# 1.5L Turbocharged Engine Rumored For Next-Generation Cruze



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

First I have heard of this, but could see the slightly bigger engine with direct injection getting the same MPG with more power. Hopefully if this is true more info about this engine gets leaked. 

All-New 2016 Chevy Cruze Rumored To Use 1.5L Turbo Engine | GM Authority


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

The big question is "will it have start/stop technology that works with both automatic and manual transmissions?" It's the lack of start/stop technology that is killing the Cruze's city fuel economy. My understanding is that Opel has a 1.6T EcoTec engine with this technology.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

I just read that GM-opel is working on a few new transmissions, that support start stop. Isn't the cruze manual transmission an opel design now? Might see some of this tech in the next generation cruze too. GM-Opel Announce New Transmissions | GM Authority


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

150-160 HP and better-sorted gearing in the autos would make the Cruze a nice little car to drive.

Hopefully they don't pile on much more weight...


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

*Direct injection*?...for ~11-15% _better_ fuel economy and similar C02 emission _reduction?_


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

> *Direct injection*?...for ~11-15% _better_ fuel economy and similar C02 emission _reduction?_


 Just hope the DI issues (gunked up valves as seen in BMWs and Minis) don't become an issue with the Cruze.


----------



## scott allen (May 10, 2013)

WOW a whole .1 bigger! Watch out camaro. lol what a waste of time.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

blk88verde said:


> Just hope the DI issues (gunked up valves as seen in BMWs and Minis) don't become an issue with the Cruze.


Hyundai and GMs have proven to be reliable. I can't imagine Honda would have gone that direction if they hadn't figured it out either. 

The Cruze is meant to be a fuel economy champ, not a race car. I would like to see it mid-pack in terms of HP though. It looks like Nissan, Honda, and Toyota are keeping their engines right around 140 HP in their redesigned small cars. 

They tried for class leading 4 cyl HP in the Malibu at the expense of the worst fuel economy in the midsize class. I don't think they'll make that mistake with the Cruze. Hopefully the slight increase in displacement along with direct injection will give it a smidgen more "oomph" from a stop as well as allow them to use a bigger turbo for more top-end highway passing power that the current Cruze very much needs. 

Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Interesting tidbit: Toyota's DI engines (Lexus 3.5, Subaru BRZ/Scion FRS) use a set of port fuel injectors alongside the direct injection system to wash fuel over the intake valves when deemed necessary or to operate at low RPMs for emissions purposes.

Since Audi/VW can't seem to get their timing right like the others in order to stop their valves from gunking up, they've got something similar in the works (they say it's for "emissions purposes").


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

> Toyota's DI engines (Lexus 3.5, Subaru BRZ/Scion FRS) use a set of port fuel injectors alongside the direct injection system to wash fuel over the intake valves when deemed necessary or to operate at low RPMs for emissions purposes.


 Interesting. From what I have been told - the BMWs that are being used lightly - not run through the gears approaching redline are the ones gunking up the valves.


----------



## 2013LT (Jul 3, 2013)

I'd love to see it be lighter (2700lbs) with the 1.5L and like you guys say the start/stop and direct inject. I would buy that in a second.


----------



## 2013Cruze (Aug 4, 2012)

scott allen said:


> WOW a whole .1 bigger! Watch out camaro. lol what a waste of time.


At least it's a step in the right direction.


----------



## 2013LT (Jul 3, 2013)

Bigger isn't necessarily the right direction  This 1.4 actually performs very very well. Much better than my Civics 1.7L non turbo.


----------



## scott allen (May 10, 2013)

Instead of boring the block and buying biggers pistons , wouldnt it be cheaper for gm to just tune the 1.4 ?


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

scott allen said:


> Instead of boring the block and buying biggers pistons , wouldnt it be cheaper for gm to just tune the 1.4 ?


Who says they are using bigger pistons to get the increased size? If past GM motors are looked at its more likely they would use a longer stroke for even better low end torque. Either is just speculation at this point though.


----------



## Starks8 (Jul 20, 2011)

spacedout said:


> First I have heard of this, but could see the slightly bigger engine with direct injection getting the same MPG with more power. Hopefully if this is true more info about this engine gets leaked.
> 
> All-New 2016 Chevy Cruze Rumored To Use 1.5L Turbo Engine | GM Authority


Dammit, you beat me to posting this, lol!


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

I bet the 2016 Cruze is nearly 100 pounds heavier than the current version. The extra .1L & 20 hp will be necessary to maintain mpg and performance and that's the reason for the increase in displacement. Is this the current 1.4L motor with a slight bore increase? Still wouldn't consider one until the 2017 MY.


----------



## H3LLON3ARTH (Dec 16, 2011)

scott allen said:


> WOW a whole .1 bigger! Watch out camaro. lol what a waste of time.


Dislike
How can you say waste if they can go up more displacement and gain the same MPG as the smaller engine more power to them.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

2013LT said:


> Bigger isn't necessarily the right direction  This 1.4 actually performs very very well. Much better than my Civics 1.7L non turbo.


Turbos FTW! Those 1.7s get awesome gas mileage but they sure are gutless unless you rev them to the sky. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## Patman (May 7, 2011)

Sounds like another one of GMs one size fits all engines to support all cars(but more fuel efficient) Like the 2.2 they put in all mid size cars(Alero, Grand Am, Malibu and Cobalt) or the mid 80s 3.8L 229/231 put in the Monte Carlo, Grand Prix Cutlass, Regal etc. I am sure it is an attempt at cost cutting by consolidating, engines for most cars. But more fuel efficient. With vehicle downsizing, definitely a step in the right direction.


----------



## scott allen (May 10, 2013)

spacedout said:


> Who says they are using bigger pistons to get the increased size? If past GM motors are looked at its more likely they would use a longer stroke for even better low end torque. Either is just speculation at this point though.





Even if they changed the stroke they willstill have to change the pistons. Changing the stroke moves the rod up farther in the piston, changing the stroke will not work with the pistons we have now.


----------



## Nathan of Aus. (May 16, 2013)

My bet is on the latest edition of the Opel 1.6T seeing as both the 1.4T and 1.6T currently in the cruze come from Opel.

"While the new 125kW/280Nm direct injection engine develops less power than the manual GTC Sport’s 132kW/230Nm turbocharged 1.6-litre unit, torque is improved as is efficiency. A combined cycle fuel consumption claim of 6.8 litres per 100km and CO2 emissions of 160 grams per kilometre bettering the manual’s 7.3L/100km and 171g/km."

"Following the engine’s debut in the Opel Cascada, Opel has announced the all-new 1.6-litre four-cylinder SIDI (spark ignition direct injection) Turbo engine will now power the front wheels of the three-door Opel Astra GTC hatchback.
Producing 125kW of power between 4250-6000rpm and 280Nm of torque between 1650-4250rpm (the latter with an overboost function), the 1.6 SIDI Turbo is claimed to deliver a 15 per cent improvement in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions over its identically sized predecessor."

It follows the trend of slightly less power in favour of improved fuel economy and emissions, but increased torque over a wider rev-band for enhanced drive-ability.
It also features an over-boost function giving extra torque for a limited amount of time.


----------



## 99_XC600 (Feb 24, 2013)

I would hope that GM would just increase the boost on the existing 1.4. There is so much potential left on the table with this little engine. Even if they just dial it up and give it 22HP increase and 30 increase in the torque resulting in numbers 160/178. It would help out the marketing machine quite a bit. 

Just for comparison. The engine in my snowmobile is a 750cc Four Stroke Turbo (.7 Liter). In it's stock form it shipped with 140 HP with a 4 second overboost of 160 HP. I've already done a reflash on it and it now sit's at 165HP with a 178HP over boost.

Yes there is an engine in there somewhere.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

I see two years of speculation, wishin', and hopein' ahead. This thread could go on forever.


----------



## Nathan of Aus. (May 16, 2013)

Comparing snowmobile and motorbike engines to regular car engines is ridiculous. One is a high performance design sacrificing any form of fuel economy and low-end torque for the highest possible top-end power. And don't forget that they don't last any where near as long and have no care for emissions.

It's a lot cheaper to use a preexisting larger turbo-charged engine than re-engineer the current engine.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Nathan of Aus. said:


> My bet is on the latest edition of the Opel 1.6T seeing as both the 1.4T and 1.6T currently in the cruze come from Opel.
> 
> "While the new 125kW/280Nm direct injection engine develops less power than the manual GTC Sport’s 132kW/230Nm turbocharged 1.6-litre unit, torque is improved as is efficiency. A combined cycle fuel consumption claim of 6.8 litres per 100km and CO2 emissions of 160 grams per kilometre bettering the manual’s 7.3L/100km and 171g/km."
> 
> ...


Isn't the gas mileage very disappointing from the 1.6?

I'd expect us to see a neutered version if that would be the base engine. Kinda like how our diesel is slightly less powerful, but gets amazing fuel economy.


----------



## Nathan of Aus. (May 16, 2013)

jblackburn said:


> Isn't the gas mileage very disappointing from the 1.6?
> 
> I'd expect us to see a neutered version if that would be the base engine. Kinda like how our diesel is slightly less powerful, but gets amazing fuel economy.


Official combined city and highway driving of 35mpg (6.8L per 100km) isn't too bad for an automatic making 168HP and 213flb if you ask me. =P
Also I would be hoping that they would use the current 1.4T as the base with the 1.6T as the sports.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Nathan of Aus. said:


> Official combined city and highway driving of 35mpg (6.8L per 100km) isn't too bad for an automatic making 168HP and 213flb if you ask me. =P
> Also I would be hoping that they would use the current 1.4T as the base with the 1.6T as the sports.


I'd love to see a sports version. Just please, please don't make it with an automatic ONLY.

Though I think the 1.6 may make a debut in a "warm hatch" Sonic to go up against the Fiesta ST and Veloster, and I'd like to see a 220+ HP turbo in a Cruze. Guess I can wish...


----------



## Nathan of Aus. (May 16, 2013)

jblackburn said:


> I'd love to see a sports version. Just please, please don't make it with an automatic ONLY.
> 
> Though I think the 1.6 may make a debut in a "warm hatch" Sonic to go up against the Fiesta ST and Veloster, and I'd like to see a 220+ HP turbo in a Cruze. Guess I can wish...


The manual 1.6T Opel Astra shares the same engine as the new Holden Cruze SRi(V) here in Australia.
132kW (177HP) and 230Nm (169flb) with slightly higher fuel use. It manages an official combined city and highway fuel use of over 30mpg.

As for a hot hatch version making 220+ HP:
Opel has the Astra OPC with a 2.0L Turbo making 206kW (276HP) and 400Nm (294flb)! 

All of the engines and transmissions are already in use on our chassis (Astra shares the Cruze platform) all around the world.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

That's called the Vauxhaul VXR in Europe, and it looks INCREDIBLE. Too bad they stick that engine in something as ugly as the Verano here.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> Too bad they stick that engine in something as ugly as the Verano here.


What you don't like the angry bird eyebrow taillights? LOL.


----------



## *tim* (Aug 7, 2013)

Nathan of Aus. said:


> The manual 1.6T Opel Astra shares the same engine as the new Holden Cruze SRi(V) here in Australia.
> 132kW (177HP) and 230Nm (169flb) with slightly higher fuel use. It manages an official combined city and highway fuel use of over 30mpg.
> 
> As for a hot hatch version making 220+ HP:
> ...


i heard that 2.0 turbo is coming in the new malibu and is supposed to have a quicker 0-60 time then the v6 camaro


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

2.0 the Cruze and detune it slightly. Make skidplates closed off again but w/o the dangers of oil fire from lazy shmucks. 3400 and 3800 was in everything **** the swaybars were there as well. 2008 Impala SS front sway was on my Buick Century and fits the silloette. The Century Regal guys take the last gen aluminum engine cradels from the Impala to lighen up the front end. The brakes on the Impala were also an upgrade but larger wheels were needed. Couple of the Subaru guys are using Grand National Boost solenoids, the GM parts bin is huge.


----------



## 2013Cruze (Aug 4, 2012)

I take the engine that's in the base Verano for the next generation Cruze(maybe) 

Comments anyone?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

2013Cruze said:


> I take the engine that's in the base Verano for the next generation Cruze(maybe)
> 
> Comments anyone?


2.5 is too heavy for a car this small and would ruin the handling. 

Honda can pull it off and get away with a 2.4, but the Acura ILX isn't a billion pounds. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## 2013Cruze (Aug 4, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> 2.5 is too heavy for a car this small and would ruin the handling.
> 
> Honda can pull it off and get away with a 2.4, but the Acura ILX isn't a billion pounds.
> 
> ...


Isn't the current Cruze and Verano about the same size and weight?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

2013Cruze said:


> Isn't the current Cruze and Verano about the same size and weight?


Verano is something like 3350 and the turbo weighs in at somewhere around 3500. That's heavier than a Ford Escape. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> Verano is something like 3350 and the turbo weighs in at somewhere around 3500. That's heavier than a Ford Escape.
> 
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com App


We should probably stop complaining about weight because cars aren't getting any smaller. The next Gen Cruze will be even heavier. 3200 lbs isn't too heavy when you look at the Cruze's dimensions compared to other cars. It's slightly larger than compact luxury cars - BMW 3, Lexus IS, Mercedes C


----------



## Nathan of Aus. (May 16, 2013)

ErikBEggs said:


> We should probably stop complaining about weight because cars aren't getting any smaller. The next Gen Cruze will be even heavier. 3200 lbs isn't too heavy when you look at the Cruze's dimensions compared to other cars. It's slightly larger than compact luxury cars - BMW 3, Lexus IS, Mercedes C


New cars may be getting larger but most of the latest generations have actually gotten lighter in the quest for improved fuel efficiency by using high-tech materials in the chassis sometimes coupled with the use of aluminium.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

Keep the weight the same, and the Eco could be 45 mpg highway and a sub-8-second 0-60. Throw a Trifecta tune on there, and getting a 0-60 in the low 7 second range could be possible. 

Either way, we will know more as the time gets closer.


----------



## Octane Cruze (Jun 8, 2013)

I'm coming from a 1.6L N/A SOHC honda civic (d16y7) to my cruze. I dynoed my honda civic at 84HP to the wheels. Now that I have manual and more power from this 1.8l, the power output on the cruze is perfect for driving around and some backroads for me. As a daily driver it's absolutely perfect. I'm not sure what everyone is expecting out of the cruze. If you're concerned about reliability and safety, but want to have fun on the weekend - buy a project car and work on that. If you want a quick daily - be prepared to pay for it. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Octane Cruze said:


> I'm coming from a 1.6L N/A SOHC honda civic (d16y7) to my cruze. I dynoed my honda civic at 84HP to the wheels. Now that I have manual and more power from this 1.8l, the power output on the cruze is perfect for driving around and some backroads for me. As a daily driver it's absolutely perfect. *I'm not sure what everyone is expecting out of the cruze.*


With my 2012 automatic 1LT(1.4T all stock)I do an 11 second 0-60. If I had known the cruze was that slow when I bought I would have probably bought the ugly Prius-C instead for the same money(same 11 second 0-60 with much better MPG). Honestly I am not expecting a race car but want to get up to speed quicker than that. 

Sure most of the time I turn a corner I am still doing 20mph+ so the 0-60 time is not as relevant as 40-60mph times but they do matter when you need to get out of the way of something quick. This is one of the slowest cars I have owned and I have owned some pretty slow cars.


----------



## Nathan of Aus. (May 16, 2013)

Octane Cruze said:


> I'm coming from a 1.6L N/A SOHC honda civic (d16y7) to my cruze. I dynoed my honda civic at 84HP to the wheels. Now that I have manual and more power from this 1.8l, the power output on the cruze is perfect for driving around and some backroads for me. As a daily driver it's absolutely perfect. I'm not sure what everyone is expecting out of the cruze. If you're concerned about reliability and safety, but want to have fun on the weekend - buy a project car and work on that. If you want a quick daily - be prepared to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


There are plenty of small cars out there that have a base model weighing 200lb less and yet they have more power. Then when you compare it to your average base model medium car and small SUV it weighs the same yet has far less power.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

spacedout said:


> With my 2012 automatic 1LT(1.4T all stock)I do an 11 second 0-60. If I had known the cruze was that slow when I bought I would have probably bought the ugly Prius-C instead for the same money(same 11 second 0-60 with much better MPG). Honestly I am not expecting a race car but want to get up to speed quicker than that.
> 
> Sure most of the time I turn a corner I am still doing 20mph+ so the 0-60 time is not as relevant as 40-60mph times but they do matter when you need to get out of the way of something quick. This is one of the slowest cars I have owned and I have owned some pretty slow cars.


...maybe you should try putting your pedal to the floor. No North American Cruze runs an 11 second 0-60. The LS Cruzen run low to mid 9s. None of them are as slow as a Prius. I have no idea where you are getting your information from. A bone stock 1.4T runs mid eights 0-60, which is in the middle of the pack for 4-cyl family sedans (compact, mid-size, and full-size inclusive).


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

The LS is 10+ sec easily in the real world. The 1.4T is mid-8's - 9.

Having owned faster cars, I'd consider the 1.4T and diesel "slow" in a dash to 60 or 80, though not bad for an economy car. That wasn't their intended purpose though. Nonetheless, as the point of this article, more power and fuel economy would NOT be a bad thing.

Heck, my Saab did 0-60 in about 15 seconds. The Beetle was like 20.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> The LS is 10+ sec easily in the real world. The 1.4T is mid-8's - 9.
> 
> Having owned faster cars, I'd consider the 1.4T and diesel "slow" in a dash to 60 or 80, though not bad for an economy car. That wasn't their intended purpose though. Nonetheless, as the point of this article, more power and fuel economy would NOT be a bad thing.
> 
> Heck, my Saab did 0-60 in about 15 seconds. The Beetle was like 20.


They are not "slow" for what they are. You can't preface judgement on a car saying it is "slow" having owned faster cars. The LS isn't going to be too much slower than the 1.4T in straight line because they have the same horsepower and weight. The physics evens out. The difference is the 1.4T motivates it easier through most of the powerband.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> The difference is the 1.4T motivates it easier through most of the powerband.


Which means a difference in time.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> Which means a difference in time.


Off the line. Peak power is the same. Once the LS is moving it will be just as fast as the LT. 138 horsepower is 138 horsepower.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> Off the line. Peak power is the same. Once the LS is moving it will be just as fast as the LT. 138 horsepower is 138 horsepower.


False.

Look at the power curves and get back to me.

The turbo makes higher HP for longer in the rev range because of the flat torque curve. The 1.8 has a very peaky power curve, and it doesn't hold 6000 RPM forever.

Give them both a CVT, sure, they'll hold even. But that's not how gears work.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> False.
> 
> Look at the power curves and get back to me.
> 
> ...


The 1.4T is a dog in straight line because of the power curve. Chevy is very good at making a fat powerband even on N/A. The 1.8 peak twist is at 3800 RPMs vs. 1850 for the 1.4T. In a straight line dig, the 1.4T wins off the line only. Rowing throw the gears redlining, you will never see under 4000 RPMs except your initial launch, so they both will put their 138 horsepower down throughout a drag race. When's the last time you got into a race with someone and saw under 4000 RPMs? The 1.4T is slightly faster and feels a lot faster in city driving, but from a pure power standpoint, the cars are still close. 138 horsepower is 138 horsepower either way you slice it.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

The 1.4T is slightly faster at the top end as well. You get full torque to a higher RPM which helps overcome aerodynamic drag.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> The 1.4T is a dog in straight line because of the power curve. Chevy is very good at making a fat powerband even on N/A. The 1.8 peak twist is at 3800 RPMs vs. 1850 for the 1.4T. In a straight line dig, the 1.4T wins off the line only. Rowing throw the gears redlining, you will never see under 4000 RPMs except your initial launch, so they both will put their 138 horsepower down throughout a drag race. When's the last time you got into a race with someone and saw under 4000 RPMs? The 1.4T is slightly faster and feels a lot faster in city driving, but from a pure power standpoint, the cars are still close. 138 horsepower is 138 horsepower either way you slice it.


Lets try looking at the actual graphs rather than saying 138 = 138.

Here you go.










Satisfied?

A gear change generally puts you back between 1500-2000 RPM. The 1.8 doesn't stay near that power peak at 6300 long enough to make up the difference.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

I didn't realize the peak power was so high in the powerband. Argh, 6300 RPMs.. failsauce for a N/A. Should be 6000 - 7000 RPMs like a Honda so we can make it scream like a banshee


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

Based on new cars available in today's market, on a scale of Ferrari-to-Prius the Cruze is definitely at the slow end of the pool. It's a slow car designed to be competitive with other slow cars, which it is.


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

To everyone complaining about the move to a 1.5T from the 1.4T and saying "Just tune the 1.4T", you're forgetting the car has to run on 87 octane fuel. As it sits right now, the 1.4T is pushing the envelope on 87 and starts to show this when encountering hot weather.

Bigger heavier Cruze will need a bigger more powerful engine if all else is to remain equal.


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Blue Angel said:


> To everyone complaining about the move to a 1.5T from the 1.4T and saying "Just tune the 1.4T", you're forgetting the car has to run on 87 octane fuel. As it sits right now, the 1.4T is pushing the envelope on 87 and starts to show this when encountering hot weather.
> 
> Bigger heavier Cruze will need a bigger more powerful engine if all else is to remain equal.
> 
> ...


DI, as well, should help it combat knock to an extent.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

Blue Angel said:


> Based on new cars available in today's market, on a scale of Ferrari-to-Prius the Cruze is definitely at the slow end of the pool. It's a slow car designed to be competitive with other slow cars, which it is.
> 
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


I don't get why people spend so much time bitching about a car that is designed for fuel economy that has no intentions of ever being fast. If you want a faster car, buy one. Otherwise, shut up and enjoy the 40+ MPG you won't get in a sports car.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

ErikBEggs said:


> I don't get why people spend so much time bitching about a car that is designed for fuel economy that has no intentions of ever being fast. If you want a faster car, buy one. Otherwise, shut up and enjoy the 40+ MPG you won't get in a sports car.


If you're directing that at me, I knew what the car was when I bought it and I have a fun car on the side.

If you're agreeing with me and just furthering my point, agreed!


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

Blue Angel said:


> If you're directing that at me, I knew what the car was when I bought it and I have a fun car on the side.
> 
> If you're agreeing with me and just furthering my point, agreed!


Not directed at you. The general consensus for people unhappy with the Cruze is that it is too slow. Cars now have to get 40 MPG and have 300+ horsepower too (still trying to find one). If you think the car is slow, don't buy it. Don't come on here expecting it to be fast and bitch about how slow it is. That is so annoying.

I also have a ton of friends my age that declare 4 cylinder cars "useless" then complain that gas is so expensive. Have fun giving half your paycheck to Uncle Sam and Big Oil but don't come at my car like it is a piece of junk.

/rant


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

That's what I thought. Like!


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Nathan of Aus. (May 16, 2013)

ErikBEggs said:


> I don't get why people spend so much time bitching about a car that is designed for fuel economy that has no intentions of ever being fast. If you want a faster car, buy one. Otherwise, shut up and enjoy the 40+ MPG you won't get in a sports car.


Most new small BMW turbo's use about the same fuel as the 1.4T Cruze.


----------



## steve333 (Oct 23, 2010)

GM shouldn't wait until then. Put it in for the 2015 Model year


----------



## steve333 (Oct 23, 2010)

spacedout said:


> With my 2012 automatic 1LT(1.4T all stock)I do an 11 second 0-60. If I had known the cruze was that slow when I bought I would have probably bought the ugly Prius-C instead for the same money(same 11 second 0-60 with much better MPG). Honestly I am not expecting a race car but want to get up to speed quicker than that.
> 
> Sure most of the time I turn a corner I am still doing 20mph+ so the 0-60 time is not as relevant as 40-60mph times but they do matter when you need to get out of the way of something quick. This is one of the slowest cars I have owned and I have owned some pretty slow cars.





ErikBEggs said:


> Not directed at you. The general consensus for people unhappy with the Cruze is that it is too slow. Cars now have to get 40 MPG and have 300+ horsepower too (still trying to find one). If you think the car is slow, don't buy it. Don't come on here expecting it to be fast and bitch about how slow it is. That is so annoying.
> 
> I also have a ton of friends my age that declare 4 cylinder cars "useless" then complain that gas is so expensive. Have fun giving half your paycheck to Uncle Sam and Big Oil but don't come at my car like it is a piece of junk.
> 
> /rant


When I say it's slow I say it comparing to my 2006 Cobalt. The engine was the only good thing about the car and I wish GM had carried it over for the base engine. Give those wanting a little more power a choice while giving those who only want more MPGs a choice.
My main problem with the engine choices in the Cruze is that they appear to struggle with the Cruze's weight. Sometimes a slightly larger engine will get even better MPG because it doesn't have to struggle to move the car.


----------



## Octane Cruze (Jun 8, 2013)

jblackburn said:


> False.
> 
> Look at the power curves and get back to me.
> 
> ...


You're forgetting about the most important thing: driver mod. Good drivers with great shifting ability a can pull off some crazy stuff.


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Octane Cruze said:


> You're forgetting about the most important thing: driver mod. Good drivers with great shifting ability a can pull off some crazy stuff.
> 
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


Some say he isn’t machine washable, and all his potted plants are called ‘Steve’. 

All we know is he’s called the Stig.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

In his defense, the new Prius with power buton pressed is fast for what it is. If you aren't on the freeway that much then it sharts on the ECO's fuel economy so long as the battery is charged. Either way the 1.4T should have had 20 more hp over the base model at least on paper alone.


----------



## Octane Cruze (Jun 8, 2013)

jblackburn said:


> Some say he isn’t machine washable, and all his potted plants are called ‘Steve’.
> 
> All we know is he’s called the Stig.


There's two types of people in this world ..


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

Nathan of Aus. said:


> Most new small BMW turbo's use about the same fuel as the 1.4T Cruze.


Negative.

And if so, most people that are concerned with fuel economy won't pay $45,000 for a BMW.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> And if so, most people that are concerned with fuel economy won't pay $45,000 for a BMW.


Yeah, that must be why BMW dumped their beautiful I6 for a turbo-4.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> Yeah, that must be why BMW dumped their beautiful I6 for a turbo-4.


Err... I mean, most people aren't cross shopping a Cruze, Focus, Civic with a BMW.


----------



## Nathan of Aus. (May 16, 2013)

ErikBEggs said:


> Negative.
> 
> And if so, most people that are concerned with fuel economy won't pay $45,000 for a BMW.


I've been looking at turbo 1 series BMW's lately...

Base model 1 series has similar outputs as the 1.4T Cruze yet uses almost 1L per 100km less fuel:
New Car Research - New Car Prices - Compare New Cars - RedBook.com.au

The next model up has similar outputs to the 1.6T Cruze yet still uses noticeably less fuel than the 1.4T Cruze.
New Car Research - New Car Prices - Compare New Cars - RedBook.com.au

And then you hit the 125 which makes some respectable outputs yet uses less fuel than the 1.6T Cruze and only slightly more than the 1.4T Cruze.
New Car Research - New Car Prices - Compare New Cars - RedBook.com.au

It's not until you hit the turbo six's that the fuel goes up a bit. But to be honest they make 300HP yet still use less fuel than your average base model mid-sized sedan.

High tech engines with some extremely early torque (always peak before 1500rpm even on performance models) and light weight chassis = amazing fuel economy despite being RWD.

Edit*
Oh and regarding the price: the base model 1 series costs 35k here in Aus where car prices are almost double US car prices. 45k US would get you the 2.0T and for a bit more the 3.0T.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

Nathan of Aus. said:


> I've been looking at turbo 1 series BMW's lately...


Interesting looking machinery you guys have down there. Note that the BMWs you linked to are tuned to run on premium fuel. What octane level is premium in AUS? That could have something to do with it... not sure how the Cruze is rated down under or what type of fuel it's rated for? What type of transmissions are in those 1Series? All it says is "manual" but gives no number of gears or gear ratios.

When I worked for Transport Canada we had a couple of Diesel 1 Series imported from Europe to test out:

Advanced Clean Diesels - Transport Canada

Almost the entire dealership staff poured into the service bay when I pulled in for an engine code diagnosis in the silver 118d... none of them had ever seen the hatchback in person before as they don't sell it here. That's a neat car with engine stop-start, the first diesel we had to test with that feature.

Personally, my girlfriend's car is a 2011 BMW 323i and I'm a little disapointed in the mileage we get out of that car. She doesn't drive efficiently so it's sucking lots of gas all the time, but it's not even impressive when I drive it and shoot for high mileage. We just drove to Cape Cod and back last week and the best we got on the highway was about 7.5-8 L/100km doing the speed limit or just over, which was usually 65 MPH.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> We just drove to Cape Cod and back last week and the best we got on the highway was about 7.5-8 L/100km doing the speed limit or just over, which was usually 65 MPH.


31 MPG is really all a 6-cylinder is going to do these days until you start deactivating cylinders, etc - especially one designed to be torquey like a BMW. My old V6 Camry and apparently the new ones as well will do at best around 30-32 MPG on the highway.

Heck, you can drive an older 6-cyl Jeep like a grandma and still get at best 20 MPG.

4 cylinders are the future, and they've gotten a heck of a lot better than they used to be. I just wish they made better sounds.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> 31 MPG is really all a 6-cylinder is going to do these days until you start deactivating cylinders, etc - especially one designed to be torquey like a BMW.


Yeah, 31-33 is about the best it seems to do staying at or above the speed limit. I wouldn't call this thing a torque monster... it's a 2.5L straight six that makes 200hp. It IS a six, but many of today's fours are as big. I was expecting a little better from it when we bought it, though that was based on my assumptions of the engine size. It's geared too low... first is RIDICULOUSLY short, likely so the 0-60 time stays reasonable. When shifting the autobox manually I always start in 2nd gear - much better. If the rear end had a taller ratio in it the car would be so much better overall. It's reving ~2400 RPM @ 60 MPH. BS.



jblackburn said:


> 4 cylinders are the future, and they've gotten a heck of a lot better than they used to be. I just wish they made better sounds.


Fours can sound _decent_, but it's not too common. The trick seems to be cancelling out the low frequency exhaust noise (interior drone), and focusing on the intake noise (which is only prevalent when the throttle is open). Turbocharging a four just makes it harder to get the good noises out.

BMW already plays a V8 soundtrack through the stereo on their newest turbocharged V8 M5 (LOL, I know), maybe they can pump a V8 soundtrack into a car with a turbo four?


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

ErikBEggs said:


> ...maybe you should try putting your pedal to the floor. No North American Cruze runs an 11 second 0-60. The LS Cruzen run low to mid 9s. None of them are as slow as a Prius. I have no idea where you are getting your information from. A bone stock 1.4T runs mid eights 0-60, which is in the middle of the pack for 4-cyl family sedans (compact, mid-size, and full-size inclusive).


Both my bone stock 2012 and the 2013 I sometimes drive at work I test with a stop watch, both are 11 seconds 0-60. This test was done with no real launch, traction control on in 75 degree weather. 
Seen many magazines list the 2011 1.4T automatic at 9.5 seconds 0-60, wouldn't you think a retest is in order when GM changed the final driving gearing in 2012? With the gearing change it would be slower and 11seconds would only be 1.5seconds slower. 

Also its known manufactures send ringers in for testing, MotorTrend caught GM doing this in the 1990's with one review, they dynoed the cars in the test and the Camaro SS was making almost the same power at the wheels as it was suppose to make at the motor. 

The 2012+ automatic cruze is a snail 0-60. I should not need a after market tune to make the car faster than a prius. My 2004 Cavalier 2.2ecotec auto seemed much faster than the cruze 0-60 and that car was only tested at 9-9.5 seconds 0-60.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> It's reving ~2400 RPM @ 60 MPH. BS.


Wow, that's high...you'd definitely expect lower from a car these days. Though the HP numbers aren't that impressive, 325's used to be a lot of fun before they put on some weight too. Put that E30 I6 into a 2300-lb 2002 and you've got a tire-spinning ball of fun on your hands.

The new 328i has a nice amount of power though, and gets pretty good fuel economy to boot.



> BMW already plays a V8 soundtrack through the stereo on their newest turbocharged V8 M5 (LOL, I know), maybe they can pump a V8 soundtrack into a car with a turbo four?


Ugh...the newest BS-ery to hit "sports" cars since the stupid flappy paddle gearboxes replacing manuals. Hate.



> My 2004 Cavalier 2.2ecotec auto seemed much faster than the cruze 0-60 and that car was only tested at 9-9.5 seconds 0-60.


Mine's about 8.2-8.7 depending on the launch/shift points...made a couple runs with it. The clutch *SUCKS* in this car for a hard launch (it just slips rather than spinning the wheels if you rev too high), but recently, I had to pull out from a dead stop into 60 MPH traffic with a very small gap. The little thing surprised me to say the least, even if it sounded like I was murdering it. I would welcome 150-160 HP from a Cruze though..._*without*_ a tune.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

spacedout said:


> Also its known manufactures send ringers in for testing, MotorTrend caught GM doing this in the 1990's with one review, they dynoed the cars in the test and the Camaro SS was making almost the same power at the wheels as it was suppose to make at the motor.


The LS1 F-Body was under rated... that car was no ringer, they just advertised the power low to a) confuse the Ford guys for a little while and b) keep the Corvette guys from whining. It was basically the same engine a base 345 hp Corvette had in it, the only major difference being the intake and exhaust plumbing. They would actually dyno higher than Corvettes since the solid axle was a little more efficient than the IRS at transfering the power to the wheels.

A guy I knew had an LS1 SS Camaro poster. It claimed "320*HP". In the fine print at the bottom it said *at 5200 RPM". Funny... the car revs to over 6000 RPM and pulls hard all the way up.


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

> Mine's about 8.2-8.7 depending on the launch/shift points...made a couple runs with it.


 That seems reasonable. My ECO 6M is pretty comparable in acceleration to 60 from what I recall, to a 2002 Mercedes C230K 6M I previously owned. I think the Mercedes was 7.9 sec to 60 according to the manufacturer, weighed 3300 lbs and had 192 hp supercharged 2.3 4cyl.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Blue Angel said:


> The LS1 F-Body was under rated...


 The test I seen was before the LS1, it was in the LT1 days. At that point the WS6/SS were only 305hp rated(standard LT1 car was 285hp) and the test was between a the 305HP Trans am WS6 305HP Mustang Cobra and 305hp Camaro SS. They dynoed the cars because even though power output and weight was almost identical the cars were all differing at every test. 

The Trans am had a proper % driveline loss, however the Camaro was making something like 330HP at the engine. The interesting thing was the Mustang was not making enough power and after investigating Ford recalled all mustangs that year and installed a new exhaust and intake so owners were actually getting what they were paying for.


----------



## Octane Cruze (Jun 8, 2013)

You do realize that with a automatic, there is ALWAYS drivetrain loss VS. Manual.

15-20% drivetrain loss, that's why your automatic - is certainly slower then it's manual counterpart.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Octane Cruze said:


> You do realize that with a automatic, there is ALWAYS drivetrain loss VS. Manual.
> 
> 15-20% drivetrain loss, that's why your automatic - is certainly slower then it's manual counterpart.



Sure, when I bought my car the numbers published were usually around 7-8seconds 0-60 for the ECO manual and 9-9.5second 0-60 for the 2011 1.4T auto, only make sense the slightly heavier than ECO LT Manual cruze would fall some where in between. However I never seen any 0-60 test since the 2012+ automatic got its higher final drive ratio, one why I tested my car(the other because it seemed so slow). 

Automatic = More power loss through drivetrain
higher final drive = better hwy MPG(lower RPM) but less torque multiplication(power to the ground) in every gear or RPM(slower).


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

spacedout said:


> The interesting thing was the Mustang was not making enough power and after investigating Ford recalled all mustangs that year and installed a new exhaust and intake so owners were actually getting what they were paying for.


I remember that very well... that was in 1999. Ford recalled all the '99s and never sold a 2000:

Ford Mustang SVT Cobra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_"The new 1999 SVT Cobra had an upgraded 4.6L DOHC engine with [email protected] and 317 pound-feet (430 N·m) of [email protected] New 1999 SVT Cobra owners were concerned about slow 0-60mph times and low chassis dyno power numbers even though Ford claimed that the 4.6 was outputting 15 hp more than the 1998 Cobra engine. On August 6th, 1999 Ford stopped selling the '99 Cobra and recalled all that had been sold. Ford replaced the intake manifold and computer components as well as the entire exhaust from the catalytic to the tailpipes in order to achieve a "true" 320hp at the crankshaft. Because of this blunder, the 320hp 2000 SVT Cobra was pulled from production to return in 2001 again rated at 320hp."

_The LS1 made its debut in the Camaro in '98. All three cars were "rated" at 320hp at the time.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> The LS1 made its debut in the Camaro in '98. All three cars were "rated" at 320hp at the time.


And they sure sounded a heck of a lot better than the Mustang motors too.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Blue Angel said:


> The LS1 made its debut in the Camaro in '98. All three cars were "rated" at 320hp at the time.


Sure it did, but the 305HP comparo I was referring to was in the 95-96 cars(still LT1). Ford may have had those claimed HP issues for longer than just the 1999 model year.

EDIT:
Only the WS6/SS were 320HP in 1998, the standard Z28/TA were only 305HP stock with the LS1 in 1998. The LT1 was only 285HP or 305HP with the SS/WS6 package, earlier model years the LT1 was only 275HP, not 285(they added a second cat and gained 10HP in later model years).


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

Octane Cruze said:


> You do realize that with a automatic, there is ALWAYS drivetrain loss VS. Manual.
> 
> 15-20% drivetrain loss, that's why your automatic - is certainly slower then it's manual counterpart.


Yea, provided a manual shifts faster than a computer... (which it never does).

The automatics are faster hands down. Better gearing, quicker shifts.



spacedout said:


> Sure, when I bought my car the numbers published were usually around 7-8seconds 0-60 for the ECO manual and 9-9.5second 0-60 for the 2011 1.4T auto, only make sense the slightly heavier than ECO LT Manual cruze would fall some where in between. However I never seen any 0-60 test since the 2012+ automatic got its higher final drive ratio, one why I tested my car(the other because it seemed so slow).
> 
> Automatic = More power loss through drivetrain
> higher final drive = better hwy MPG(lower RPM) but less torque multiplication(power to the ground) in every gear or RPM(slower).


There is no way he **** the Cruze Eco is a full second faster than its Automatic counterpart. Look at the gears, look at the lower peak torque on the automatic engine. Where do they get off publishing this stuff??

The fastest times on this forum are all held by Automatic Cruzen by a longshot. We haven't seen an Eco driver break 15.7 yet.


----------



## au201 (May 18, 2013)

ErikBEggs said:


> Yea, provided a manual shifts faster than a computer... (which it never does).
> 
> The automatics are faster hands down. Better gearing, quicker shifts.
> 
> ...


LOLOL. Auto shifts faster than a person. If that's true, for the cruze at least, you've got a major issue with shifting. Plus the auto looses power to the wheels compared to the manual. Hence why the manual will always be faster. Why do you think the Germans and Italians are now using dual clutch and single clutch automated manual transmissions. They know a clutch will always be better than a torque converter but that people buying luxury cars don't usually want to shift themselves. Hence automated manual. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

au201 said:


> LOLOL. Auto shifts faster than a person. If that's true, for the cruze at least, you've got a major issue with shifting. Plus the auto looses power to the wheels compared to the manual. Hence why the manual will always be faster. Why do you think the Germans and Italians are now using dual clutch and single clutch automated manual transmissions. They know a clutch will always be better than a torque converter but that people buying luxury cars don't usually want to shift themselves. Hence automated manual.
> 
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


It's more than just the shift speed, it's the timing as well. The power lost to the wheels from a manual vs. automatic isn't much of a difference percentage wise. It won't make up for those awful gears. The Cruze has 4.58 / 2.96 / 1.91 / 1.45 acceleration gears in the automatic transmission.. aggressive is an understatement.

Like I said, I haven't seen a manual transmission Cruze post a faster time than it's automatic counterpart on this forum, even in bone stock form. Magazines are hardly reliable. The only hard evidence we would have is if someone takes a stock Cruze and runs it down the quarter mile in a drag setting. The results here say 16.5 for a Cruze LT and 16.6 for a Cruze Eco. Both sound about right for this class of car using Premium fuel.

As for tuned Cruzen, My car is roughly 7.3 in 0-60, based off my 1/8 mile time and this calculator. I don't think a tune alone is enough to knock of 2 full seconds from a 0-60 time.


----------



## au201 (May 18, 2013)

ErikBEggs said:


> It's more than just the shift speed, it's the timing as well. The power lost to the wheels from a manual vs. automatic isn't much of a difference percentage wise. It won't make up for those awful gears. The Cruze has 4.58 / 2.96 / 1.91 / 1.45 acceleration gears in the automatic transmission.. aggressive is an understatement.
> 
> Like I said, I haven't seen a manual transmission Cruze post a faster time than it's automatic counterpart on this forum, even in bone stock form. Magazines are hardly reliable. The only hard evidence we would have is if someone takes a stock Cruze and runs it down the quarter mile in a drag setting. The results here say 16.5 for a Cruze LT and 16.6 for a Cruze Eco. Both sound about right for this class of car using Premium fuel.
> 
> As for tuned Cruzen, My car is roughly 7.3 in 0-60, based off my 1/8 mile time and this calculator. I don't think a tune alone is enough to knock of 2 full seconds from a 0-60 time.


There is in fact a 15-20% power loss with an automatic, FYI. And also, the stock tune on the cruze takes the car to redline on shifts as we all know is pointless and slower. Whereas if you drive a stick you can time your shifts better. Thanks for making my own point for that. There's no way to know if the lt in that link was tuned or not. An Eco should and always has been faster than the LT. Plus the LT was a 2011 and the Eco was a 2012. We know the 2011 had shorter gears. A 2012 LT is slower than the Eco as far as I remember. And an auto 2012 is way slower than a manual Eco if in the same conditions.To really compare, you would need two cruzen of the same year and same trim. The only difference being the transmission. Ill give you this, an auto is much more consistent with times. And a really good auto (not the cruzes) may be faster than the manual counterpart because they tend to have more gears and shift faster. But the cruze auto is quite slow. Albeit smooth. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

au201 said:


> There is in fact a 15-20% power loss with an automatic, FYI.


I hope you mean 15-20% drivetrain loss and not 15-20% loss between an Automatic vs. Manual. As I said, there is no evidence that says a Manual Eco is faster than an Automatic LT in any year, and it is especially not a full second faster to 60 mph. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Automatic sucks. The manual puts WAY more power down to the ground at any speed - you don't need to be a rocket scientist just to feel that.

I'll see if my friend with an auto Eco is up for a race.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> Automatic sucks. The manual puts WAY more power down to the ground at any speed - you don't need to be a rocket scientist just to feel that.
> 
> I'll see if my friend with an auto Eco is up for a race.


He will probably win too...

I want to race a tuned Manual Eco or Manual LT, but it wouldn't be fair. I mean, I get no props for mashing the pedal, but the computer will trump the driver all day.

15.7 in the quarter mile, all day every day.


----------



## H3LLON3ARTH (Dec 16, 2011)

ErikBEggs said:


> He will probably win too...
> 
> I want to race a tuned Manual Eco or Manual LT, but it wouldn't be fair. I mean, I get no props for mashing the pedal, but the computer will trump the driver all day.
> 
> 15.7 in the quarter mile, all day every day.


We should have at Lordstown lol Just Kidding only racing done is on the dragstrip.


----------



## Nathan of Aus. (May 16, 2013)

Blue Angel said:


> Interesting looking machinery you guys have down there. Note that the BMWs you linked to are tuned to run on premium fuel. What octane level is premium in AUS? That could have something to do with it... not sure how the Cruze is rated down under or what type of fuel it's rated for? What type of transmissions are in those 1Series? All it says is "manual" but gives no number of gears or gear ratios.
> 
> When I worked for Transport Canada we had a couple of Diesel 1 Series imported from Europe to test out:
> 
> ...


It tells you the number of gears in the overview section.
All manuals are 6-speed and all sports autos are 8-speed (near identical fuel consumption to manual and sometimes better).
Premium here is 95RON which is comparable to your 91.
Here the 1.8 and 1.4T Cruze require 91RON which is similar to your 87. But the 1.6T Cruze requires 95RON (your 91).

To be fair to BMW the 323i is a N/A engine. The turbo engines which they're in the process of switching all cars over to are far more efficient. Instant drop of about 2L per 100km.


----------



## Nathan of Aus. (May 16, 2013)

In regards to the auto vs. manual debate:
On the race track manual wins hands down.
On the drag strip auto wins hands down.
End of story.


----------



## scott allen (May 10, 2013)

The manual will put down more hp and tq to the wheels over the auto. 
If some one that could drive a stick would out run the auto car for sure.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

2011 Chevrolet Cruze Track Tested - YouTube

Road Test: 2011 Chevrolet Cruze - YouTube

Debate away...


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Blue Angel said:


> 2011 Chevrolet Cruze Track Tested - YouTube
> 
> Road Test: 2011 Chevrolet Cruze - YouTube
> 
> Debate away...


No manual trans was shown, only a 2011 2LT & LTZ automatic which both tested in the 9.2-9.3 second 0-60mph range. Think I stated earlier 9.5seconds for a 2011 so I was slightly off. Also notice how freaking slow this car gets after 60mph? takes 9+ seconds to 60mph but takes 17.1-17.2 to hit 80-82mph in the 1/4 mile. 8seconds to gain 20mph? SLLLLOOOOWWWWW!!!

Did a 0-60mph blast again tonight with my 2012 1LT automatic(no rolling, no launch, traction control on), took 10-12seconds in 82degree weather with the AC off. I guarantee the 2012+ automatics higher final drive is slower than these 2011 cars.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Blue Angel said:


> 2011 Chevrolet Cruze Track Tested - YouTube
> 
> Road Test: 2011 Chevrolet Cruze - YouTube
> 
> Debate away...


Nice find!

Hmm, it must their professional test driver sucks...even with a rollout, all he could do manage was a measly mid-9 second 0-60? Clearly, the automatic puts down the most power and these numbers are just wrong. 



> Also notice how freaking slow this car gets after 60mph?


Yeah, mine's quite slow between 60-80 too. It does *feel* more powerful in terms of highway passing power than the automatic (I think the auto is in 3rd or 4th at those speeds?), whereas mine's in 3rd...but I don't have times for you. It'll get up and pass, but you have to wring its neck. However, highway acceleration in 5th/6th is pretty decent for what it is.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

spacedout said:


> No manual trans was shown, only a 2011 2LT & LTZ automatic which both tested in the 9.2-9.3 second 0-60mph range. Think I stated earlier 9.5seconds for a 2011 so I was slightly off. Also notice how freaking slow this car gets after 60mph? takes 9+ seconds to 60mph but takes 17.1-17.2 to hit 80-82mph in the 1/4 mile. 8seconds to gain 20mph? SLLLLOOOOWWWWW!!!


Get a tune.. keeps trucking all the way to 120 mph.

Run some premium fuel. On the dyno my stock car topped 116 mph. Slow, but she can get up there.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

ErikBEggs said:


> Get a tune.. keeps trucking all the way to 120 mph.


I would but don't want to risk the longevity of the engine(The extra boost has proven reliable, but technically it should wear out the engine quicker). This is the reason I am very interested in even a slight increase in engine size in the cruze, with the same stock boost levels(more reliable) I can get similar power output as a tuned cruze. I believe some of the newer Opel 1.4T & 1.6T has overboost & since out Diesel has it I suspect these new engines will as well. If the 1.4T has 148lb-ft stock, with overboost I would expect 170lb-ft. 

If the next gen cruze gets beat with an ugly stick, maybe this 1.5T would be a worthy engine to swap into my 2012. Sure for the money a 2.0T would be smarter but I would not want to sacrifice the great MPG of the Cruze.


----------



## Nathan of Aus. (May 16, 2013)

scott allen said:


> The manual will put down more hp and tq to the wheels over the auto.
> If some one that could drive a stick would out run the auto car for sure.


I've done my fair share of 1/4 mile runs in big V8's and I can you that even with the loss at the wheels the auto (of any two identical cars) always wins. 
The loss at the wheels is made up by shift time. Yes everyone thinks they're a pro race car drive but the reality is that you simply can not physically shift faster than a sports auto. It's not possible. 
Then there's the launch. When you're making some serious torque getting the perfect launch becomes a real art. Some people can never master it. The auto however gets it right every single time. 
I was the fastest stock car on two separate drag nights with over 100 V8's and even some supercharged V8's weighing many hundreds of pounds less couldn't keep up. The big fat stock auto sailed straight past them.
Even if you shift in 1/2 a second that's a full second lost shifting down the strip. 1s is a **** of a lot of time when cars are running 11-14s!


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Nathan of Aus. said:


> I've done my fair share of 1/4 mile runs in big V8's and I can you that even with the loss at the wheels the auto (of any two identical cars) always wins.
> The loss at the wheels is made up by shift time. Yes everyone thinks they're a pro race car drive but the reality is that you simply can not physically shift faster than a sports auto. It's not possible.
> Then there's the launch. When you're making some serious torque getting the perfect launch becomes a real art. Some people can never master it. The auto however gets it right every single time.
> I was the fastest stock car on two separate drag nights with over 100 V8's and even some supercharged V8's weighing many hundreds of pounds less couldn't keep up. The big fat stock auto sailed straight past them.
> Even if you shift in 1/2 a second that's a full second lost shifting down the strip. 1s is a **** of a lot of time when cars are running 11-14s!


Yup, but those are V8s with good, quick transmissions and so much power that it just doesn't matter. Neither of which the Cruze has. 

In a slow car where power loss IS significant, the transmission makes a world of difference. Race a Honda 4 cyl auto against a manual and the manual driver will win every time...unless they really suck at driving and miss a shift. 

Now, a TL auto vs a manual can be a different story, depends on the driver skill and how much they spin on a launch. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

Nathan of Aus. said:


> I've done my fair share of 1/4 mile runs in big V8's and I can you that even with the loss at the wheels the auto (of any two identical cars) always wins.
> The loss at the wheels is made up by shift time.


Big powerful cars are usually quicker in the 1/4 mile with automatics because they're easy to launch well, not because they shift faster. A good manual driver can beat an auto, but getting the launch right takes practice and skill. Drag racing is all about the 60' time... with an equal launch the manual car will win every time as it is putting more power to the wheels.

Newer automatics may be slightly better, but the traditional rule of thumb is that a manual has about 3-5% more power at the wheels. If both cars are side by side after the launch the manual car will slowly pull away from the automatic for the rest of the race.

This is all assuming that there is no issue with big gaps in the gear ratios, which there usually aren't. The Cruze Eco is a good exaple of this because of its wide lower gear spacing, but I bet the non Eco manuals are just fine.



Nathan of Aus. said:


> Even if you shift in 1/2 a second that's a full second lost shifting down the strip. 1s is a **** of a lot of time when cars are running 11-14s!


Shift time has little to do with 1/4 mile ET. However it has everything to do with 0-60 or any other TIME-TO-SPEED measurement. 1/4 mile is time-to-DISTANCE... there's a big difference.

In 1/4 mile you're still traveling at speed while you're shifting, so you're still making progress even while not accelerating. Extreme example: if you accelerated through 1st gear you could coast the rest of the way and still complete the test, albeit with a slow time.

Not so with time-to-speed. Every time you shift you're directly adding that time to your result.

Having said all that, I will add that in 1/4 mile racing the faster the car the easier it is to go fast with an automatic. You don't see many cars faster than 10.0 running manuals because at that level of performance managing available traction is everything. Automatics allow the driver to do that better.

1/2 second is a pretty slow shift, BTW.  When I used to drag race I never took my foot off the gas while shifting, I got consistent to the point where I could rev to redline, clutch and let the engine bounce off the limiter, and be back in gear as the ECU powered the engine up again.

I had to abandon that practice for the 1-2 and 2-3 shift when I got my Z06 simply because that car was powerful enough to break traction if shifted that way (combination of power and flywheel inertia), and cars are quickest when they're not spinning the tires. The 3-4 shift could be hammered in, though.


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Octane Cruze (Jun 8, 2013)

ErikBEggs said:


> Yea, provided a manual shifts faster than a computer... (which it never does).
> 
> The automatics are faster hands down. Better gearing, quicker shifts.[QOUTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Nathan of Aus. (May 16, 2013)

Octane Cruze said:


> ErikBEggs said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, provided a manual shifts faster than a computer... (which it never does).
> ...


----------



## au201 (May 18, 2013)

Nathan of Aus. said:


> Octane Cruze said:
> 
> 
> > Any decent sports auto will engine brake, hold low gears when braking hard through corners, instantly drop 2-3 gears the second you start to climb a hill, hold a low gear after a throttle blip etc. Our new sports model Cruze's have this new tune as of April this year in Aus. They're now on par with our Aussie made big V8 auto box tunes.
> ...


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

spacedout said:


> If the next gen cruze gets beat with an ugly stick, maybe this 1.5T would be a worthy engine to swap into my 2012. Sure for the money a 2.0T would be smarter but I would not want to sacrifice the great MPG of the Cruze.


Why swap when you can tune it for $300 and be faster than the 1.5T from the factory will be?

The car picks up power on on premium fuel. I dynoed 130 / 154 at the wheels in stock tune.



Octane Cruze said:


> You don't seem to understand that an automatic will NOT fully use the REVS in between gear changes. With a manual you're in control. If you want to redline it, you can redline it. Automatics will never be up to par as far as driving feel aswell. As I said before, it comes down to driver mod. What's driver mod? Skilled shifting. Power shifting, heel-toe, etc. You have more control over the car - IF you know what you're doing. I'll give you credit though - automatics are used in professional drag racing in bracket racing, and elsewhere. This is so that they can get more accurate controlled shifts through the rev range. It's not set up as the typical automatic that shifts at the best fuel economy point OR at the best speed for what driving conditions are at the time. It's set up to shift specifically at the highest point of rev BEFORE redline.


You are acting like a 3% loss of power to the wheels will offset your imprecise shifting. Good luck with that.

I will take any manual driver, flash my fat porky LTZ back to stock and beat it on the dragstrip every time. You won't outshift the computer. It NEVER holds gears to the redline unless I put it in manual mode. The stock computer shifts at roughly 6000 RPMs, as it should.


----------



## Octane Cruze (Jun 8, 2013)

ErikBEggs said:


> Why swap when you can tune it for $300 and be faster than the 1.5T from the factory will be?
> 
> The car picks up power on on premium fuel. I dynoed 130 / 154 at the wheels in stock tune.
> 
> ...


We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. It's been proven many times that humans can beat the computer. Automatics have come a far way, and I completely agree with you. Though certain driving techniques that are specific to driving manual will always make it the better choice. Which is faster? We can't argue this because there isn't a base for this discussion. In order to do so, we'd need two excellent drivers, with the same models both stock. They'd need to race along side for the proof. The reason I argue that automatics do have drivetrain loss regardless, whether it be 3% or what I stated. Simply based on that, wouldn't you say that's enough to justify the possibility that the manuals are superior in this category?


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

Uh, whenever you're NOT accelerating (ie: shifting between gears), the car is momentarily *coasting* and NOLONGER attempting to go _faster_ ...which affects _both_ ET and MPH.

Shift points are those *horizontal* "*flat*-spots" in the car's acceleration vs. time & mph graphs!


----------



## Octane Cruze (Jun 8, 2013)

70AARCUDA said:


> Uh, whenever you're NOT accelerating (ie: shifting between gears), the car is momentarily *coasting* and NOLONGER attempting to go _faster_ ...which affects _both_ ET and MPH.


Again cuda, it depends on how quickly you can shift.


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...sorry, but ANY time wasted is time LOST.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

Then there is the type of manual transmission used in the V8 Supercars, similar to the cruze auto in manual mode to operate. No clutch required once moving. The gear leaver has a sensor that cuts engine revs for a microsecond during gear changes, car is never in neutral during a race. only down side when slowing for a bend you have to come back through every gear till you reach the one you want, going up is really quick.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

Boy, did this thread ever get off topic!


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Jim Frye said:


> Boy, did this thread ever get off topic!


I figure at least were still talking about cars....LOL.


----------



## Octane Cruze (Jun 8, 2013)

Yeah I'm out of this convo lol. I think the 1.5 will be awesome and yeah..


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

jblackburn said:


> ...4 cylinders are the future, and they've gotten a heck of a lot better than they used to be. I just wish they made better sounds...


SUBARU with UEL headers. EL headers gives you this 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_VrduqXaWU




Nathan of Aus. said:


> Octane Cruze said:
> 
> 
> > Any decent sports auto will engine brake, hold low gears when braking hard through corners, instantly drop 2-3 gears the second you start to climb a hill, hold a low gear after a throttle blip etc. Our new sports model Cruze's have this new tune as of April this year in Aus. They're now on par with our Aussie made big V8 auto box tunes.
> ...


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

Equal-length headers, by their very nature, have a VERY high-rpm/narrow-band 'peakiness' and notoriously poor low-end -- unless their lengths are very long -- whereas Tri-Y headers produce a much stronger/smoother mid-range benefit for normal (anything short of drag and road racing) driving situations.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> Uh, whenever you're NOT accelerating (ie: shifting between gears), the car is momentarily *coasting* and NOLONGER attempting to go _faster_ ...which affects _both_ ET and MPH.
> 
> Shift points are those *horizontal* "*flat*-spots" in the car's acceleration vs. time & mph graphs!


Agreed 100%, but shift times make relatively little difference in the 1/4 mile unless you're really taking your time. If the slow shifting car lost a whole car length to the faster shifting car as a result of it's lazy shifting (and that would be several really lazy shifts), it's still just a car length. At 100 MPH that's not much time... 100 MPH = 147 ft/second, so a car length is about 1/10th of a second at 100 MPH.

Sure a 10th of a second is a convincing win in a drag race, but in the grand scheme of things it's not that much quicker.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

An inch or a mile, winning is winning...


----------



## Octane Cruze (Jun 8, 2013)

Merc6 said:


> An inch or a mile, winning is winning...


Nobody likes the tuna here..


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

Merc6 said:


> An inch or a mile, winning is winning...





Blue Angel said:


> Sure *a 10th of a second is a convincing win in a drag race*, but in the grand scheme of things it's not that much quicker.


Glad you agree.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

Jim Frye said:


> Boy, did this thread ever get off topic!


No kidding. I'm a little late to this party, but I'll chime in (on the original topic) anyway.



spacedout said:


> First I have heard of this, but could see the slightly bigger engine with direct injection getting the same MPG with more power. Hopefully if this is true more info about this engine gets leaked.


As much as I love my Cruze, I'll be disappointed if the next-gen doesn't get 40 mpg highway from every trim. Except the Eco and the diesel, the Cruze is already starting to fall behind in the mileage race, and this from some cars with more power. The Dodge Dart is pumping out +22hp and +36 torque over the Cruze with their own 1.4l turbo all while getting nearly Eco mileage (at least EPA ratings).



scott allen said:


> WOW a whole .1 bigger! Watch out camaro. lol what a waste of time.


Displacement means little. It's all about how they use it. The former GM 3.8L V6 in my Impala put out significantly less power than the 2.0L turbo in the Cadillac ATS. If GM can get over 270 hp and nearly 300 lb-ft of torque out of a 2.0L while getting _better_ mileage than my 3.8L Impala in a car that only weighs 100 lbs less, then I'm confident a properly tuned 1.5L turbo could be an excellent engine in a Cruze. I'm no expert or engineer, but I think realistically it would be nice to see 155+ hp and 170+ torque out of a 1.5L turbo all while getting current or better mileage.



jblackburn said:


> 31 MPG is really all a 6-cylinder is going to do these days until you start deactivating cylinders, etc - especially one designed to be torquey like a BMW. My old V6 Camry and apparently the new ones as well will do at best around 30-32 MPG on the highway.


That may be true, but the V6s will also hold that mileage to a higher speed and while carrying more weight. One of my biggest complaints when I went from a large V6 to a small I4 was the loss in highway power and mileage advantage. My 3.8L Impala would not drop off efficiency until above 75 mph. My Cruze drops off above 60-65. If I were to load both cars full of people and bags and drive 70 mph down the freeway all day long, especially in the mountainous U.S. West, the smaller 4-cylinder will typically have lost most or all of its mileage advantage over the V6. In town there is no comparison. The 4 wins hands down, but on the highway, unless you're driving under 65, most 4s do no better and sometimes worse than the 6s I've driven.

I guess that's an area where the diesel shines. I need one of those.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

It's all gonna be about _"...meeting the Federally mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) numbers..." _that Congress & EPA established back in 2012:

• *36.6* MPG by model year 2017
• *54.5* MPG by model year 2025


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> That may be true, but the V6s will also hold that mileage to a higher speed and while carrying more weight. One of my biggest complaints when I went from a large V6 to a small I4 was the loss in highway power and mileage advantage. My 3.8L Impala would not drop off efficiency until above 75 mph. My Cruze drops off above 60-65. If I were to load both cars full of people and bags and drive 70 mph down the freeway all day long, especially in the mountainous U.S. West, the smaller 4-cylinder will typically have lost most or all of its mileage advantage over the V6. In town there is no comparison. The 4 wins hands down, but on the highway, unless you're driving under 65, most 4s do no better and sometimes worse than the 6s I've driven.


A 4-cylinder will do GREAT on the highway...*if *the turbo isn't used heavily, or it's an NA. On a trip to Ohio in my friends 1.7L 2004 Civic, running at 3500 RPM most of the way (short gears), we got an incredible 44 MPG. At the same time, it was crap at climbing the mountains in West Virginia - my foot was often pinned to the floor.

The old pushrod V6's were ridiculously efficient on the highway because the RPMs were kept so low (GM put ridiculous spacing in between the gears in those transmissions and relied on the engine's torque to carry it up to speed). Your automatic Cruze, on the other hand, is leaning heavily on the turbo at 75 mph cruising speed and the RPMs are running quite high.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

jblackburn said:


> A 4-cylinder will do GREAT on the highway...*if *the turbo isn't used heavily, or it's an NA. On a trip to Ohio in my friends 1.7L 2004 Civic, running at 3500 RPM most of the way (short gears), we got an incredible 44 MPG. At the same time, it was crap at climbing the mountains in West Virginia - my foot was often pinned to the floor.
> 
> The old pushrod V6's were ridiculously efficient on the highway because the RPMs were kept so low (GM put ridiculous spacing in between the gears in those transmissions and relied on the engine's torque to carry it up to speed). Your automatic Cruze, on the other hand, is leaning heavily on the turbo at 75 mph cruising speed and the RPMs are running quite high.


I guess that stands to reason. It's funny you should mention that. I literally just got back from a longer trip with our Outback which has an NA 2.5L 4-cylinder. Averaging over 70-mph we beat the EPA highway numbers by at least 2 mpg on each tank, and in one leg we got nearly 31 mpg, which is 5 mpg better than EPA, and I wasn't hypermiling.

That being said, the car was lightly loaded. As soon as we hooked up a very small trailer (probably less than 600 lbs loaded, flatbed trailer), our mileage dropped to 19 hwy over a 200 mile stretch.

I'm not as familiar with GM's NA 4s, but perhaps the Honda engines you mentioned do a better job. I know when my Uncle traded his 2004 Malibu with the 3.5L V6 for a 2009 Malibu with the 2.4L I4, he complained about a loss in highway mileage despite (slightly) better EPA numbers for the 4, although he said his city numbers with the 4 were significantly better than the 6.

I still much prefer a torquey V6 on the highway. When I lived in Montana and had Impala, even with the car loaded to the gills, I could drive across Montana at nearly 80 mph and still average nearly 28 mpg, even through the mountains. The one time I did the trek with a roof rack and bikes on top, my mileage dropped to 24 mpg. If I still lived in Montana, I'd be a lot more disappointed with my Cruze's mileage, but since where I live I rarely exceed 65 mph anymore, the Cruze has served me quite well and is getting excellent mileage.

I guess personally I'm a much bigger fan of torque than hp. I grew up with diesel trucks pulling trailers lugging along at 1,600 RPM at 65 mph, and they would rarely shift out of top gear except on the steepest slopes. Long story short, I need to get a Cruze diesel.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

These engines sound **** good...

Volvo's Supercharged Turbocharged Engine Makes You Forget About The T6

Supercharger AND turbo? Yes please.

Part of me will mourn for the loss of that sweet-sounding, oil-leaking I5 though.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

Probably a complete hoot to drive!!


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

> Supercharger AND turbo? Yes please.


 Sweet - but still not as powerful as the new AMG CLA 2 liter.


----------



## H3LLON3ARTH (Dec 16, 2011)

blk88verde said:


> Sweet - but still not as powerful as the new AMG CLA 2 liter.


Omg I want one so bad if I get another pay raise by the end of next year I might be seeing the Merc dealership for services lol.

Sent From An Antique,
My Original Droid.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

blk88verde said:


> Sweet - but still not as powerful as the new AMG CLA 2 liter.


Wait for the "R" version. Wink wink. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## Starchy (Aug 30, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> Yea, provided a manual shifts faster than a computer... (which it never does).
> 
> The automatics are faster hands down. Better gearing, quicker shifts.
> 
> ...



Sept 20th i am bringing my manual eco to the track... I guarantee i will beat 15.7 with my cruze... being one of the fastest if not the fastest quarter mile cruze times right now... automatic has an established max torque cap which is somewhere around 280 i think?.... The M32-6 (manual trans) used to have an established max cap of 236 torque however this trans has been used to 2.0t Vauxhalls and has been reworked for the newer models... and the people in Britain that are running 400 hp on this trans post 2008 are not having any issues with the trans. It's dumb to make a blanket statement and say that the automatic is better.... Yes it might be better for your application... but it is such an objective term...


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

My '96 Saturn ran a 15.3 with a header, home made intake and exhaust, and some kickass shifting. Make us Eco owners proud!


----------

