving, Jabbo......1.8, 1.4T, AT, or MT???


I got the 1.8, feels like the engine is gonna blow if I dare floor it.


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

So we are talking to a disgruntled owner, who will always find an if and but. This isn't politics, this is logic. 



Jabbo said:


> I got the 1.8, feels like the engine is gonna blow if I dare floor it.


It won't

Unless you submerge in water. That will do it (sigh) trust me


----------



## Patman1776 (Feb 8, 2013)

Anrosphynx said:


> but don't (i'm not saying you specifically) proclaim that the car is "fast" or "quick", because it is not.


Again....Here you go.........For ME, it IS fast and quick. Please provide me with the definition of fast and quick. Where does it give a cutoff 0-60 and quarter mile time between fast and quick, and slow? Your statement above is arrogant, and is exactly why some of us are put off by your arguments. Are other cars "faster"???? ABSOLUTELY!......That does NOT mean that the CRUZE is "slow". When you can define what IS, and ISN'T fast, come talk to me.......By the way, I bought the ECO for the COMBINATION of economy AND performance characteristics.


----------



## titan2782 (Nov 4, 2011)

14 pages of this. Can we put this energy to more useful information?


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

titan2782 said:


> 14 pages of this. Can we put this energy to more useful information?


Sure thing. 

Locked before this turns into a flame war.


----------

