[jspookss]

All-Or-Nothing;51811 Wrote:

Cmicasa the Great XvX;51803 Wrote:From what I've seen on times... the Cruzes performance lags NO ONE.

2012 Focus SEL

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 7.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 21.3 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 8.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.3 sec @ 89 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 121 mph


2011 Snuze

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 8.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 27.8 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 9.4 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 17.0 sec @ 82 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 124 mph

Road and track recorded 8.1 seconds to 60 with the Cruze Eco.

The C/D test results you posted ARENT from the Eco.

Thanks for playing slut bucket.

[ncguy]

wings4life;51794 Wrote:

All-Or-Nothing;51788 Wrote:What's wonderful about this is that you get 28/40 with an auto transmission which is going to be the majority of vehicles sold.

Sadly the Snuze Eco is only rated 26/37 with an auto transmission.

And it's not just a normal transmission either, but in fact the latest in tech and no other car in it's segment offers it.

I believe.

You got that right!

Quote:And once, while maintaining about 35 mph on level ground, it did a five-three downshift for no obvious reason. A glitch in an early production model, perhaps

I kid I kid - I know it was an early production and will hopefully get this cleared up before they hit the showroom floor. I'm glad to see multiple cars coming out of Detroit that get excellt FE

Also glad to see you and your stablemate are still in sync with each other on your verbiage - Snuze

Pillow talk?

[Super Sport]

Who gives a shit about 0-60 times when you're buying an econobox trying to get good fuel economy? NOBODY!

Congrats to Ford. The Cruze can still claim best in class FE though, and in my opinion buying an auto in one of these Eco models kind of defeats the purpose.

[wings4life]

Is everything sexual with you, chummy?

It does not take a committe to decide that when a car has overly conservative styling and slow performance, and it's name ryhmes with snooze -- that it is a no brainer.

[wings4life]

Excuse me but, performance in a small car matters just as much as anything else. If I have 4 souls in it that I care for and love, then performance matters far more than a 2.5% increase in fuel economy. It is in fact a safety feature.

And it is amazing to me that with all that turbo tech, and small motor and performance, they still only manage a 2.5% increase. That will hardly get noticed by most.

[ncguy]

Quote:Is everything sexual with you, chummy?

No not at all - How about with you?

Just because 'you' think the Cruze has concervative styling and slow performance don't mean the general public agrees... Did you happen to see its sales last month? We'll see if some choose the 'Big Mouth Bass' look that the Focus protrays.

Come on - you know you want to give it a big ole kiss
   

Now IMO it looks way 'overdone' but then again... as I said - that's IMO

[wings4life]

ncguy;51865 Wrote:

Quote:Is everything sexual with you, chummy?

No not at all - How about with you?

Just because 'you' think the Cruze has concervative styling and slow performance don't mean the general public agrees... Did you happen to see its sales last month? We'll see if some choose the 'Big Mouth Bass' look that the Focus protrays.

Come on - you know you want to give it a big ole kiss


Now IMO it looks way 'overdone' but then again... as I said - that's IMO

u went there first, with your pillow talk remark.

r u a tad slow today or what?
par for sure.

[iDream Theater]

All-Or-Nothing;51811 Wrote:

Cmicasa the Great XvX;51803 Wrote:From what I've seen on times... the Cruzes performance lags NO ONE.

2012 Focus SEL

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 7.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 21.3 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 8.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.3 sec @ 89 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 121 mph


2011 Snuze

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 8.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 27.8 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 9.4 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 17.0 sec @ 82 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 124 mph

Wow, are you serious, the Focus is that fast? Could you post a link to that? Not because I don't believe you, I just want to check out the test myself.

[iDream Theater]

ncguy;51865 Wrote:

Quote:Is everything sexual with you, chummy?

No not at all - How about with you?

Just because 'you' think the Cruze has concervative styling and slow performance don't mean the general public agrees... Did you happen to see its sales last month? We'll see if some choose the 'Big Mouth Bass' look that the Focus protrays.

Come on - you know you want to give it a big ole kiss


Now IMO it looks way 'overdone' but then again... as I said - that's IMO

I think it looks pretty good for the most part, just don't understand why they divided the mouth into 3 parts with this latest iteration of kinetic design.

[Cmicasa the GreatXvX]

All-Or-Nothing;51811 Wrote:

Cmicasa the Great XvX;51803 Wrote:From what I've seen on times... the Cruzes performance lags NO ONE.

2012 Focus SEL

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 7.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 21.3 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 8.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.3 sec @ 89 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 121 mph


2011 Snuze

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 8.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 27.8 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 9.4 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 17.0 sec @ 82 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 124 mph

Once again with Ford numbers I'll wait to see if those preliminary ones hold up. They are famous for giving the magazines non-duplicating performance at initial launch

[wings4life]

^lol



Right.

[Cmicasa the GreatXvX]

and AGAIN.. just like in the Elantra test vs the Cruze I have to wonder what the fuck is going on:

While the performance numbers show:

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 7.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 21.3 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 8.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.3 sec @ 89 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 121 mph

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 26/37 mpg
C/D observed: 21 mpg


2011 Cruzin Cool like a MOFO

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 8.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 27.8 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 9.4 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 17.0 sec @ 82 mph

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 24/36 mpg
C/D observed: 25 mpg


as I asked before hereLINK LINK when the Korean National brought up the Elantra

How does a 3045 lb Focus that's supposed to pull in 26/37MPG pull in a combined C/D observed: 21 mpg???

While the 3206 lb Chevy that's rated at 24/36 (combined 28) pulls in a combined C/D observed: 25 mpg???


Either C&D Dogged that Focus engine like a 16 year old with the keys to his father's new Camaro:ifyousayso:... or they completely took it easy on the Cruze driving it like a church lady.:sad:

SOMETHING DOESN'T ADD UP..

[Super Sport]

wings4life;51863 Wrote:Excuse me but, performance in a small car matters just as much as anything else. If I have 4 souls in it that I care for and love, then performance matters far more than a 2.5% increase in fuel economy. It is in fact a safety feature.

And it is amazing to me that with all that turbo tech, and small motor and performance, they still only manage a 2.5% increase. That will hardly get noticed by most.

A vast majority (98% sounds reasonable) of the buyers of a compact sedan could care less about 1 second 0-60 time. Hell, 0-60 is a pretty useless measurement anyways, especially in this class.

None of the buyers of cars in this class are going to be flooring it to 60 mph. They wanted a cheap car that gets exceptional fuel economy, and you sure don't do that by pushing the motor to it's limit while accelerating. One second 0-60 is hardly noticeable in daily driving anyways, and any time under 10 seconds is good enough for the daily driver, where it is not dangerously slow.

Arguing 0-60 in such cars is pure stupidity, and it reflects on the members arguing about it. :yeeees:

Anyways, like I said, congrats to Ford for making such a good car. They and GM have come a long way in this segment, and I believe both offerings from Detroit are right near the top of the class, if not leading it.

[wings4life]

Hey sporty, do u kno how I kno u r wrong. Cuz if cruze, ur biased choice here, were to offer two engine options, where one had far more performance for only a mild penalty of 2 mpg and same price, then the choice wud b obvious, and u kno it.

[Super Sport]

wings4life;51909 Wrote:Hey sporty, do u kno how I kno u r wrong. Cuz if cruze, ur biased choice here, were to offer two engine options, where one had far more performance for only a mild penalty of 2 mpg and same price, then the choice wud b obvious, and u kno it.

Well personally, I could give two shits less about fuel economy. That's why you'll never see me driving either of these cars.

For the demographic these cars cater to, FE is darn close to everything, and 0-60 times don't mean squat. Like I said, arguing about performance in "green" cars is one of the dumbest things anybody can do, especially when in real world driving said performance difference is negligible.

Honestly I'm not a big fan of the Cruze, but I think it is perfect for the segment. I think GM did their homework on this one, and it's going to pay off.