Motortrend weight listing of 1.4L with auto....?

[Memphis]

Although heavier than the Fiesta and Fit, the Sonic's more powerful engines compensate for the added heft. In our track testing, the 2794-pound Sonic LTZ Hatchback with the 1.4-liter turbo and six-speed automatic transmission achieved a 0-60 mile per hour run in 8.1 seconds and continued on to finish the quarter mile in 16.1 seconds at 86.4 miles per hour.



Read more: 2012 Chevrolet Sonic LTZ 1.4 Turbo First Test - Motor Trend

I hope they meant manual.... and didnt mean 1.8L. That would be surprising.

 

[buddy97]

Although heavier than the Fiesta and Fit, the Sonic's more powerful engines compensate for the added heft. In our track testing, the 2794-pound Sonic LTZ Hatchback with the 1.4-liter turbo and six-speed automatic transmission achieved a 0-60 mile per hour run in 8.1 seconds and continued on to finish the quarter mile in 16.1 seconds at 86.4 miles per hour.



Read more: 2012 Chevrolet Sonic LTZ 1.4 Turbo First Test - Motor Trend

I hope they meant manual.... and didnt mean 1.8L. That would be surprising.

had to be, since that is what they said they were driving at the beginning of the article.

 

[Neato]

If that's accurate, then that's fantastic.

Looking here for some of its contenders it's easily at least 0.5sec faster on the 0-60 than any other car.

 

[Screamer4]

In our admittedly quick sample of the two subcompact heavyweights against the Sonic, we came away even more impressed with the Chevy and its much stronger engine. Both the Fit and Fiesta seemed a bit less refined than the Sonic from a powertrain, chassis, and even interior perspective. We smell a new comparison test coming on...

What's with all the people on here dogging the quality? Motor Trend is usually the first to bash GM build quality, especially concerning interiors- and here they praise it.

 

[buddy97]

If that's accurate, then that's fantastic.

Looking here for some of its contenders it's easily at least 0.5sec faster on the 0-60 than any other car.

haha. i was looking at some older cars just for fun.

1974 chevy Vega 0-60.....18.4 seconds

 

[Screamer4]

Those numbers are nearly identical to the heavier Cruze ECO. I guess the slightly better aerodynamics offset the weight.

 

[buddy97]

Those numbers are nearly identical to the heavier Cruze ECO. I guess the slightly better aerodynamics offset the weight.

if you look at the link Neato gave above, it has the cruze eco at 9.7. (or did you mean the mpg numbers)

ill bet my left arm those reviewers were giving the time for the car they had, the 1.4 6 speed manual sonic, not a 1.4 automatic.

the cruze eco's gearing really hampers 0-60 times. the sonic 1.4 is probably not geared quite as much toward effieciency and is lighter.

 

[Screamer4]

if you look at the link Neato gave above, it has the cruze eco at 9.7. (or did you mean the mpg numbers)

ill bet my left arm those reviewers were giving the time for the car they had, the 1.4 6 speed manual sonic, not a 1.4 automatic.

the cruze eco's gearing really hampers 0-60 times. the sonic 1.4 is probably not geared quite as much toward effieciency and is lighter.

9.7 is way off for a Cruze Eco. Either that is a typo, the car was broken, or the driver sucked. IIRC 9.7 was a conservative manufacturers estimate- not an actual time. There is a member of this forum who ran his stock Eco faster than that at the track.

This review got a 7.8 second run out of it and a 16.1 in the 1/4:
http://carsort.com/compare/Chevrolet-Cruze-vs-Ford-Fusion-SE

Yahoo autos shows an 8.1/16.2:
Performance - 2011 Chevrolet Cruze ECO - Yahoo! Autos

Must reviewers can get the much heavier Cruze LTZ with the auto transmission to hit 60 in under 9 seconds; there's no way the lighter ECO with a stick shift is slower than that.

 

[buddy97]

9.7 is way off for a Cruze Eco. Either that is a typo, the car was broken, or the driver sucked. IIRC 9.7 was a conservative manufacturers estimate- not an actual time. There is a member of this forum who ran his stock Eco faster than that at the track.

This review got a 7.8 second run out of it and a 16.1 in the 1/4:
2012 Chevrolet Cruze eco vs 2012 Ford Fusion SE

Yahoo autos shows an 8.1/16.2:
Performance - 2011 Chevrolet Cruze ECO - Yahoo! Autos



Must reviewers can get the much heavier Cruze LTZ with the auto transmission to hit 60 in under 9 seconds; there's no way the lighter ECO with a stick shift is slower than that.

those reviews didnt "get" anything. they just parrot information they found elsewhere.

most users ive found run the cruze eco at around 9+ seconds, and some of those guys are known to be very competent drivers. the cruze eco gearing sucks for 0-60 times.

i can link to a good number of 0-60 runs on youtube with the cruze eco. they are all over 9.2 seconds. so far i have foun 8 of them.

too many reviewers just copy and paste 0-60 times from other reviews without competency.

of course, you get some guys that do the tune, run 7.8, then claim they did it stock.

 

[Screamer4]

TravsSonic did the 1/8th in 10.67 @ 66.3, with a bone stock brand new ECO.

Timeslip: http://www.sonicownersforum.com/forum/post1236-1/

Calculating for 0-60 gives you 8.7 seconds, in 100-105 degree heat. Drop the temp 20-30 degrees and 8.3-8.5 seconds is likely, which is not far off from the Sonic's 8.1.

Later, he ran the same car with a Trifecta tune (and a slipping clutch) and went 10.05 @ 70mph (or, 0-60 in about 7.4 seconds).

Timeslip: http://www.sonicownersforum.com/forum/post2254-10/


Regardless, it's just a few tenths either way.

 

[buddy97]

TravsSonic did the 1/8th in 10.67 @ 66.3, with a bone stock brand new ECO.

Timeslip: http://www.sonicownersforum.com/forum/post1236-1/

Calculating for 0-60 gives you 8.7 seconds, in 100-105 degree heat. Drop the temp 20-30 degrees and 8.3-8.5 seconds is likely, which is not far off from the Sonic's 8.1.

Later, he ran the same car with a Trifecta tune (and a slipping clutch) and went 10.05 @ 70mph (or, 0-60 in about 7.4 seconds).

Timeslip: http://www.sonicownersforum.com/forum/post2254-10/


Regardless, it's just a few tenths either way.

yes ive seen that. there are others who calculate his theoretical 0-60 time at more like 9.2.

we can guess all we want, but the fact is that almost all documented runs with the cruise eco are over 9 seconds.....guessing he "might" have been 8.7, then guessing what he might have been with cooler temps is all fine, but its not the reality of most 0-60 runs with that car....its just conjecture.

 

[Memphis]

All that matters is the 1/8 and 1/4. I KNOW for a FACT that with a tune the Sonic will be a full second ahead of it competition in the quarter and will have no competiotion in autox.

 

[Screamer4]

yes ive seen that. there are others who calculate his theoretical 0-60 time at more like 9.2..

9.2? He hit 66 in 10 seconds... that would mean he picked up a full 6mph in 8/10ths of a second!!

That would be even more impressive that 7secs flat to 60 lol

All that matters is the 1/8 and 1/4. I KNOW for a FACT that with a tune the Sonic will be a full second ahead of it competition in the quarter and will have no competiotion in autox.

Truth. I bet they won't even allow it in the B-Spec racing series... it would dominate. Maybe they'll only allow the 1.8.