[syr74]

1) 1.8 is a total waste...good for fleet sales...maybe

Well, on this at least we agree.

2) Flat torque curves are everything. 20hp means d*ck. 20 hp in track testing amounts to 2 tenths in the quarter, with weight, gearing and band being equal. So to say it has 20 more hp means squat in this segment, especially when the torque numbers are close, and the 1.4T comes on instantly.

I like flat torque curves as much as the next guy, but not at the cost of this much peak power. And the .2 tenths argument only really works in cars this heavy once you get well north of 140hp. A 20hp bump would represent a ~15% improvement over an even 140hp starting point, in this segment that is a lot.

3) who cares ....what willit cost? Also, I could argue and say,what happens when GM releases its XXX motor? China already gets a 1.6T performance variant, whats to say there isn't one lurking. New details and product revisions seem to get delivered by the day with this car (ie Manual on LTZ models)

I see no reason to believe we are going to see a significantly higher price hike than the 2k the turbo Cruze demands over the standard model, particularly since the 3.5L EB isn't even a 2k option over the base 3.7L V6 in the F-150...and that with the older, more expensive EB tech.

]4) GM has already stated Cruze is getting an MCE for 2013

It's going to need it.

 

[JuMPy]

300hp, 30mpg. Or if power tickles your fancy... 412hp for ~$30,000.

Tell someone 5 years ago that this would be the case, and they would have laughed in your face.

Underestimate Ford at your own peril.

How much different is the Camaro? 312hp/28mpg, in a heavier car, and older motor. The SS model is 426HP and will run you $30K as well. Performance wise the two are twins, seperated by a tenth in the quarter....the Camaro slightly more refined (I know, I've driven both). Checking the specs, they are very ....very close. Camaro is playing with a hand that is a 2-3 years in already. Think the Next Camaro MCE will still be what it is?

I don't think anyone is undersestimating Ford, but lets not put them on that pedestal either.

Edit...The Mustang is one sexy ride, so its not like I'm puttin git down

 

[JuMPy]

Well, on this at least we agree.



I like flat torque curves as much as the next guy, but not at the cost of this much peak power. And the .2 tenths argument only really works in cars this heavy once you get well north of 140hp. A 20hp bump would represent a ~15% improvement over an even 140hp starting point, in this segment that is a lot.



I see no reason to believe we are going to see a significantly higher price hike than the 2k the turbo Cruze demands over the standard model, particularly since the 3.5L EB isn't even a 2k option over the base 3.7L V6 in the F-150...and that with the older, more expensive EB tech.



It's going to need it.

The rule of 1 tenth /hp will apply, weight comes into the quation, and both cars should tag in about the same .... but it will not be apples to apples. I personally would rather have the wider torque curve and give up peak power to get it in a car that I drive daily. Getting into a car that buzzes vs a car that has a flat band for the first time, the car with the wide banc will almost always impress with first impressions.

As for pricing, it all depends on the tranny combo required for the additional power. I still don't think it will be that big a factor having a bigger mill. That only appeals to certian people, and they are not in the majority

 

[bballr4567]

But Ford more or less has done exactly that with the 3.5L Ecoboost, and the four cylinder Ecoboost is going to be based upon what appears to be even more advanced set of engine controls and plumbing available to Ford at a lower cost than existing EB technology.

Yup.

Just look at the 2.0T in the Sonata. Almost 80 HP more than the I4 model yet, MPG really doesnt take that big of a hit.

Turbos can and DO give you more power without sacrificing MPGs when driven like a normal car.

Nobody is panicking Jumpy. Just saying that GM should/could do better with its 4 cylinder engines.

 

[Ammo]

The 1.4T in the Cruze should've made another 20 hp IMO.

DI would easily cure that...and probably get the highway MPG to around 38 with the automatic.

DCT would hit 40 easily.

Ti-VCT + aluminum block? Probably close to 45 MPG.

That should be GM's goal with the 2013 MCE.

 

[JuMPy]

Nobody is panicking Jumpy. Just saying that GM should/could do better with its 4 cylinder engines.

Are you sure? The venom some folks spue on the Cruze makes you think we are below par with every other car on the market. Some of the posts are boarderline trolling

The moment the Focus is mentioned on here, you get so may people posting how that car will "Kill" the Cruze. Point by point I compare what we know about the Cruze to what we know about the upcoming Focus, and I have yet to see any one area Cruze gets "killed". If anything, if I was a Focus fan, I would question why it does not "kill" a car that has already been on the market for 2 years. Sad if you ask me.

This latest rants of praising a power plant that no one (not even the media) has driven in a car that is months and months away from anyone touching it is retarded.

 

[mooseman]

Bull shat ..... I'll believe it when I see it. Like Scotty used to tell the good captain. "You cunnot change the laws of physics capin"

You can't just keep making power and not suffer in economy. If you make it economical with all that power you have situation where you need to comprimise with gearing and/or power band (Turbo comes on later). If you go allout and get performance, there is only so many BTU's in a set unit of gasoline, and unless Ford has defied the laws of physics and started making motors that rival those of F1 decent, it will not get 40mpg. If they do make some gee-whiz motor that gets power, drivability, vehicle performace and economy, the price point will not be in this universe....certianly not inthe Focus class, regardles of economies of scale.

Everyone needs to stop with the panic

...well you are right about all those things, but highway mileage is dependent on several factors that aren't even being addressed, such as drag, rolling resistance, transmission efficiency, etc. So, although there may be equal BTUs for each gallon, it is how those BTUs are used that is at issue. The point of direct injection is that it allows for leaner charges OR more power, depending on what you want. Which consequently means that at lower power situations, such as a steady state highway cruise, they can adjust fuel better than a port injection. CD plays a big roll as well, and we have no idea how they compare there. But, I can tell you, steady state highway miles in my old 1.9L BMW making 140hp is easily in the mid-30s and it is plenty fun to drive the rest of the time, and it is a 5 spd not 6 which would probably bump the mileage nearly 10%. This should be no different. 40 if you stay out of it, low-md 20s if you wear it out.

 

[rozz]

That Focus starting to look like the Corolla.

http://www.toyota.com/img/vehicles/2010/corolla/gallery/full/2009-Corolla-10.jpg

 

[escapen]

That Focus starting to look like the Corolla.

http://www.toyota.com/img/vehicles/2010/corolla/gallery/full/2009-Corolla-10.jpg

What?! The new Focus looks like nothing in its class. Im not completely sold on the front end but I think its a great looking car, the Cruze is decidedly more American looking but its also very good looking in its own right.

Just a side note, remember that the other "big 3" American has the Caliber to offer...

 

[igor]

I am with Jumpy on one thing - wait and see for the power delivery.

I am not even sure whether the "new" 2.0 is still the Duratec/MZR engine used currently in the Focus / Mazda3 etc but improved. (If it is, the torque will be fine ... just saying).

Either way - spec sheet raccing is always pointless.

These are, however, great numbers to see. I will not buy this Focus - for many reasons I have detailed elsewhere - but I am happy it is a solid contender.

I do still have my fingers crossed for a 1.6l EB Focus - 160hp and 45mpg.

Igor

 

[FenwickHockey65]

What?! The new Focus looks like nothing in its class. Im not completely sold on the front end but I think its a great looking car, the Cruze is decidedly more American looking but its also very good looking in its own right.

Just a side note, remember that the other "big 3" American has the Caliber to offer...

Agreed. Front of the '12 Focus is ehhh...but the side profile and rear of the sedan are great.

 

[GMusa]

2012 Ford Focus To Get 160 Horsepower, Direct Injection 2.0-L Motor, 40 MPG Est.

2012 Ford Focus To Get 160 Horsepower, Direct Injection 2.0-L Motor, 40 MPG Est.

When the 2012 Ford Focus hits the US next year, it will be powered by this, Ford's new 2.0-liter direct-injection, Ti-VCT dual variable cams,E85 capable 160 horsepower inline four. The motor produces 146 pound-feet of torque.

These numbers are up from the current, 2011 Focus which makes 140 horsepower and 136 pound-feet of torque. And while the new motor is significantly more powerful, Ford estimates that its combination of dual variable valve timing and direct injection will net 40 mpg, this is up from 25/34 in the 2011 Focus with an automatic transmission. Ford's 40 MPG claim for 2012 was using an automatic trans.

Frictional losses are minimized with electric power steering and an alternator decoupler.

This new engine will be produced at Ford's Dearborn engine plant.

http://blogs.insideline.com/straigh...12-ford-focus-to-get-160-horsepower-direct-injection-20-l-motor-40-mpg-est.html

 

[Bigbee60]

Re: 2012 Ford Focus To Get 160 Horsepower, Direct Injection 2.0-L Motor, 40 MPG Est.

I posted this earlier, maybe they won't delete your post.

Hard to believe the Focus can get 40 mpg when the lighter and smaller Fiesta with the same dual clutch auto only gets 40 mpg on one decontented SFE model and only 38 mpg in the normal trim levels.

I bet the Cruze could better 36 mpg on the 1.4T/6 speed auto models if the engine wasn't turning at 2500 rpm on the highway at 65 mph.

 

[wescoent]

Fiesta doesn't have direct injection.

That being said... 1.6LEB should be interesting.

 

[chevypowa670]

300hp, 30mpg. Or if power tickles your fancy... 412hp for ~$30,000.

Tell someone 5 years ago that this would be the case, and they would have laughed in your face.

Underestimate Ford at your own peril.

Uh The Camaro has 312 HP and gets 29 MPG highway... GM achieved these numbers almost a year before Ford got the 300/30 numbers...So what, im supposed to bow down to Ford because after a year their weaker engine achieves only a mere 1 mpg better? yea OK buddy... :lmao:

The same point you are trying to make for the Mustangs achievements could be applied to the Camaro a year earlier...

 

[neshapop]

WHEN Focus and Cruze outsell Corolla and Civic in 2010/11 all those spec sheet wars are meaningless blurbs.

The same apply for Fusion and Malibu...

 

[Andrew L]

Uh The Camaro has 312 HP and gets 29 MPG highway... GM achieved these numbers almost a year before Ford got the 300/30 numbers...So what, im supposed to bow down to Ford because after a year their weaker engine achieves only a mere 1 mpg better? yea OK buddy... :lmao:

The same point you are trying to make for the Mustangs achievements could be applied to the Camaro a year earlier...

Except that engine didnt make that power a year ago, it was 304 at 29

Mustang is 305 at 31... and the Mustang is NA not DI

 

[jckjds]

Except that engine didnt make that power a year ago, it was 304 at 29

Mustang is 305 at 31... and the Mustang is NA not DI

And the Mustang is a smaller, lighter vehicle. So what?! Now we're arguing semantics. Camaro was over 300 hp at 29 mpg a year before Mustang bested it by a little. The point is that Ford is not working some MPG magic with Ecoboost, it's just combining a lot of good technology into a single engine.

With that said, GM did screw up by not offering DI in the Cruze from the get-go. GM has been screwing up for years by not developing a DCT. If GM did those two things, the Cruze MPG would be untouchable.

As for the 1.6 EB, there is no way it gets 45 MPG. Mark it down -- the EB will get worse FE than the 2.0 UNLESS it (1) has less power or (2) is geared in such a way that it is not significantly faster than the 2.0. There are no magic bullets being fired in the ICE right now, just incremental improvements. Ford's EBs are not a magic breakthrough in ICE performance, just further incremental improvements.

Quite frankly, some extreme power and FE numbers were thrown around for the 3.5 EB. It's a good engine, but not groundbreaking. It gets FE that is slightly better than the V8s at similar power levels.

Is that really a big shock to anyone?

 

[GMJoe]

GM has promised that it wants to be class leading, not almost as good or as good as the competition.

Expect a quick response to Ford's claimed numbers. GM has the technology to stay one step ahead of Ford.

The one upmanship battle has begun!

 

[chevypowa670]

Are you sure? The venom some folks spue on the Cruze makes you think we are below par with every other car on the market. Some of the posts are boarderline trolling

The moment the Focus is mentioned on here, you get so may people posting how that car will "Kill" the Cruze. Point by point I compare what we know about the Cruze to what we know about the upcoming Focus, and I have yet to see any one area Cruze gets "killed". If anything, if I was a Focus fan, I would question why it does not "kill" a car that has already been on the market for 2 years. Sad if you ask me.

This latest rants of praising a power plant that no one (not even the media) has driven in a car that is months and months away from anyone touching it is retarded.

Yep. agreed.

hard to argue with any of this post...