people are arguing about how fast a cruze is......its 100% designed for fuel economy 40+mpgs. if they wanted it to be fast they would have a "SS" option or something to that effect. IMO this car is way better than a prius or volt.
don't know why GM used such a small turbo in this. Would have been nice if it was a 2.0 turbo with more torque and hp. This 1.4 has less hp than the 1.8 yeah it's got more torque but it still looks slow.... Gm fail.
@leadnsteel The point of this engine is to use a smaller engine that feels like a bigger one. And it accomplishes that. It isn't supposed to be fast, why is it so hard for people to understand that? Using the 2.0T would make zero sense, as this is supposed to be a fuel efficient car, not a sports car.
You get best price/performance ratio in the 1.6-2.0L range with direct injection turbocharged engines and a manual transmission. This 1.4T is not bad, but it lacks power in high rpms (which is still no problem with 85 mph limits). If you want decent power with superb fuel economy go for 1.4, I would be happy with a 1.8 turbo manual.
Regardless of 9-12 seconds, 0-60 in anything more than 6 seconds is slow. This is why no-one who really likes performance wants an electric car or a hybrid. They will have to pry my cold dead hands from the steering wheel of my tuned 2011 Challenger SRT8 before I drive an electric POS!
@rudolphna54 Truth is, if you own lets say a BMW M3, and you drive 70 mph ( 2500-3000 RPM) and i own a Chevrolet Cruze 1.4lt and travel 70mph ( 3000-4000 RPM ) we both will get similar MPG.
@kangaldogs0331 actually electric cars can be very fast. No one wants them because of the cost of them. Batteries make them expensive. Electric motors make 100% of their power from 0 rpm all the way up.
Smh. It shifts into 2nd gear at 20 MPH and that was definitely over 11 seconds. We need to bring back the V6! Chevy Beretta, Cavalier, Corsica, Lumina, etc. Get some serious power there.
@14575019 Er, 11 seconds? No. I had a cavalier, that was 11.3 seconds, this is infinitely faster than that. It's around 9.5 seconds. And sorry to hit you with this, but V6s in small cars are gone for good.
@rudolphna54 The Cavaliers are almost as small as the Cruze. I could believe it. I saw it do 0-60 in 13 seconds with the 2.2. Same with the Lumina's Gen II V6. The Beretta can do 7.6 with the Gen II or III and the Corsica can do 6.5. The Chevrolet Impala still has the V6. And you can get a V8. And Dodge still does V6 and V8s in cars. The Dodge Intrepid is a very good car.
@14575019 I counted from the start at 9s and 60mph at 21s, so 21-9=12s. very slow. I have a 1.6 turbo diesel ford focus that hits 60 between 9 and 10s depending how it feels. Don't forget, the speedometer overreads, so 60 is only 57-ish. So well over 12s. The digital one runs from the input to the analogue one.
Cars are definitely getting slower, heavier and less fuel efficient. You have to rev a small car much harder, so it uses more fuel compared to a bigger engine if you think about it!
@urbex2007 Idiot. You have to use a stopwatch, you can't use the video timer. You want to see slow, check out the cavalier 0-60 video in my profiel. THAT is genuine 11-12 second 0-60.
@rudolphna54 Yeah, the Cavalier with the I4 sucked. A half gallon of eggnog in my refrigerator claimed to be 1.89 Liters. That means the cylinders in the Chevrolet Cruze aren't even the size of your ear. The Corsica with the Gen III 3.1 V6 does 0-60 in 6.5 seconds.. beat 2 Ford Mustangs. 1 with a V8 which also had a head start.
@14575019 3.1 MPFIs had less HP then this 1.4t, but the 3100 had more. However, the 4 speed autos help back any power the v6s had to the point that they ran roughly 9-12 seconds to 60.
This sounds like an automatic transmission. Alot of turbo lag in auto transmissions. My cousin has a manual 1.4T. Its faster in every gear than this video.
I test drove multiple times; the Cruze, the Focus, Elantra and a Civic. I ended up buying the Cruze. Focus was nice too, Elantra too much road noise for me as was the Civic - rough too. From what I've been reading after I bought it, people are getting different numbers 0-60. I've gotten 8.5 sec with the turbo. It does get up and go and has averaged 34mpg since purchase - 3 months.
Had a Corsica in college, piece of crap, swore I'd never buy GM again.
@rudolphna54 Ha! WITHOUT the turbo, you can get a Corsica to do a decent 7.0 second 0-60. 9.5 with a turbo is horrible. Cars suck these days. The 1992 Chevy Corsica with the 3.1L V6 OWNS. By the way, it beat 2 Ford Mustangs. With head starts.
@14575019 9.5 seconds to 60 in a car that weighs 3300lb and has 138hp. And isn't tuned for acceleration. The turbo is tuned for around town driving, to make it feel like a larger engine. It's not made to get the best numbahs. The 1.4 without a turbo is ~90HP.
@rudolphna54 Actually, I should say: the Cruze has an official 0-60 time with the turbo of 8.8 seconds. That's not too bad; but still, I'd rather have the Corsica. I'd rather have a V6 than an I4. But the new cars are horrible. They sound like chain saws with their 1 Liter engines. My Go Kart could probably beat some of these pieces of junk.
People rag on this car like it was meant to be a performance vehicle. It was made to compete against the focus, civic, corolla etc. Last I checked none of those are performance vehicles. This car does what it was designed for, and that is to provide a comfortable ride with good mileage. American cars have really stepped their game up and before I wouldn't take a cobalt over a civic, but I would definitely take a cruze over a civic. Point is, the car fits its design perfectly.
@yellowcow13 Focus is a good car, no doubt. Both have strengths and weaknesses. You want low end torque? Get the Cruze. You want high end power, but no torque? Get the Focus. Both are excellent products. Thing is, you have to test drive both before you can say which is best. Trust me on this.
@rudolphna54 I have spent quite some time in the Focus and the low end will suprise you. You can get around under 3k rpm all day if you want. While it doesnt have that turbo low end it isnt a gearhunter or a dog off the line.
@gadgetguy4000 WHAT? The lancer is awful. Interior is crappy, and mitsubishi has repeatedly proven themselves horribly unreliable. The new jetta is also unproven, and the interior is a downgrade over the old model.
@rudolphna54 lancer is the fastest and sportiest in its segment! The interior isnt exactly german but you get good features and unreliable? its japanese! once you hear that someone has a japanese car, its will last at least 100 years!! and the jetta is a good car and it has the exact same quality as the cruze such as hard plastics and not so good brakes. The jetta is a great car my parents have one its an 06 without a single problem its legendary reliable! Volkswagens are worth the price!!
@gadgetguy4000 trust me, just because it's Japanese doesn't mean it's going to be reliable. I have plenty of stories about toyotas, Hondas. Just as many as Ford, Chevy, VW, Hyundai,. Mitsubishi's stand out as having quite horrible reliability in the long run though. Not saying I like it, just stating the facts. As far as the Jetta goes, some are fine, others break constantly. Most of it comes from it's Mexican Assembly Plant. Not saying the Jetta is bad, just that isn't the best either.
@gadgetguy4000 Lancer is getting a bit dated. It just cannot reach the MPGs or the refinement levels of the Focus. The Jetta is preety poorly reviewed for being cheap and a little unrefined.
*Sighs* Fucking morons who comment on these videos I tell you. Look. Go test drive one yourself. They feel much faster than they actually are, because of the amount of torque they have. I mean seriously. Go drive one.
@rudolphna54 I was in one of these two weeks ago for a rental (LT model), and was the passenger. Never mind the acceleration (which I am still doubtul about). I hit my head on the roof getting in because they sloped the roof to worry about design instead of space/comfort. Also, the ride was Terrible. I could feel every bump in the road. It was quiet though. So glad I didn't buy one!
@msrednic Have you sat in a lot of japanese cars lately, the sloped roofs are common, Also, the ride on these is taut, but not rough. It isn't a Buick, but it isn't supposed to be. It has relatively sporty handling, and a ride that while on the firm side, is still relatively smooth. I don't know what you are comparing it to, a Civic makes this thing look like a freakin lexus in terms of ride quality.
@Brian12817 And also, government motors? Really? You are still blowing that old whistle that no one gives a shit about anymore? Surely you can find something more relevant to bitch about.
@rudolphna54 they always can. thats like saying "you remember that guy down the street that took all our money and said piss off"?? Ford didnt take the money so blow that out your whistle.
@ANUBIS7070 Difference is, what the government did was perfectly legal, giving assistance to GM. Why did they do it? Because no major bank at the time could afford to finance GMs Chapter 11. The US Govt/Canadian Govt were the only two groups that had the cash. Also, you forget just how many US and Canadian jobs rely on GM. In total, we are probably looking at 3 million jobs, in parts, finance, insurance, delivery, and assembly. How about you deliver the pink slip to those 3 million doors.
@rudolphna54 the company was run bad so it needed to fail, The company being run in the ground didnt happen on its on my God your biased. If a mom and pop company goes under it fails. period. they are no better. Sure they will have to find new jobs but blame the managment.
@rudolphna54 yea im pushing 150lb/ft at 4000RPM, if you ever drove a car with the 2.2 ecotec they are higher rpm not a low slouchy rpm like this cruze. id rather have the high peak so when its wot you get the most from it. im sorry but 148lb/ft torque at almost 2000Rpm... thats pathetic
Really? do you know how much torque your ecotec makes at 1,850RPM? About 60lb/ft iirc.Do you know what that means? I means I don't have to go much over 3k to accelerate, which means I can average 32mpg a tank, with lots of city driving. Also, don't forget this engine is also almost a full liter smaller than your 2.2. You have to drive one before you understand. If you haven't driven a low-speed tuned turbo car, you won't understand.
@rudolphna54 ok my peak is high but I have plenty of torque available in between low rpm to peak and I can average around 28-30 city if I tried. I don't go over 3k to accelerate either because the 2.2 is overall more torque then HP. Aside from fuel efficiency.. let's line up.. I will put that cruze to shame I can guarantee it
@rudolphna54 also give me a turbo and tune and watch what happens. I'm running with natural aspiration and just about matching fuel efficiency with out the intent to get that kind of mileage.. and for a car from 2004 to nearly match and compete with one from 2011... Well that's another thing..
@rudolphna54 We have a 2004 Cavalier 4-door that has been passed around the family with 100k+ miles and has needed no repairs and has been 100% dependable and great in the snow. It's a smaller car for us but we average 30MPG here in hilly PA and it has been very easy and inexpensive to maintain.
@notroberto I had a 97 Cavalier (check my vids) that in the 1 year, 15k I owned it (125k to 140k) I had to replace.... Alternator, Both Front Wheel bearings, Brake pads, Valvecover Gasket (Twice), Headgasket, water pump, A/ C Compressor/Condensor/Orifice Tube, Catalytic Converter, O2 Sensors, EGR Valve. Not to mention the simple, 3 speed auto shat the bed at a mere 120k miles. My grandmothers 03 hasn't been much better. I know all this because I did ALL the repair work on this car.
@form109 Well the truth is that those 3 speed autos were actually fairly solid and reliable. It is very unusual for it to have failed as early as it did. Likely it was because the transmission fluid had never been changed.
@rudolphna54 True though more gears would maximize the use of the relatively little power of the engine....generally 4 Cylinder cars seem better paired to manual transmissions to make the most of the power...not in all cases since they can make fairly powerful 4 Cylinders these days.
@notroberto you must be part of the 1% you bastard! lol. my dad's 98 cavalier has a pile of repairs bills 3.5 inches thick, and yes i've measured. just added another one for the alternator a couple of weeks ago. I don't know why my dad even still has that car. I think he thinks it will get better with time. lol. I will probably never buy chevy or ford. everytime i get behind the wheel of a toyota or honda i can just feel the difference. They might be boring but their still better.
I'm still going to disagree on this. If you have sat behind the wheel of a Cruze, or the new Focus, or even a new Golf, and then a Corolla and one of the new Civics, you CAN feel the difference. And it doesn't look good for the Japanese Makes. They are cheap, fit and finish is poor, and driving suffers. The corolla has always been horrid to drive, and the new civic is a downgrade from the last model. Toyota reliability isn't any better than anyone elses anymore.
Yeah, from 25-60 mph you were out of the powerband. Notice how quick of a starter this thing is (you have to drive one to understand for all you ignoramouses out there)
Hmmm the 1.4T is an interesting car. I drive an LTZ and I'm convinced 0-60 times are off for this car because the 148 ft-lb torque is only between 2000-5000 RPM. When you go above the 5000 RPM the torque drops off quite a bit and the car becomes slower (The guy at GM showed me the torque vs. power graph). So when you floor your 0-60 sprints, probably doing the car and turbo a disservice. I think this might be a 7-8 second car if you keep it at 4000 RPM
Name is appropriate. You certainly are a retard, and a hater. Judging and entire car on it's acceleration. Drive one before you be a dick. gtfo my youtube.
@rudolphna54 What do you expect me to judge it on when an asshole like you puts up a 0-60 video. If your car is so great then why not show whats good about it instead of putting up a video like this? If this is a great car, why doesn't it move?
@XxretardhaterxX Acceleration isn't the only measure of a good car. It doesn't have to have 300HP and 0-60 in 5 seconds for it to be a good car. If that is your only requirement when buying a car, you have issues. Why should I show what's good about it? It's an acceleration video. It's not for showing off, it's for reference. You want to know why it's a good car? Look it up on edmunds.com.
@rudolphna54 Lol my car doesn't even have 300hp or a 5 second 0-60. But it can actually go fast. Ive seen plenty of cruzes. In fact, my friend's brother has one. Its a complete pos. Its motor is really under powered and the car is too heavy for it. Yours even has a turbo and it still barely moves. Other than the fuel mileage, this car isn't worth its price tag.
@XxretardhaterxX Dumbass. It's a 140HPengine, in a 3200lb car. That is comparable to a Civic, or Corolla, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. This car actually has a top speed of ~130 in 1.4T form. It's actually faster under partial throttle than full throttle anyway. The engine actually has torque. ALL 1.4 Cruzes are turbocharged. Again, it's 1.4T, not 2.0T. It still has 140HP/150lb-ft of torque. It feels fast because of the torque.
@XxretardhaterxX If your car is over 5 to 60 its not fast. You probably drive some fucking Honda that does a 7.2 0-60 and you consider that "fast." Go hate on a video of a Toyota Yaris or a Hyundai or something. This video is a good demo of the Cruze's acceleration. The Cruze is a great car and its raping the entire small car segment right now because its so good. Your name makes sense, you really are a retarded hater.
@XxretardhaterxX If your car is over 5 to 60 its not fast. You probably drive some fucking Honda that does a 7.2 0-60 and you consider that "fast." Go hate on a video of a Toyota Yaris or a Hyundai or something. This video is a good demo of the Cruze's acceleration. The Cruze is a great car and its raping the entire small car segment right now because its so good. Your name makes sense, you really are a retarded hater.
@XxretardhaterxX Also, the interior is well put together and made of high quality materials. It doesn't rattle like most Corollas do, it actually has features, unlike the new Jetta, and it doesn't feel cheap (like the new Civic). It's not as good as the new Focus, but it's still an excellent compact sedan. If you are talking about the N/A 1.8L then yes, it's underpowered. It has excellent highway ride, decent handling and steering, and it's dead quiet on the highway. What more do you want?
@rudolphna54 Haha now youre getting somewhere. American brand cars have much better interior quality than foreigners do IMO. My only problem with this car is the motor. And its not simply the terrible 0-60 time. The problem is that this car has to work hard to get up to 60, meaning it puts a lot of stress on the motor. I think this is bad, especially considering motors nowadays. Judging by how hard of a time this thing has just to get moving, i dont think it will perform very well years from now
@XxretardhaterxX I don't think your giving the engineers enough credit. It may have to work hard, but Ecotec engines are always massively overbuilt stock. The 2.0L and 2.2L for example put out about 170HP in stock form. They can be easily turbocharged and tuned- all while keeping the stock bottom end, and last for a long time. I hardly ever have to get the engine in this car above 3500RPM, it has the most power between 2-3k actually. It doesn't work that hard really.
@rudolphna54 In the video it goes up to 6000rpm. Thats pretty much what im referencing. But if its built as well as you say, it shouldn't matter. The only problem is how weak most of todays engines are.
@xoquixxoqafxo engine being turbocharged =/= transmission shifting fast. The car is made for fuel economy, comfort, and everyday driveability. NOT for straightline performance. And believe me, it's turbocharged. It's also a tiny ass engine.
people who complain about how the cobalt was fasster,uh hello it was also sport oriented meaning ss more power cruze is for economy if you want a fast car build one,dont buy one stock thinking your fast
The Cruze if a fun little car to drive in town. You aren't going to break any records, but the little hit when the turbo spools is fun. It is mainly an economy car. Just because it has a turbo doesn't mean it's gonna fly. The Cruze gives you a lot of options for a bargain price. It's also great on gas; I was getting 32mpg zipping along at 92 through Atlanta at midnight (engine wasn't screaming either), and 38-42 running 65 through hills of VA. Sounds like a cheesy ad but I love the little car.
I've just bought a 2012 chevy cruze turbo with a 6speed manual and its a very nice well eqipped car and is peppy for cars in its class my dad has a 2011 corolla sport not near as nice my mom has a 09 acura tl and my cruze has as many options
Over 10 seconds to get to 60?? That's crap! I'd rather have a Cobalt over this. And don't tell me the cruze has better quality. on one cares about the texture of the interior plastics when you are merging on the freeway and you have a semi about to run into you.
@msrednic If you don't know how to merge in a vehicle that has lower power, then you shouldn't be driving. A large number of vehicles out there are older, and 0-60 is in the 11-15 second range. But noone complains about them. Like I said, you have to actually drive the car before you can comment on it, as a youtube video is more for entertainment than anything. I was also dumb and left the A/C on, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't have a WOT compressor shutoff.
@rudolphna54 Well, I have no intentions of driving this slug. I'll stick with my 2010 Dodge Ram with Hemi (390 hp). Now that is a vehicle that performs.
But if buzzing around in a 4 cylinder trying to save a little gas is your thing, that's fine. Just don't get in front of me on the freeway.........
"You People"? Why you arrogant, superior little pissant. For the record, the sunfire with 2.4 was about $15-$16k. I walked out the door for $20,950 on this cruze. And it has more equipment, and is VASTLY superior (just read reviews).
@rudolphna54 how do you like the cruze as far as driving? Not just interior but i am looking at the base model auto tranny with the 1.4L turbo. I am 17 getting my first car, and no im not spoiled. I saved 9k over 3 years working at a restaurant so i will lease it for the 39 month deal they had, and then buy it at the end for 11k.
@Mightylite94 I had one for a few weeks as a rental...19 myself, and I love it. Personally, if I didn't have a car already, I'd try to buy one, but I'm moving to a new country next year, so maybe then :)
It's a great 1st car, much better than a corolla or a civic. It drives like a European car (probably cause that's where it was designed) and it has front, side and curtain airbags, tiptronic, etc. and great mileage. you should definitely consider it, with the Nav option.
@randumbuller Maybe, but I owned a 97 cavalier a year ago. They may come from the same assembly plant, but the Cruze is overall much, MUCH, MUCH better. It may be somewhat slow in out and out acceleration, but it has a lot of torque in the mid-rpm band, that makes it much peppier around town than the old 2.2L OHV that my cavalier and possibly your sunfire have. The cruze is rated at 9.5s 0-60, and mine had a full tank and I think the A/C might have been on.
@rudolphna54 actually, its the 2.4 DOHC. 140hp with a turbo is stupid. and duh its probly better, its a 2011 lmao. but i have the same torque, and i weigh less. ha.
@randumbuller Same torque... Yes. But however, I have 148lb/ft from 1850RPM all the way to 4900RPM. You have it at about 4,500RPM and for about 150RPM 1.4T gives you strong acceleration and torque, as well as much better fuel economy (smaller engine).
@rudolphna54 (smaller engine)? lmao. Did you dyno your 140hp cruze or something? no? didnt think so, so you couldnt possibly know your torque curve. the cruze is rated at 9.5 0-60? oh god, i pulled an 8 flat out my sunfire just messing around. soooo weak. thats why this video is pointless. my sunfire is quicker, with no turbo, no nothing. and you dont see me posting a video of it do you?
@randumbuller Dude, you are completely missing the point. Go look it up, it's available online. The turbo starts spooling at 1,850RPM and reaches full boost by 2,000RPM. That is the reason for the 148lb/ft from 1,850-4900 when the turbo can't quite keep up with the engine.
Also missing the point. The Cruze is much better DESIGNED. Interior litterally makes the sunfire/cavalier look like a PIECE. OF. SHIT. It's quiet on the highway, sunfire is not. It's comfortable. Sunfire is not.
The sunfire was a cheap-ass econobox back when GM didn't know how to make a small car. The 2.4L isn't a terrible engine, but it's got nothing on a thoroughly modern 1.4L Turbo with VVT, and 6 speed auto.. AAMOF, the 1.4T with manual is rated for 8.5s 0-60. That's a full LITER less, almost half your engine size, and it weighs about 1k more than the sunfire.
Also, the whole point of the video is so people can see what it's like if they are curious. It's not really showing off- if it was a Mustang GT, or Camaro... Then yes, probably a little.
slow
Drewbygus 2 weeks ago
people are arguing about how fast a cruze is......its 100% designed for fuel economy 40+mpgs. if they wanted it to be fast they would have a "SS" option or something to that effect. IMO this car is way better than a prius or volt.
bagjr387 3 weeks ago
I love the little grumble it gives when you touch the gas. My uncle's gets about 40, 45 mpg if he really tries. Great little car.
BermudaGreenNox 1 month ago
don't know why GM used such a small turbo in this. Would have been nice if it was a 2.0 turbo with more torque and hp. This 1.4 has less hp than the 1.8 yeah it's got more torque but it still looks slow.... Gm fail.
leadnsteel 2 months ago
@leadnsteel The point of this engine is to use a smaller engine that feels like a bigger one. And it accomplishes that. It isn't supposed to be fast, why is it so hard for people to understand that? Using the 2.0T would make zero sense, as this is supposed to be a fuel efficient car, not a sports car.
rudolphna54 2 months ago 2
@leadnsteel No. Both engines put out 138 HP but the 1.4 puts out more torque, 148 lb-ft to be exact, whereas the 1.8 puts out 123 lb-ft of torque.
matchbox19771 3 weeks ago
Painfully slow
johnniesi 2 months ago
You get best price/performance ratio in the 1.6-2.0L range with direct injection turbocharged engines and a manual transmission. This 1.4T is not bad, but it lacks power in high rpms (which is still no problem with 85 mph limits). If you want decent power with superb fuel economy go for 1.4, I would be happy with a 1.8 turbo manual.
Falewick 2 months ago
damn... struggling through the top of 3rd gear to get up to 60...
stiv625 2 months ago
Regardless of 9-12 seconds, 0-60 in anything more than 6 seconds is slow. This is why no-one who really likes performance wants an electric car or a hybrid. They will have to pry my cold dead hands from the steering wheel of my tuned 2011 Challenger SRT8 before I drive an electric POS!
kangaldogs0331 2 months ago
@kangaldogs0331 not everyone wants, needs, or cares about speed. You might get to 60 in <5 seconds, but I can get 40mpg on long highway trips.
rudolphna54 2 months ago 12
@rudolphna54 Truth is, if you own lets say a BMW M3, and you drive 70 mph ( 2500-3000 RPM) and i own a Chevrolet Cruze 1.4lt and travel 70mph ( 3000-4000 RPM ) we both will get similar MPG.
gazzxr 2 months ago
@kangaldogs0331 6 seconds is too slow to me. U need at least 5 to make getting on the interstate easy.
Hendrixidol 2 months ago
@kangaldogs0331 actually electric cars can be very fast. No one wants them because of the cost of them. Batteries make them expensive. Electric motors make 100% of their power from 0 rpm all the way up.
MrOakcock 1 month ago
chevy's suck! focus or fiesta is faster. will same mpgs
zacheryds 2 months ago
@rudolphna54 I timed it with my iPhone stopwatched several times and got 11.8-12.3 every time.
NotARealUTubeAccount 3 months ago
You gotta launch it right, traction control off, hold the brake and give it gas, it goes up to 2500rpms and stays there!
admiraljimmy 3 months ago
Smh. It shifts into 2nd gear at 20 MPH and that was definitely over 11 seconds. We need to bring back the V6! Chevy Beretta, Cavalier, Corsica, Lumina, etc. Get some serious power there.
14575019 3 months ago 4
@14575019 Er, 11 seconds? No. I had a cavalier, that was 11.3 seconds, this is infinitely faster than that. It's around 9.5 seconds. And sorry to hit you with this, but V6s in small cars are gone for good.
rudolphna54 3 months ago
@rudolphna54 The Cavaliers are almost as small as the Cruze. I could believe it. I saw it do 0-60 in 13 seconds with the 2.2. Same with the Lumina's Gen II V6. The Beretta can do 7.6 with the Gen II or III and the Corsica can do 6.5. The Chevrolet Impala still has the V6. And you can get a V8. And Dodge still does V6 and V8s in cars. The Dodge Intrepid is a very good car.
14575019 2 months ago
@14575019 I counted from the start at 9s and 60mph at 21s, so 21-9=12s. very slow. I have a 1.6 turbo diesel ford focus that hits 60 between 9 and 10s depending how it feels. Don't forget, the speedometer overreads, so 60 is only 57-ish. So well over 12s. The digital one runs from the input to the analogue one.
Cars are definitely getting slower, heavier and less fuel efficient. You have to rev a small car much harder, so it uses more fuel compared to a bigger engine if you think about it!
urbex2007 3 months ago
@urbex2007 Idiot. You have to use a stopwatch, you can't use the video timer. You want to see slow, check out the cavalier 0-60 video in my profiel. THAT is genuine 11-12 second 0-60.
rudolphna54 3 months ago
@rudolphna54 Yeah, the Cavalier with the I4 sucked. A half gallon of eggnog in my refrigerator claimed to be 1.89 Liters. That means the cylinders in the Chevrolet Cruze aren't even the size of your ear. The Corsica with the Gen III 3.1 V6 does 0-60 in 6.5 seconds.. beat 2 Ford Mustangs. 1 with a V8 which also had a head start.
14575019 2 months ago
@urbex2007 Also, take note that my speedometer IS in fact accurate. Tested with a GPS. Not all cars speedo are off.
rudolphna54 3 months ago
@rudolphna54 small european turbocharged engines is the future, being friendly towards the enviroment is important, not speed or sound/power....
Meatlooaf 2 months ago
@urbex2007 Cars are getting less fuel efficient? Are you high? lol
mateo096 2 months ago
@14575019 3.1 MPFIs had less HP then this 1.4t, but the 3100 had more. However, the 4 speed autos help back any power the v6s had to the point that they ran roughly 9-12 seconds to 60.
Thecarguy1254 1 week ago
This sounds like an automatic transmission. Alot of turbo lag in auto transmissions. My cousin has a manual 1.4T. Its faster in every gear than this video.
89NAYG 3 months ago
@89NAYG this is an automatic. It's also faster now that it's broken in a bit more, and the OAT is colder.
rudolphna54 3 months ago
CRUZE YU NO FAST?
Djonemore 4 months ago
Comment removed
Djonemore 4 months ago
I test drove multiple times; the Cruze, the Focus, Elantra and a Civic. I ended up buying the Cruze. Focus was nice too, Elantra too much road noise for me as was the Civic - rough too. From what I've been reading after I bought it, people are getting different numbers 0-60. I've gotten 8.5 sec with the turbo. It does get up and go and has averaged 34mpg since purchase - 3 months.
Had a Corsica in college, piece of crap, swore I'd never buy GM again.
nabruski123 4 months ago
Damn, the acceleration SUCKS! I'd rather have a Chevy Corsica any day.
14575019 4 months ago
@14575019 So you can do 0-60 in 13 seconds instead of 9.5? Okay idiot.
rudolphna54 4 months ago
@rudolphna54 Ha! WITHOUT the turbo, you can get a Corsica to do a decent 7.0 second 0-60. 9.5 with a turbo is horrible. Cars suck these days. The 1992 Chevy Corsica with the 3.1L V6 OWNS. By the way, it beat 2 Ford Mustangs. With head starts.
14575019 4 months ago
@14575019 9.5 seconds to 60 in a car that weighs 3300lb and has 138hp. And isn't tuned for acceleration. The turbo is tuned for around town driving, to make it feel like a larger engine. It's not made to get the best numbahs. The 1.4 without a turbo is ~90HP.
rudolphna54 4 months ago
@rudolphna54 Still, I've seen Jeeps go faster. And some trucks too.
14575019 4 months ago
@rudolphna54 Actually, I should say: the Cruze has an official 0-60 time with the turbo of 8.8 seconds. That's not too bad; but still, I'd rather have the Corsica. I'd rather have a V6 than an I4. But the new cars are horrible. They sound like chain saws with their 1 Liter engines. My Go Kart could probably beat some of these pieces of junk.
14575019 4 months ago
People rag on this car like it was meant to be a performance vehicle. It was made to compete against the focus, civic, corolla etc. Last I checked none of those are performance vehicles. This car does what it was designed for, and that is to provide a comfortable ride with good mileage. American cars have really stepped their game up and before I wouldn't take a cobalt over a civic, but I would definitely take a cruze over a civic. Point is, the car fits its design perfectly.
Maxunit101 4 months ago
ill take a Focus
yellowcow13 4 months ago 3
@yellowcow13 Focus is a good car, no doubt. Both have strengths and weaknesses. You want low end torque? Get the Cruze. You want high end power, but no torque? Get the Focus. Both are excellent products. Thing is, you have to test drive both before you can say which is best. Trust me on this.
rudolphna54 4 months ago
@rudolphna54 I have spent quite some time in the Focus and the low end will suprise you. You can get around under 3k rpm all day if you want. While it doesnt have that turbo low end it isnt a gearhunter or a dog off the line.
yellowcow13 4 months ago
@yellowcow13 i would choose a focus over this but i would choose a lancer or jetta over the focus
gadgetguy4000 3 months ago
@gadgetguy4000 WHAT? The lancer is awful. Interior is crappy, and mitsubishi has repeatedly proven themselves horribly unreliable. The new jetta is also unproven, and the interior is a downgrade over the old model.
rudolphna54 3 months ago
@rudolphna54 lancer is the fastest and sportiest in its segment! The interior isnt exactly german but you get good features and unreliable? its japanese! once you hear that someone has a japanese car, its will last at least 100 years!! and the jetta is a good car and it has the exact same quality as the cruze such as hard plastics and not so good brakes. The jetta is a great car my parents have one its an 06 without a single problem its legendary reliable! Volkswagens are worth the price!!
gadgetguy4000 3 months ago
@gadgetguy4000 trust me, just because it's Japanese doesn't mean it's going to be reliable. I have plenty of stories about toyotas, Hondas. Just as many as Ford, Chevy, VW, Hyundai,. Mitsubishi's stand out as having quite horrible reliability in the long run though. Not saying I like it, just stating the facts. As far as the Jetta goes, some are fine, others break constantly. Most of it comes from it's Mexican Assembly Plant. Not saying the Jetta is bad, just that isn't the best either.
rudolphna54 3 months ago
@rudolphna54 i getchya your not a vdub fan and im cool with that what fan are you then?
gadgetguy4000 3 months ago
@gadgetguy4000 General Motors, and Ford.
rudolphna54 3 months ago
@rudolphna54 ohh im not a big fan of american cars i like the german cars like vw audi and bmw
gadgetguy4000 3 months ago
@gadgetguy4000 Lancer is getting a bit dated. It just cannot reach the MPGs or the refinement levels of the Focus. The Jetta is preety poorly reviewed for being cheap and a little unrefined.
yellowcow13 3 months ago
Government Motors sucks again.
Brian12817 4 months ago
@Brian12817
*Sighs* Fucking morons who comment on these videos I tell you. Look. Go test drive one yourself. They feel much faster than they actually are, because of the amount of torque they have. I mean seriously. Go drive one.
rudolphna54 4 months ago
@rudolphna54 I was in one of these two weeks ago for a rental (LT model), and was the passenger. Never mind the acceleration (which I am still doubtul about). I hit my head on the roof getting in because they sloped the roof to worry about design instead of space/comfort. Also, the ride was Terrible. I could feel every bump in the road. It was quiet though. So glad I didn't buy one!
msrednic 4 months ago
@msrednic Have you sat in a lot of japanese cars lately, the sloped roofs are common, Also, the ride on these is taut, but not rough. It isn't a Buick, but it isn't supposed to be. It has relatively sporty handling, and a ride that while on the firm side, is still relatively smooth. I don't know what you are comparing it to, a Civic makes this thing look like a freakin lexus in terms of ride quality.
rudolphna54 4 months ago
@Brian12817 And also, government motors? Really? You are still blowing that old whistle that no one gives a shit about anymore? Surely you can find something more relevant to bitch about.
rudolphna54 4 months ago
@rudolphna54 they always can. thats like saying "you remember that guy down the street that took all our money and said piss off"?? Ford didnt take the money so blow that out your whistle.
ANUBIS7070 4 months ago
@ANUBIS7070 Difference is, what the government did was perfectly legal, giving assistance to GM. Why did they do it? Because no major bank at the time could afford to finance GMs Chapter 11. The US Govt/Canadian Govt were the only two groups that had the cash. Also, you forget just how many US and Canadian jobs rely on GM. In total, we are probably looking at 3 million jobs, in parts, finance, insurance, delivery, and assembly. How about you deliver the pink slip to those 3 million doors.
rudolphna54 4 months ago
@rudolphna54 the company was run bad so it needed to fail, The company being run in the ground didnt happen on its on my God your biased. If a mom and pop company goes under it fails. period. they are no better. Sure they will have to find new jobs but blame the managment.
ANUBIS7070 4 months ago
It's funny my cavalier eco 2.2 makes more power AND torque. Why has gm made things less powerful...
FordHaten 4 months ago
@FordHaten The 2.2 Eco makes more PEAK torque. But it doesn't have that torque available from 1850-4900RPM, like this does.
rudolphna54 4 months ago
@rudolphna54 yea im pushing 150lb/ft at 4000RPM, if you ever drove a car with the 2.2 ecotec they are higher rpm not a low slouchy rpm like this cruze. id rather have the high peak so when its wot you get the most from it. im sorry but 148lb/ft torque at almost 2000Rpm... thats pathetic
FordHaten 4 months ago
@FordHaten
Really? do you know how much torque your ecotec makes at 1,850RPM? About 60lb/ft iirc.Do you know what that means? I means I don't have to go much over 3k to accelerate, which means I can average 32mpg a tank, with lots of city driving. Also, don't forget this engine is also almost a full liter smaller than your 2.2. You have to drive one before you understand. If you haven't driven a low-speed tuned turbo car, you won't understand.
rudolphna54 4 months ago
@rudolphna54 ok my peak is high but I have plenty of torque available in between low rpm to peak and I can average around 28-30 city if I tried. I don't go over 3k to accelerate either because the 2.2 is overall more torque then HP. Aside from fuel efficiency.. let's line up.. I will put that cruze to shame I can guarantee it
FordHaten 4 months ago
@rudolphna54 also give me a turbo and tune and watch what happens. I'm running with natural aspiration and just about matching fuel efficiency with out the intent to get that kind of mileage.. and for a car from 2004 to nearly match and compete with one from 2011... Well that's another thing..
FordHaten 4 months ago
@FordHaten
Do me a favor. Go test drive one, and drive around town like a normal person. And then tell me it doesn't feel plenty fast.
rudolphna54 4 months ago
@FordHaten Let's also talk about the things that the cruze is better at than the cobalt
-Bigger Interior
-MUCH higher quality interior materials and interior design
-MUCH Safer in a crash
-MUCH quieter than the cobalt. Or any other car in the class for that matter.
-MUCH better handling/ride mix. Designed and tuned by GM of Germany
I dare you to tell me what from the above is not true. Also, note that even a GM executive said the Cobalt was a pile of crap, publicly.
rudolphna54 4 months ago
@FordHaten And the Cavalier.... Well, I OWNED one. That thing was the biggest pile of shit ever made, since the Chevette.
rudolphna54 4 months ago 3
@rudolphna54 We have a 2004 Cavalier 4-door that has been passed around the family with 100k+ miles and has needed no repairs and has been 100% dependable and great in the snow. It's a smaller car for us but we average 30MPG here in hilly PA and it has been very easy and inexpensive to maintain.
notroberto 4 months ago
@notroberto I had a 97 Cavalier (check my vids) that in the 1 year, 15k I owned it (125k to 140k) I had to replace.... Alternator, Both Front Wheel bearings, Brake pads, Valvecover Gasket (Twice), Headgasket, water pump, A/ C Compressor/Condensor/Orifice Tube, Catalytic Converter, O2 Sensors, EGR Valve. Not to mention the simple, 3 speed auto shat the bed at a mere 120k miles. My grandmothers 03 hasn't been much better. I know all this because I did ALL the repair work on this car.
rudolphna54 4 months ago
@rudolphna54 yeah 3 Speed Autos were dated long ago...the fact that Chrysler and GM Let them stick around so long in at least one model is not great.
form109 3 months ago
@form109 Well the truth is that those 3 speed autos were actually fairly solid and reliable. It is very unusual for it to have failed as early as it did. Likely it was because the transmission fluid had never been changed.
rudolphna54 3 months ago
@rudolphna54 True though more gears would maximize the use of the relatively little power of the engine....generally 4 Cylinder cars seem better paired to manual transmissions to make the most of the power...not in all cases since they can make fairly powerful 4 Cylinders these days.
form109 3 months ago
@rudolphna54 well see. thats funny because my cousin had a 98 cavalier and nothing went wrong on it, she drove it till some dbag crashed into her.
i've owned a 94' mustang... again nothing went wrong with it aside from regular wear and tear.
my mother has owned a civic, same story, reliable. same goes with my dads old jeep that psuhed 450,000km and nothing ever went wrong.
but in the same breath...my aunts 06' civic died last year, my uncles mercedies had an electrical fire ;p haha
CemetaryGatesML 3 months ago
@notroberto you must be part of the 1% you bastard! lol. my dad's 98 cavalier has a pile of repairs bills 3.5 inches thick, and yes i've measured. just added another one for the alternator a couple of weeks ago. I don't know why my dad even still has that car. I think he thinks it will get better with time. lol. I will probably never buy chevy or ford. everytime i get behind the wheel of a toyota or honda i can just feel the difference. They might be boring but their still better.
scottkan357975343 4 months ago
@scottkan357975343
I'm still going to disagree on this. If you have sat behind the wheel of a Cruze, or the new Focus, or even a new Golf, and then a Corolla and one of the new Civics, you CAN feel the difference. And it doesn't look good for the Japanese Makes. They are cheap, fit and finish is poor, and driving suffers. The corolla has always been horrid to drive, and the new civic is a downgrade from the last model. Toyota reliability isn't any better than anyone elses anymore.
rudolphna54 4 months ago
@rudolphna54 I agree.
scottkan357975343 3 months ago
@rudolphna54 i have one now, i love it! even though its slower than a turtle trapped in molasses
vettey4ever 2 months ago
Yeah, from 25-60 mph you were out of the powerband. Notice how quick of a starter this thing is (you have to drive one to understand for all you ignoramouses out there)
ErikEggleston 5 months ago
@ErikEggleston I'm gonna try again, keeping it under 5k, because peak torque stops at 4900rpm, and that is where peak HP is as well.
rudolphna54 5 months ago
Hmmm the 1.4T is an interesting car. I drive an LTZ and I'm convinced 0-60 times are off for this car because the 148 ft-lb torque is only between 2000-5000 RPM. When you go above the 5000 RPM the torque drops off quite a bit and the car becomes slower (The guy at GM showed me the torque vs. power graph). So when you floor your 0-60 sprints, probably doing the car and turbo a disservice. I think this might be a 7-8 second car if you keep it at 4000 RPM
ErikEggleston 5 months ago
POS
XxretardhaterxX 5 months ago
@XxretardhaterxX
Name is appropriate. You certainly are a retard, and a hater. Judging and entire car on it's acceleration. Drive one before you be a dick. gtfo my youtube.
rudolphna54 5 months ago
@rudolphna54 What do you expect me to judge it on when an asshole like you puts up a 0-60 video. If your car is so great then why not show whats good about it instead of putting up a video like this? If this is a great car, why doesn't it move?
XxretardhaterxX 5 months ago
@XxretardhaterxX Acceleration isn't the only measure of a good car. It doesn't have to have 300HP and 0-60 in 5 seconds for it to be a good car. If that is your only requirement when buying a car, you have issues. Why should I show what's good about it? It's an acceleration video. It's not for showing off, it's for reference. You want to know why it's a good car? Look it up on edmunds.com.
rudolphna54 5 months ago
@rudolphna54 Lol my car doesn't even have 300hp or a 5 second 0-60. But it can actually go fast. Ive seen plenty of cruzes. In fact, my friend's brother has one. Its a complete pos. Its motor is really under powered and the car is too heavy for it. Yours even has a turbo and it still barely moves. Other than the fuel mileage, this car isn't worth its price tag.
XxretardhaterxX 5 months ago
@XxretardhaterxX Dumbass. It's a 140HPengine, in a 3200lb car. That is comparable to a Civic, or Corolla, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. This car actually has a top speed of ~130 in 1.4T form. It's actually faster under partial throttle than full throttle anyway. The engine actually has torque. ALL 1.4 Cruzes are turbocharged. Again, it's 1.4T, not 2.0T. It still has 140HP/150lb-ft of torque. It feels fast because of the torque.
rudolphna54 5 months ago
@XxretardhaterxX If your car is over 5 to 60 its not fast. You probably drive some fucking Honda that does a 7.2 0-60 and you consider that "fast." Go hate on a video of a Toyota Yaris or a Hyundai or something. This video is a good demo of the Cruze's acceleration. The Cruze is a great car and its raping the entire small car segment right now because its so good. Your name makes sense, you really are a retarded hater.
disbsam333 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XxretardhaterxX If your car is over 5 to 60 its not fast. You probably drive some fucking Honda that does a 7.2 0-60 and you consider that "fast." Go hate on a video of a Toyota Yaris or a Hyundai or something. This video is a good demo of the Cruze's acceleration. The Cruze is a great car and its raping the entire small car segment right now because its so good. Your name makes sense, you really are a retarded hater.
disbsam333 5 months ago
@XxretardhaterxX Also, the interior is well put together and made of high quality materials. It doesn't rattle like most Corollas do, it actually has features, unlike the new Jetta, and it doesn't feel cheap (like the new Civic). It's not as good as the new Focus, but it's still an excellent compact sedan. If you are talking about the N/A 1.8L then yes, it's underpowered. It has excellent highway ride, decent handling and steering, and it's dead quiet on the highway. What more do you want?
rudolphna54 5 months ago
@rudolphna54 Haha now youre getting somewhere. American brand cars have much better interior quality than foreigners do IMO. My only problem with this car is the motor. And its not simply the terrible 0-60 time. The problem is that this car has to work hard to get up to 60, meaning it puts a lot of stress on the motor. I think this is bad, especially considering motors nowadays. Judging by how hard of a time this thing has just to get moving, i dont think it will perform very well years from now
XxretardhaterxX 5 months ago
@XxretardhaterxX I don't think your giving the engineers enough credit. It may have to work hard, but Ecotec engines are always massively overbuilt stock. The 2.0L and 2.2L for example put out about 170HP in stock form. They can be easily turbocharged and tuned- all while keeping the stock bottom end, and last for a long time. I hardly ever have to get the engine in this car above 3500RPM, it has the most power between 2-3k actually. It doesn't work that hard really.
rudolphna54 5 months ago
@rudolphna54 In the video it goes up to 6000rpm. Thats pretty much what im referencing. But if its built as well as you say, it shouldn't matter. The only problem is how weak most of todays engines are.
XxretardhaterxX 5 months ago
DOES 2ND GEAR REALLY END B4 40MPH!!!
occckid123 5 months ago
I bet the turbos off a 1.8t VW GTI are bigger than the ones on the Cruze haha
jhorod09 5 months ago
OMG WHY IS SO SLOW !!!
RaoulEmilian 5 months ago
psh, I'd have to pop the hood and make sure this thing is turbocharged... its ridiculous how sluggish the tranny shifts.
xoquixxoqafxo 5 months ago
@xoquixxoqafxo engine being turbocharged =/= transmission shifting fast. The car is made for fuel economy, comfort, and everyday driveability. NOT for straightline performance. And believe me, it's turbocharged. It's also a tiny ass engine.
rudolphna54 5 months ago
Meh. cobalt SS > cruze. Until chevy makes a cruze SS or at least a cruze coupe, chevy can suck it.
oneone1onezero0 5 months ago
Can you adjust the boost yet?
gsxellence 5 months ago
people who complain about how the cobalt was fasster,uh hello it was also sport oriented meaning ss more power cruze is for economy if you want a fast car build one,dont buy one stock thinking your fast
jakkaroo1 6 months ago
The Cruze if a fun little car to drive in town. You aren't going to break any records, but the little hit when the turbo spools is fun. It is mainly an economy car. Just because it has a turbo doesn't mean it's gonna fly. The Cruze gives you a lot of options for a bargain price. It's also great on gas; I was getting 32mpg zipping along at 92 through Atlanta at midnight (engine wasn't screaming either), and 38-42 running 65 through hills of VA. Sounds like a cheesy ad but I love the little car.
TheCody1707 6 months ago
I've just bought a 2012 chevy cruze turbo with a 6speed manual and its a very nice well eqipped car and is peppy for cars in its class my dad has a 2011 corolla sport not near as nice my mom has a 09 acura tl and my cruze has as many options
09NinjaZx6 7 months ago
It's a great driving car. Test drove a 2012 1LT RS model today and the minute I have enough for the down payment that bitch will be in my driveway.
jet62095 7 months ago
Over 10 seconds to get to 60?? That's crap! I'd rather have a Cobalt over this. And don't tell me the cruze has better quality. on one cares about the texture of the interior plastics when you are merging on the freeway and you have a semi about to run into you.
msrednic 7 months ago
@msrednic If you don't know how to merge in a vehicle that has lower power, then you shouldn't be driving. A large number of vehicles out there are older, and 0-60 is in the 11-15 second range. But noone complains about them. Like I said, you have to actually drive the car before you can comment on it, as a youtube video is more for entertainment than anything. I was also dumb and left the A/C on, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't have a WOT compressor shutoff.
rudolphna54 7 months ago 10
@rudolphna54 Well, I have no intentions of driving this slug. I'll stick with my 2010 Dodge Ram with Hemi (390 hp). Now that is a vehicle that performs.
But if buzzing around in a 4 cylinder trying to save a little gas is your thing, that's fine. Just don't get in front of me on the freeway.........
msrednic 7 months ago
@msrednic Hahah nice.
NancyPelosi1954 5 months ago
@rudolphna54 If my '02 Impala has a compressor shut-off then so does this Cruze.
wootness3000 3 months ago
"You People"? Why you arrogant, superior little pissant. For the record, the sunfire with 2.4 was about $15-$16k. I walked out the door for $20,950 on this cruze. And it has more equipment, and is VASTLY superior (just read reviews).
rudolphna54 7 months ago 5
@rudolphna54 how do you like the cruze as far as driving? Not just interior but i am looking at the base model auto tranny with the 1.4L turbo. I am 17 getting my first car, and no im not spoiled. I saved 9k over 3 years working at a restaurant so i will lease it for the 39 month deal they had, and then buy it at the end for 11k.
Mightylite94 6 months ago
@Mightylite94 I had one for a few weeks as a rental...19 myself, and I love it. Personally, if I didn't have a car already, I'd try to buy one, but I'm moving to a new country next year, so maybe then :)
It's a great 1st car, much better than a corolla or a civic. It drives like a European car (probably cause that's where it was designed) and it has front, side and curtain airbags, tiptronic, etc. and great mileage. you should definitely consider it, with the Nav option.
cutetwink23 5 months ago
@cutetwink23 Absolutely not.
NancyPelosi1954 5 months ago
@cutetwink23 thanks
Mightylite94 5 months ago
holy slow....my 97 sunfire is faster...honestly....
randumbuller 7 months ago
@randumbuller Maybe, but I owned a 97 cavalier a year ago. They may come from the same assembly plant, but the Cruze is overall much, MUCH, MUCH better. It may be somewhat slow in out and out acceleration, but it has a lot of torque in the mid-rpm band, that makes it much peppier around town than the old 2.2L OHV that my cavalier and possibly your sunfire have. The cruze is rated at 9.5s 0-60, and mine had a full tank and I think the A/C might have been on.
rudolphna54 7 months ago
@rudolphna54 actually, its the 2.4 DOHC. 140hp with a turbo is stupid. and duh its probly better, its a 2011 lmao. but i have the same torque, and i weigh less. ha.
randumbuller 7 months ago
@randumbuller Same torque... Yes. But however, I have 148lb/ft from 1850RPM all the way to 4900RPM. You have it at about 4,500RPM and for about 150RPM 1.4T gives you strong acceleration and torque, as well as much better fuel economy (smaller engine).
rudolphna54 7 months ago
@rudolphna54 (smaller engine)? lmao. Did you dyno your 140hp cruze or something? no? didnt think so, so you couldnt possibly know your torque curve. the cruze is rated at 9.5 0-60? oh god, i pulled an 8 flat out my sunfire just messing around. soooo weak. thats why this video is pointless. my sunfire is quicker, with no turbo, no nothing. and you dont see me posting a video of it do you?
randumbuller 7 months ago
@randumbuller Dude, you are completely missing the point. Go look it up, it's available online. The turbo starts spooling at 1,850RPM and reaches full boost by 2,000RPM. That is the reason for the 148lb/ft from 1,850-4900 when the turbo can't quite keep up with the engine.
Also missing the point. The Cruze is much better DESIGNED. Interior litterally makes the sunfire/cavalier look like a PIECE. OF. SHIT. It's quiet on the highway, sunfire is not. It's comfortable. Sunfire is not.
rudolphna54 7 months ago
@rudolphna54
From GM
1,850 rpm @ 148 lb-ft = 52 hp
4,900 rpm @ 148 lb-ft = 138 hp
5,800 rpm @ 120 lb-ft = 133 hp
6,500 rpm = redline.
The sunfire was a cheap-ass econobox back when GM didn't know how to make a small car. The 2.4L isn't a terrible engine, but it's got nothing on a thoroughly modern 1.4L Turbo with VVT, and 6 speed auto.. AAMOF, the 1.4T with manual is rated for 8.5s 0-60. That's a full LITER less, almost half your engine size, and it weighs about 1k more than the sunfire.
rudolphna54 7 months ago
@rudolphna54 lmao, my sunfire is also 15 years older, and costs a good 18-20 thousand dollars less. bahahahahaha, you people make me smile =]
randumbuller 7 months ago
Also, the whole point of the video is so people can see what it's like if they are curious. It's not really showing off- if it was a Mustang GT, or Camaro... Then yes, probably a little.
rudolphna54 7 months ago
@rudolphna54 I have a mustang GT. I havent posted one about that either....
randumbuller 7 months ago