2016 Cruze Turbo vs 2016 Civic Turbo - Shootout

[MPGomatic]

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. =)

[MobilOne]

Neat!

[darcane]

Originally Posted by MPGomatic

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. =)

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...

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by darcane

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.

[niky]

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.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by niky

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.

[niky]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

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.

[Hersbird]

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.