# An Interesting Comparison between the Performance of the LS, LTZ, ECO, and Diesel



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

Now compare the curb weights of the various models.

Also compare the drag coefficient of each.


----------



## iTz SADISTIK (Apr 6, 2014)

I think drag would be a bigger factor in this case. The weight already has forward momentum therefore it wouldn't take much effort to increase the speed of said weight. From a dead stop that's another story. 

I'm not an engineer but my small knowledge in this area tells me weight is not much of a factor at this point.


Courtesy of Wikipedia


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

iTz SADISTIK said:


> I think drag would be a bigger factor in this case. The weight already has forward momentum therefore it wouldn't take much effort to increase the speed of said weight. From a dead stop that's another story.
> 
> I'm not an engineer but my small knowledge in this area tells me weight is not much of a factor at this point.
> 
> ...


Acceleration = force/mass. 200 lbs makes a difference. Aerodynamics as well, they take away from that forward force. 





Sent from Bill the WonderPhone


----------



## Sanjay Collins (Jun 25, 2013)

*An Interesting Comparison between the Performance of the LS, LTZ, ECO, and Di...*

My Eco manual with all my mods did 60-100 in 12 seconds, so did my '05 Monte Carlo SS with just an intake (heavy car). My Lancer GT with just an intake does it in 13 seconds. I was always impressed with the Eco's speed/acceleration, especially once I had it at the 200 hp mark considering it's a tiny displacement/turbo and weighs 3,000 lbs. A stock BRZ/FRS automatic does it in 12 as well. It can run with most of the 4-bangers at or under 200 hp.


----------



## iTz SADISTIK (Apr 6, 2014)

jblackburn said:


> Acceleration = force/mass. 200 lbs makes a difference. Aerodynamics as well, they take away from that forward force.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes but proportionally at this mass 200 is not a lot


Courtesy of Wikipedia


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

iTz SADISTIK said:


> Yes but proportionally at this mass 200 is not a lot
> 
> 
> Courtesy of Wikipedia


Put a large-sized friend in a Cruze and tell me it doesn't feel slower.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

*An Interesting Comparison between the Performance of the LS, LTZ, ECO, and Di...*



Sanjay Collins said:


> My Eco manual with all my mods did 60-100 in 12 seconds, so did my '05 Monte Carlo SS with just an intake (heavy car). My Lancer GT with just an intake does it in 13 seconds. I was always impressed with the Eco's speed/acceleration, especially once I had it at the 200 hp mark considering it's a tiny displacement/turbo and weighs 3,000 lbs. A stock BRZ/FRS automatic does it in 12 as well. It can run with most of the 4-bangers at or under 200 hp.


That 3rd gear pull tho...



jblackburn said:


> Put a large-sized friend in a Cruze and tell me it doesn't feel slower.


With a tune it's not as horrible as stock. You do feel loss in acceleration and it seems like heat soak happens faster the next pull you do. 

Sent from my iFail 5s


----------



## Sanjay Collins (Jun 25, 2013)

Yeah, 3rd @ 60 and can run it all the way to 100 before hitting 4th. It's pretty sick.


----------



## Cruze2.0TD (Feb 12, 2014)

Jim Frye said:


> Now compare the curb weights of the various models.
> 
> Also compare the drag coefficient of each.


Not sure on the drag coefficients as Car and Driver doesn't list that, but curb weights are as follows. LS 3143 lbs, LTZ 3206 lbs, Eco 3018 lbs, Diesel 3487 lbs. Those results are definitely exactly as I expected.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Sanjay Collins said:


> Yeah, 3rd @ 60 and can run it all the way to 100 before hitting 4th. It's pretty sick.


My 3rd only goes to about 90  So 4th is usually my passing gear because the engine doesn't do crap above 5500.



> LS 3143 lbs, LTZ 3206 lbs, Eco 3018 lbs, Diesel 3487 lbs. Those results are definitely exactly as I expected.


GM lists the LS automatic @ 3097 lbs. I wonder where the 3102 LB 1LT manual would come in, considering the aero improvements that would be most effective @ high speed on the Eco - and the gearing differences. Hmm...


----------



## Sanjay Collins (Jun 25, 2013)

jblackburn said:


> My 3rd only goes to about 90  So 4th is usually my passing gear because the engine doesn't do crap above 5500.


I remember those days, haha. I'll always wish I got to experience E85 or Meth on top of everything I had done before I traded it.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

Cruze2.0TD said:


> Not sure on the drag coefficients as Car and Driver doesn't list that, but curb weights are as follows. LS 3143 lbs, LTZ 3206 lbs, Eco 3018 lbs, Diesel 3487 lbs. Those results are definitely exactly as I expected.


Only the ECO has the grill shutters and the full underbody aero. They are there for a purpose.


----------



## Cruze2.0TD (Feb 12, 2014)

Jim Frye said:


> Only the ECO has the grill shutters and the full underbody aero. They are there for a purpose.


I thought the Diesel had all the aerodynamic treatments that an ECO did? Car and Driver said "Tough to see are aero bits, mostly picked up from the Cruze Eco, such as the grille opening and shutters, underbody aero panels, and new engine-compartment baffling" 2014 Chevrolet Cruze Diesel First Drive – Review – Car and Driver.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Cruze2.0TD said:


> I thought the Diesel had all the aerodynamic treatments that an ECO did? Car and Driver said "Tough to see are aero bits, mostly picked up from the Cruze Eco, such as the grille opening and shutters, underbody aero panels, and new engine-compartment baffling" 2014 Chevrolet Cruze Diesel First Drive – Review – Car and Driver.


Yep, same Eco aero tweaks (hence "Eco-D" designation). Diesel's just heavy, and while it has tons of torque, doesn't quite have the HP advantage over the Eco to make up for the weight.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> Yep, same Eco aero tweaks (hence "Eco-D" designation). Diesel's just heavy, and while it has tons of torque, doesn't quite have the HP advantage over the Eco to make up for the weight.


I stand corrected!


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

It doesn't really surprise me that the ECO MT is the quickest from 60 to 100. It's the lightest trim and has the lowest coefficient of drag. When I'm not hypermiling I have zero problem accelerating with the rest of traffic or even out accelerating traffic when needed.


----------



## Cruze2.0TD (Feb 12, 2014)

obermd said:


> It doesn't really surprise me that the ECO MT is the quickest from 60 to 100. It's the lightest trim and has the lowest coefficient of drag. When I'm not hypermiling I have zero problem accelerating with the rest of traffic or even out accelerating traffic when needed.


I'm guessing that it being a manual transmission is definitely helping it too. I'm always impressed with the performance of my diesel, though ....considering I came from an LS1 Camaro, it always surprises me that the power of the Cruze doesn't disappoint.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Cruze2.0TD said:


> I'm guessing that it being a manual transmission is definitely helping it too. I'm always impressed with the performance of my diesel, though ....considering I came from an LS1 Camaro, it always surprises me that the power of the Cruze doesn't disappoint.


I'm sure the manual transmission is helping. You never hear about the engine "screaming" from a MT owner, only AT owners.


----------

