# 0-60 time for Cruze LS (1.8L) and 6MT



## Slammed2014Eco (Feb 13, 2014)

Probably somewhere around 9.0-9.1 completly stock shouldn't be to far off from the AT being stock.


----------



## Dvan5693 (Jul 8, 2014)

Our manual transmissions certainly aren't made for performance. I'm pretty sure the automatics are faster 0-60. Newer automatics(even basic ones) will almost always shift faster than any can in a traditional manual transmission.


----------



## Slammed2014Eco (Feb 13, 2014)

Dvan5693 said:


> Our manual transmissions certainly aren't made for performance. I'm pretty sure the automatics are faster 0-60. Newer automatics(even basic ones) will almost always shift faster than any can in a traditional manual transmission.


Shift faster... maybe but they still have lag and get off the line slow as **** lol 
Even if brake boosting I don't see them being faster, just my opinion tho.


----------



## DVSLTZ (Apr 12, 2013)

Dvan5693 said:


> Our manual transmissions certainly aren't made for performance. I'm pretty sure the automatics are faster 0-60. Newer automatics(even basic ones) will almost always shift faster than any can in a traditional manual transmission.


most automatics these days are faster than manual shift (eg) the Corvette is faster in automatic vs manual and that goes for most cars these days.most of the high end sports cars dont even come manual anymore only automatic with paddle shift


----------



## phpsteve (Jul 15, 2014)

According to Chevrolet 0-60 & Quarter Mile Stats for Chevrolet Camaro 0-60, Chevrolet Corvette, Malibu, Equinox 0-60, Traverse from 0 to 60 Chevrolet Reviews. The times are listed below.. should give a good idea.


2011 Chevrolet Cruze LTZ
0-60 MPH 9.4 sec
1/4 MILE 17.1 sec



2011 Chevrolet Cruze LT
0-60 MPH 9.3 sec
1/4 MILE 17.1 sec



2011 Chevrolet Cruze LTZ 2.0 VCDI
0-60 MPH 8.3 sec
1/4 MILE n/a sec



2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco
0-60 MPH 8.8 sec
1/4 MILE 16.9 sec



2011 Chevrolet Cruze LS
0-60 MPH 11 sec
1/4 MILE 18.2 sec



2012 Chevrolet Cruze Eco Automatic
0-60 MPH 9.2 sec
1/4 MILE 16.9 sec



2012 Chevrolet Cruze Hatchback 1.8L
0-60 MPH 9.4 sec
1/4 MILE 16.7 sec



2013 Chevrolet Cruze 1.7L Turbo Diesel LTZ Station Wagon
0-60 MPH 10.2 sec
1/4 MILE n/a sec



2014 Chevrolet Cruze Diesel Automatic
0-60 MPH 8.1 sec
1/4 MILE 16.4 sec


----------



## Slammed2014Eco (Feb 13, 2014)

phpsteve said:


> According to Chevrolet 0-60 & Quarter Mile Stats for Chevrolet Camaro 0-60, Chevrolet Corvette, Malibu, Equinox 0-60, Traverse from 0 to 60 Chevrolet Reviews. The times are listed below..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Like I said earlier I figured it would be around a half second difference or so, altho these are different cars it gives you a good estimate of what to expect so thanks for posting this info. It all comes down to the driver in the manual, any schmuck can brake boost an automatic off the line but it's still slow. I agree with the previous statement of "high-end" cars switching over to automatics but this isn't anywhere even near the same class and the AT is junk in these cars just saying.

Edit sorry I didn't mean brake boost I ment "power brake"


----------



## phpsteve (Jul 15, 2014)

Slammed2014Eco said:


> Like I said earlier I figured it would be around a half second difference or so, altho these are different cars it gives you a good estimate of what to expect so thanks for posting this info. It all comes down to the driver in the manual, any schmuck can brake boost an automatic. I agree with the previous statement of "high-end" cars switching over to automatics but this isn't anywhere even near the same class and the AT is junk in these cars just saying.



+1 .. it is just a rough estimate but the driver also plays a major role.. I have owned a lot of cars both auto and manual.. and I have found that while you may get a better launch sometimes from the automatic.. the lack of control in gear shifting was typically the factor in falling behind.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Probably 9 seconds. The 1.8 peaks high and that bit of time you're at the lower RPMs hurts its time compared to a 1.4. 

The autos change gear a whole lot before 60 mph, and their times are generally a second or so behind the MT on the 1.4. The LS/LT 6MT hit 60 in 3rd gear; and Eco in 2nd.

I did a few runs a while ago (1.4 6MT) Best time was 8.0 sec; most were in the 8.2-8.5 sec range because it's much harder to be consistent with a launch and gear changes in a manual. 
Launch too high in these things and it either slips the crap out of the clutch or lights up the front tires. Launch too low and epic bog.


----------



## draco_m (Dec 28, 2014)

Agree that high end sports cars are faster with automatic. But those automatics areengineered to be fast and even feature launch control. But in the Cruze I’m pretty sure the MT willbe faster than the AT. The AT doesn’tallow you to rev the engine up and launch at a higher RPM. In the MT you can rev to 4,000+ rpm and dropthe clutch fairly aggressively. I could be wrong but my guess is the MT is .5sec quicker than the AT from 0-60. I was just wondering if anyone had a test.


----------



## BowtieGuy (Jan 4, 2013)

According to Car and Driver:
2011 Cruze LS automatic:
0-60: 9.4 seconds
1/4 mile: 17.2 seconds @ 82 mph

2011 Cruze Eco manual:
0-60: 8 seconds
1/4 mile: 16.3 seconds @ 86 MPH

2014 Cruze Diesel:
0-60: 8 seconds
1/4 mile: 16.3 seconds @ 85 MPH

Edmunds:
unspecified Cruze 1.4T automatic:
0-60: 9.2 seconds

Cruze Diesel:
0-60: 8.6 seconds

zerotosixtytimes.com:
2011 Cruze Eco manual:
0-60: 7.9 seconds
1/4 mile: 16.1 seconds

2012 Cruze Eco automatic:
0-60: 9.4 seconds

2014 Cruze Diesel automatic:
0-60: 8.2 seconds
1/4 mile: 16.6 seconds


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Lol, every one is a different #. 


Sent from the sexy electrician


----------



## SCruze (Oct 20, 2013)

I have a 2012 LS Cruze (automatic) korean made & mine hits the 6k rpm but stil takes 10-11 sec to hit 60 (Actually 62 mph to be precise).
The other thing is when the engine is cold (near C) the car hesitates a lot in acceleration, thats called the "lack of refinement". On Highway its another story, solid & bit of power in hands.

But compared to its competitors, i might give the cruze an average in power in its class.


----------



## just a cruzer (Nov 23, 2014)

lol when they said a ten second car they didnt mean 0-60?


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

SCruze said:


> I have a 2012 LS Cruze (automatic) korean made & mine hits the 6k rpm but stil takes 10-11 sec to hit 60 (Actually 62 mph to be precise).
> The other thing is when the engine is cold (near C) the car hesitates a lot in acceleration, thats called the "lack of refinement". On Highway its another story, solid & bit of power in hands.
> 
> But compared to its competitors, i might give the cruze an average in power in its class.


You say you have the LA which means 1.8L. That's why you feel like you could use more power


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Typically an AT is faster due to the torque converter increased torque multiplication. But can be emulated in an MT by riding the clutch that can be translated into very short clutch life. 

Ha, I measure my Cruze 2LT 1.4L engine with an MT 0-60 times in minutes rather than seconds. I want my clutch to last.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

money_man said:


> You say you have the LA which means 1.8L. That's why you feel like you could use more power


Stupid autocorrect, LS *


Sent from the sexy electrician


----------



## Dvan5693 (Jul 8, 2014)

Hmm interesting, good to know I have the fastest one


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I always known my ECO MT was quicker than my son's LS MT. He gets across the intersection faster but once my turbo spools ...


----------



## Slammed2014Eco (Feb 13, 2014)

Dvan5693 said:


> Hmm interesting, good to know I have the fastest one


Gotta love having a light car with torque... *coughnothondascough*


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Slammed2014Eco said:


> Gotta love having a light car with torque... *coughnothondascough*


130 HP + carburetor in a 2100 lb car = amazing. Not fast, but it has an instant response.

Accords have a great motor though


----------



## Slammed2014Eco (Feb 13, 2014)

jblackburn said:


> 130 HP + carburetor in a 2100 lb car = amazing. Not fast, but it has an instant response.
> 
> Accords have a great motor though


Very true those K24's are tourqey for honda motor's.. I think we covered it before but a lot of people with the 2006+ Si's are doing Frankenstein swaps with a k20 head and k24 bottom for the tourqe and boost


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

I junk them because f honduh


Sent from the sexy electrician


----------



## inssane (Jun 20, 2011)

resurrecting here...

Anyone with an LS know the best RPM to launch. Even with a trifecta tune and mods, launching seems hit or miss, usually sucky. My top end is great though, and I love powering through lanes on the highway.

N


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Was Tom McCahill of Mechanix Illustrated magazine that introduced 0-60 mph times back in the early 50's. Anything under 10 seconds was considered good. 

But a lot of improvements have been in the last over 60 years and I feel like 0-60 times are obsolete.

Should be more like 0-55 if driving on a highway, 0-25 if in the city, or 0-3 if driving on the Dan Ryan in Chicago.

Subjects like fuel economy was never discussed, gas was plentiful and cheap. Nor was braking distance, because those traffic lights switch to red very quick. Or some idiot will pull out in front of you from a side road on a highway.

For entering an interstate, putting in traffic on the entry ramps now, wait a half a day for it to turn green, and the best you can do is to creep.

Cars were designed a lot more conservative back then, could drop a large Caddy V-8 in a 48 Ford coupe and the drivetrain would last forever, no matter how you drove it. Bore out your 1.8 to a 1.9, more than like you will snap your half axle the very first time.

They call this progress.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

NickD said:


> But a lot of improvements have been in the last over 60 years and I feel like 0-60 times are obsolete.


Tell me that when your ramping on the interstate with the 1.4T, at least my automatic this is where how slow this car really is becomes very apparent. 0-60mph without a launch(realistic for actual real world driving) is 9-11 seconds in my car. This is the slowest car I have ever owned.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Depends on the length of the entry ramp and how it blends into the main road. Was crazy in Italy, like 50 meters in length, then a dead stop ahead. Two lanes, no shoulder lanes, and with speed limits of around 90 mph that few obeyed. And lots of traffic.

Ha, really had to really gun the hail out of that C-Max, but what the heck, is a rental. Had to watch for a break in the traffic and time myself so could pull in without getting hit by a truck.

Around here, not quite so busy, always somebody pulling in not even looking for a break in traffic, like they are in a trance. If driving on the inside lane, always some idiot pulling up to me in the left lane, so can't switch over. So either have to speed up or slow down.

Then all these idiots like to drive in clumps, on the interstate, very anti-social whether this takes speeding up or slowly down. Cruze does okay in 3rd gear with a manual transmission, good up to around 85 mph. Sure beats a VW bug. But always around intersections have to watch out for cops, like to be near a place where they can get donuts and a cup of coffee.

Ha, if unhappy with an automatic, get a manual, if unhappy with performance, get a Caddy.


----------

