2016 Cruze Turbo vs 2016 Civic Turbo - Shootout
 

Tiny Turbo 0-60 Shootout!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNwsKhbN-YE

Both automatics and a tad soft off the line, but fun once they're in the boost. No problem hitting the highway MPG #s.

I'm testing a turbo Camaro this week. Saw some crazy high highway #s on the drive home. Flirted with 40, without trying too hard, A/C & seat cooler on. Need to wait for the temps to drop to try again (without suffocating) with the A/C off. =)

Neat!

Ooh, nice. There is a slim chance that a new turbo 4 Camaro is on the list for a new car to replace my Civic. I'm interested in your review on that one...

I bet you can get a turbo Camaro for about the same price as the turbo civic. I think the civic is only available with a cvt and in upper trim levels, the turbo camaro can be the basic one which Dave Smith was advertising at $20,000 brand new for a 2016.

I tested the Civic sedan at 7.6 seconds to 100 km/h (62 mph)... which equates to about 7.0 to 7.2 to 60.

Really quick car. Huge back seat, to boot.

The 4 banger Camaro is 5.4 0-60 which is where I would start to use the term quick. Really quick is more like the SS's 4 sec time. Maybe those are really, really, quick; and really, really, really, quick. Back seat I will give you over any Camaro ever made but again, the adjective huge may be a bit much. Basically the 2016 Civic is as quick as a 98 neon DOHC 5 speed with a similar back seat and mpg numbers which you could buy brand new under $10,000. Such progress we have made.

The ACR was 7.6 to 60 in C&D's hands. They've done the Civic 1.5T at 6.7. But then they do all sorts of SAE corrections to their times. I just take mine raw.

I would start the term "fast" at 5-6 seconds (to 60).

My "very fast" is under 5. And I've drag-tested quite a few "very fast" cars.

-

That said, I think the Civic's time is perfectly respectable for a non-Si version of a family sedan that's now as big inside as an old Accord, rather than an old Civic. Granted, it's not "huge" compared to modern Accords, but for a car in this segment, it's really something, especially compared to the tiny back seats of the Focus and Mazda3.

Motortrend and Car and driver both got 7.5 sec times on first gen Neons. I trust those were actual tests. The Edmunds lowball 6.7 claim on the Civic I would take with a grain of salt. What have the real automotive magazines gotten? At best the Civic is 1/2 sec faster 0-60 and I bet about even over a 1/4 mile. Again, not exactly progress.