Great Astra Review

[pow]

My 52hp diesel Escort got around quite efficiently (over 50 highway) and would cruise at highway speeds (55-65) quite well, but that was 20+ years ago... it was pretty slow to accelerate, even w/ a 5 speed manual. Wouldn't really want to drive it today.

Underpowered and undertired cars can be fun. I learned to drive in a 114 hp Volvo 240, and you're pretty much flooring it all the time and testing its limits of adhesion... going 35 mph on the way to school. Sometimes it can get annoying, though; I understeered into a guardrail at like 15 mph in the rain. Had to replace the plastic headlight lens cover. Those things are tanks.

It was a dimwitted automatic, too, and it was just lovely watching the speed drop from 50 to 45 to 40 mph, with the pedal flat on the carpet, driving up a ~2 mi hill on the way home. Eventually I'd force it into "2", and then the engine would sound like it was exploding.

Edited May 8, 2008 by empowah

[Guest aatbloke]

Underpowered and undertired cars can be fun. I learned to drive in a 114 hp Volvo 240, and you're pretty much flooring it all the time and testing its limits of adhesion... going 35 mph on the way to school. Sometimes it can get annoying, though; I understeered into a guardrail at like 15 mph in the rain. Had to replace the plastic headlight lens cover. Those things are tanks.

It was a dimwitted automatic, too, and it was just lovely watching the speed drop from 50 to 45 to 40 mph, with the pedal flat on the carpet, driving up a ~2 mi hill on the way home. Eventually I'd force it into "2", and then the engine would sound like it was exploding.

Back in the 70's, cars with this level of underpowered driving experience weren't that rare. The pitiful Cortina 1300 comes to mind particularly. European cars back then exported to the States lost even more power due to the emissions equipment fitted to North American models. These days though you'll never experience any family car with such chronic power-to-weight ratios.

I do understand that in the US, cars in the C-segment usually come with no more than a couple of engine choices, so you're forced to compare like with like - a 1.8 with a 2.3, for example - even if highway fuel economy mileages are broadly similar. But in a real-world application, a 2.3 four-pot is usually significantly less economical for urban hops than, say, a 1.6 is. Once you begin to get Astras, Foci, Mazda 3's etc each with a variety of powerplants from the 1.4 to the 2.5 range, then the picture becomes plainer to see. In my list, the Astra's 138bhp is one of the most powerful non-turbo 1.8 litre engines in its class, and given that any modern 120bhp 1.6 can comfortably take on motorway journeys and all that that entails, the Astra 1.8 can too. It's only when you start towing caravans with cars of this power than you'll see dramatic changes, the lesser torque soon giving out to hill climbs for example. But that was my point; I understand that in the States a 2.3 litre Mazda 3 or 2.5 litre Golf is more powerful - but you'd never compare any 2.3 or 2.5 litre car with a 1.8 here, even if they're the same size. As far as the Golf and Jetta Stateside are concerned, that base 5-pot 2.5 is as tough as nails but it's hardly considered an economy car by the standards most of the world is used to; even the 2.0 litre turbocharged unit in the GTi is more economical. However, in looking at cars of this segment with a similar engine size, the 2-4mpg loss in fuel economy compared to the 1.8 litre Civic (which itself is a wonderful car) isn't a great loss when you take into account the Astra's superior chassis.

Edited May 8, 2008 by aatbloke

[siegen]

However, the Astra, along with the Alfa 147 and VW Golf, are the dom perignon of C-segment hatches purely for their drivability, which is unfortunately something the Japanese (notably) have yet to match in a non-turbod small car

Does the Euro Civic Type R fair well against competition over there? I've heard nothing but rave reviews for it.

[Guest aatbloke]

Does the Euro Civic Type R fair well against competition over there? I've heard nothing but rave reviews for it.

It does very well, but it's a hot hatch, and hot hatchbacks account for only a small percentage of the total hatchback market. I've always liked the new Civic because it offers something different from the norm. I think the old model was a better all-rounder though from what I've read.

[A Horse With No Name]

Ah..the Astra works well in my state..I mean, have you seen our roads?

Perhaps GM will come out with a 4WD Astra with "boggers" for use on michigan roads...

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

My 52hp diesel Escort got around quite efficiently (over 50 highway) and would cruise at highway speeds (55-65) quite well, but that was 20+ years ago... it was pretty slow to accelerate, even w/ a 5 speed manual. Wouldn't really want to drive it today.

Depends on the weight of the car too. An MGB probably makes about 70 Horse and would do fine, but they weigh what, 2000 lbs max?

Chris

[Robert Hall]

Depends on the weight of the car too. An MGB probably makes about 70 Horse and would do fine, but they weigh what, 2000 lbs max?

Chris

Yeah, weight is a factor..the Escort was probably 2500 lbs. It was kind of fun on windy roads..had good steering feel. Wouldn't want to drive it today because of the lack of content (it was a stripped down L model w/ vinyl interior, am radio, manual windows, etc), lack of modern features (no cupholders, etc) and lack of safety features (no airbags, ABS, etc).

[MyerShift]

All this talk of horsepower, acceleration, and efficiency.

I have to say, a 138hp Astra is enough because when you leave one car and go into another, you adapt to how it feels and drives.

I'd rather have the 1.9L CDTi Astra with 150hp and those oodles of torque and amazing mileage, but we can't have it.

After going from a ~214hp Monte Z34 (yes, the twin cam 3.4) to a 132 horsepower Plymouth Breeze with a 2.0L four and automatic took some getting used to, but it scuttled up to freeway speeds and over just fine. It's top speed was like, 120mph. I know. I got it there. Was it fast? Oh God no! By the numbers, I think it gets to 60 in around 12 seconds and it was noisy as all get out on the way there.

(Think two metal garbage cans filled with screws and very angry bees being shaken all to hell.)

But it worked for me well enough, and I could pass in comfortable passing situations when I needed to. The efficiency, though not great, was very good. I averaged around 27 mpg with my heavy foot, and the farthest I got on one tank (13 US gallons) of gasoline was 412 miles.

Oh yes, although there was too much up and down movement in the suspension, it rode firmly but comfortably, and was fun to drive on curvy roads. Loved that wishbone front suspension.

[The O.C.]

All this talk of horsepower, acceleration, and efficiency.

I have to say, a 138hp Astra is enough because when you leave one car and go into another, you adapt to how it feels and drives.

I'd rather have the 1.9L CDTi Astra with 150hp and those oodles of torque and amazing mileage, but we can't have it.

After going from a ~214hp Monte Z34 (yes, the twin cam 3.4) to a 132 horsepower Plymouth Breeze with a 2.0L four and automatic took some getting used to, but it scuttled up to freeway speeds and over just fine. It's top speed was like, 120mph. I know. I got it there. Was it fast? Oh God no! By the numbers, I think it gets to 60 in around 12 seconds and it was noisy as all get out on the way there.

(Think two metal garbage cans filled with screws and very angry bees being shaken all to hell.)

But it worked for me well enough, and I could pass in comfortable passing situations when I needed to. The efficiency, though not great, was very good. I averaged around 27 mpg with my heavy foot, and the farthest I got on one tank (13 US gallons) of gasoline was 412 miles.

Oh yes, although there was too much up and down movement in the suspension, it rode firmly but comfortably, and was fun to drive on curvy roads. Loved that wishbone front suspension.

Those era Breeze/Cirrus/Stratus were actually quite decent cars to drive! I still remember my first test drive in a loaded Stratus V6 and even thought the interior looked quite nice.

[regfootball]

The Civic is indeed quicker to 0-60 and slightly more economical, but neither the torsion beam hatch, or independent rear saloon (which we in the UK only get in hybrid and Type-R forms; other European countries get a larger range) handles as well as the Astra. I'd rather lose the couple of mpgs - which don't break the bank even at $8/gallon - to the way in which you can throw it around windy country roads with much greater poise and enjoyment. The Astra's handling abilities are widely acknowledged as some of the best in class. But that's ancillary to my original point - 138bhp is quite ample for cars of this ilk.

In Europe, the Golf, Focus and Astra were the top three selling C-segment cars in 2007.

i guess mr bloke has never driven across the midwest or east or west regions of the US on the interstate. translation. people don't give a crap about windy country roads in YOU SSSSS AAAAAAAA

straight 4 lane roads where passing is king. the burst that is required for satisfied driving at speeds above 50+ which little POS 130hp 4 poppers cannot satisfy.

translation 2, people only buy small cars in the US when economic conditions force it. otherwise, people want larger more comfortable cars most of the time.

again, the US ain't europe and never will be because it doesn't want to be. we aspire for more, despite how hard the press and liberals try to drag us into tier 2.

[regfootball]

Yeah, weight is a factor..the Escort was probably 2500 lbs. It was kind of fun on windy roads..had good steering feel. Wouldn't want to drive it today because of the lack of content (it was a stripped down L model w/ vinyl interior, am radio, manual windows, etc), lack of modern features (no cupholders, etc) and lack of safety features (no airbags, ABS, etc).

compacts back then were guaranteed death traps. at least today with the safety equipment, you can drive say, a jetta and feel pretty good about your chances. part of that is the extra 500 pounds it carries. for me, i am ok with that. better to leave home everyday and be able to assure your wife and kid etc you at least have a chance of not being hamburger in a fender bender.

[The O.C.]

i guess mr bloke has never driven across the midwest or east or west regions of the US on the interstate. translation. people don't give a crap about windy country roads in YOU SSSSS AAAAAAAA

straight 4 lane roads where passing is king. the burst that is required for satisfied driving at speeds above 50+ which little POS 130hp 4 poppers cannot satisfy.

translation 2, people only buy small cars in the US when economic conditions force it. otherwise, people want larger more comfortable cars most of the time.

again, the US ain't europe and never will be because it doesn't want to be. we aspire for more, despite how hard the press and liberals try to drag us into tier 2.

It's all relative Reg.....and neither you are right....nor is 'Bloke.

Europe isn't all "winding two lanes" either......I've experienced many a U.S.-freeway-type cluster of roads both in GB and mainland Europe.

And if anything, many of our traffic woes over HERE are worse than what you find over there......I spent over a week in London and was amazed at how, even at rush hour, London has nothing that can compare to Los Angeles traffic. Oh sure it gets bad.....no doubt about it......but listening to the Britons, you'd think they have the worst traffic in the world. Apparently not many of them have spent too much time in southern California.....LOL

So....like I said....it's not the roads, or the cities, or any of that sort of stuff. It's simply the culture....what we grew up on....what our parents grew up on....what we are used to....that's what we've all gravitated to over the years.

Small cars here WOULD work quite well.....if we could get ourselves to give them a chance. Additionally, large cars and SUVs over there wouldn't be nearly as difficult to live with as Europeans would have you think (other than gas prices.)

Edited May 10, 2008 by The O.C.

[A Horse With No Name]

Look at how well MINI, Mazda, Toyota, Honda, and even GM and Ford are doing selling small cars here. yes, economic conditions are part of it, but there are a lot of us who would buy small cars even if Gas was 79 cents a gallon.

Look at how well the Corvair, (before Nader) Falcon, and others did in America back in the 1960's.

IIRC, Volkswagen sold more Beetles in 1968 than Chevy did Camaros or Ford did Mustangs, and in 1968 gas was what, 29 cents a gallon?

The Astra has plenty of power for most people, and the suspension on the car is great.

Reg, I admire your posts/agree with you on a lot of things but I think your bias towards fullsize and midsize cars and moderate sized SUV's is blinding you to some of the Astra's atributes.

Chris

Edited May 11, 2008 by 66Stang

[Oracle of Delphi]

Look at how well MINI, Mazda, Toyota, Honda, and even GM and Ford are doing selling small cars here. yes, economic conditions are part of it, but there are a lot of us who would buy small cars even if Gas was 79 cents a gallon.

Look at how well the Corvair, (before Nader) Falcon, and others did in America back in the 1960's.

IIRC, Volkswagen sold more Beetles in 1968 than Chevy did Camaros or Ford did Mustangs, and in 1968 gas was what, 29 cents a gallon?

The Astra has plenty of power for most people, and the suspension on the car is great.

Reg, I admire your posts/agree with you on a lot of things but I think your bias towards fullsize and midsize cars and moderate sized SUV's is blinding you to some of the Astra's atributes.

Chris

+1

[Guest aatbloke]

i guess mr bloke has never driven across the midwest or east or west regions of the US on the interstate. translation. people don't give a crap about windy country roads in YOU SSSSS AAAAAAAA

straight 4 lane roads where passing is king. the burst that is required for satisfied driving at speeds above 50+ which little POS 130hp 4 poppers cannot satisfy.

translation 2, people only buy small cars in the US when economic conditions force it. otherwise, people want larger more comfortable cars most of the time.

again, the US ain't europe and never will be because it doesn't want to be. we aspire for more, despite how hard the press and liberals try to drag us into tier 2.

Who's suggesting the US is aspiring to be Europe? I'm certainly not, and wouldn't wish it to be - it's its own country. Your comments are irrelevant to the topic. Regardless of your automotive culture or where you happen to be in the world, fuel prices will escalate globally ... and you're going to find it a good deal more difficult to deal with 15-20mpg as the norm than 50-60mpg.

Regfootball, I've driven in many parts of the States. However, it does appear from your comments that you've had little - if any - experience of the majority of modern small European cars and their engines. 138bhp in a non-turbo'd 1.8 is not only one of the powerful currently in production, but also quite adequate to propel a C-segment car. We see it all the time here, even if it's a novelty to you.

Edited May 11, 2008 by aatbloke

[Guest aatbloke]

Europe isn't all "winding two lanes" either......I've experienced many a U.S.-freeway-type cluster of roads both in GB and mainland Europe.

I never said it was - but herel, that's where powerful small cars come into their own in terms of smiles per mile.

And if anything, many of our traffic woes over HERE are worse than what you find over there......I spent over a week in London and was amazed at how, even at rush hour, London has nothing that can compare to Los Angeles traffic.

LA has horrific traffic problems, but if you've ever spent a great deal of time in London - especially prior to the congestion charge - you'd know how horrendous it is too, like most parts of the country. The M25 west of London and M6 north of Birmingham during a weekday are pretty much snarled up most of the day. But the mathematics speak for themselves: the UK has less than a twentieth of the road length found in the States, with just one-sixth of the number of vehicles. Traffic jams of 20 to 30 miles are commonplace here, and have been for years. The problem here now is so bad that the road pricing schemes trialled in many cities over the past ten years are likely to be implemented in the coming years. Governments have finally realised that building more roads and wider roads isn't the solution, as they attract more traffic; when the M25 was completed in 1986, it was already carrying three times the capacity it was originally designed for, and consequently it's been widened twice since.

Edited May 11, 2008 by aatbloke

[The O.C.]

Europe isn't all "winding two lanes" either......I've experienced many a U.S.-freeway-type cluster of roads both in GB and mainland Europe.

I never said it was - but herel, that's where powerful small cars come into their own in terms of smiles per mile.

And if anything, many of our traffic woes over HERE are worse than what you find over there......I spent over a week in London and was amazed at how, even at rush hour, London has nothing that can compare to Los Angeles traffic.

LA has horrific traffic problems, but if you've ever spent a great deal of time in London - especially prior to the congestion charge - you'd know how horrendous it is too, like most parts of the country. The M25 west of London and M6 north of Birmingham during a weekday are pretty much snarled up most of the day. But the mathematics speak for themselves: the UK has less than a twentieth of the road length found in the States, with just one-sixth of the number of vehicles. Traffic jams of 20 to 30 miles are commonplace here, and have been for years. The problem here now is so bad that the road pricing schemes trialled in many cities over the past ten years are likely to be implemented in the coming years. Governments have finally realised that building more roads and wider roads isn't the solution, as they attract more traffic; when the M25 was completed in 1986, it was already carrying three times the capacity it was originally designed for, and consequently it's been widened twice since.

Well, they both have far greater traffic problems then what most people in this country are accustomed to. And btw.....our woes don't end on the weekend.....rush-hour-like jams occur on Saturdays and Sundays around here with almost the same frequency as they do during the week. And like London, there are significant areas around southern California that don't have a rush-hour.....they are jammed all day long....regardless of time of day.

I haven't lived in London, but spent over a week in, around, and about London (I didn't just stay in the city around the tourist areas) and yes found bad traffic.....but nothing inconsistent with what I deal with here on a day-to-day basis. BUT, I haven't been there since the C-Charge so I can't comment on how that has affected things. My best friend is from GB and pretty much echos my sentiments on traffic there versus here. Although, he will admit, if anything, the WAY better driving habits over there probably help you as much as our poor driving habits here hinder us when it comes to keeping snarled traffic moving......

[Guest aatbloke]

Well, they both have far greater traffic problems then what most people in this country are accustomed to. And btw.....our woes don't end on the weekend.....rush-hour-like jams occur on Saturdays and Sundays around here with almost the same frequency as they do during the week. And like London, there are significant areas around southern California that don't have a rush-hour.....they are jammed all day long....regardless of time of day.

I haven't lived in London, but spent over a week in, around, and about London (I didn't just stay in the city around the tourist areas) and yes found bad traffic.....but nothing inconsistent with what I deal with here on a day-to-day basis. BUT, I haven't been there since the C-Charge so I can't comment on how that has affected things. My best friend is from GB and pretty much echos my sentiments on traffic there versus here. Although, he will admit, if anything, the WAY better driving habits over there probably help you as much as our poor driving habits here hinder us when it comes to keeping snarled traffic moving......

The problem here isn't restricted to London or other major conurbations; it's prevalent nationwide, even in smaller towns, and during the summer driving season many roads are congested around the country. The number of vehicles on Britain's roads has increased by 20% over the past fifteen years alone and it's a major problem. Road pricing trials have been conducted for many years, and I like I said are likely now just around the corner.

[regfootball]

Who's suggesting the US is aspiring to be Europe? I'm certainly not, and wouldn't wish it to be - it's its own country. Your comments are irrelevant to the topic. Regardless of your automotive culture or where you happen to be in the world, fuel prices will escalate globally ... and you're going to find it a good deal more difficult to deal with 15-20mpg as the norm than 50-60mpg.

Regfootball, I've driven in many parts of the States. However, it does appear from your comments that you've had little - if any - experience of the majority of modern small European cars and their engines. 138bhp in a non-turbo'd 1.8 is not only one of the powerful currently in production, but also quite adequate to propel a C-segment car. We see it all the time here, even if it's a novelty to you.

there's no way to defend the astra's motor, it can't crack 9 seconds with a stick, and it gets its but handed to it by a lot of other cars in its segment. the rest of the car is pretty cool, but the lack of go juice is a big flaw and its hurting sales no doubt.

[Robert Hall]

i guess mr bloke has never driven across the midwest or east or west regions of the US on the interstate. translation. people don't give a crap about windy country roads in YOU SSSSS AAAAAAAA

straight 4 lane roads where passing is king. the burst that is required for satisfied driving at speeds above 50+ which little POS 130hp 4 poppers cannot satisfy.

translation 2, people only buy small cars in the US when economic conditions force it. otherwise, people want larger more comfortable cars most of the time.

again, the US ain't europe and never will be because it doesn't want to be. we aspire for more, despite how hard the press and liberals try to drag us into tier 2.

Some of us do enjoy windy country roads, it's not all freeway driving in the US... I've long enjoyed a drive on the twisty mountain roads in Colorado or Arizona, or driving the winding backroads of eastern Ohio... Not all Americans are as narrow minded as you are..

Edited May 12, 2008 by moltar

[Guest aatbloke]

there's no way to defend the astra's motor, it can't crack 9 seconds with a stick, and it gets its but handed to it by a lot of other cars in its segment. the rest of the car is pretty cool, but the lack of go juice is a big flaw and its hurting sales no doubt.

No way to defend it? It has one of the most powerful non-turbocharged 1.8's in production. It's extremely reliable. It's also good value for money - at least here, anyway. Whatsmore, it's more than adequate for real-world motorway driving.

It gets "handed to" by many other cars in the segment I agree - and in practically every case (with the exception of the Honda Civic) they have larger engine displacements.

In this country we have 29 years' experience of the Astra. Its success over that period of time speaks for itself.

In the USA, its biggest drawback with many people is the fact that it's offered only as a hatchback - and it's fair to say that most Americans still don't warm to hatchbacks.

Edited May 12, 2008 by aatbloke

[Robert Hall]

No way to defend it? It has one of the most powerful non-turbocharged 1.8's in production. It's extremely reliable. It's also good value for money - at least here, anyway. Whatsmore, it's more than adequate for real-world motorway driving.

In the USA, its biggest drawback with many people is the fact that it's offered only as a hatchback - and it's fair to say that most Americans still don't warm to hatchbacks.

That's one thing I've never figured out..esp. in subcompacts and compacts, hatchbacks are superior to sedans.. I certainly wouldn't want a small car with a small trunk. Hatchbacks are way more practical (and usually look better than their sedan counterparts---i.e. Focus, Mazda3, Golf vs. Jetta, etc).

Edited May 12, 2008 by moltar

[siegen]

No way to defend it? It has one of the most powerful non-turbocharged 1.8's in production.

*caugh*b18c*caugh*197hp*caugh*1995*caugh* :AH-HA_wink:

It gets "handed to" by many other cars in the segment I agree - and in practically every case (with the exception of the Honda Civic) they have larger engine displacements.

The Corolla and Civic both have 1.8L engines and deliver much better fuel economy and better acceleration. The Corolla is nearly as heavy too. The only cars that the 1.8L Astra matches or beats on fuel economy have 2.3 and 2.5 engines, although the 1.8L will likely produce less emissions (which is certainly becoming a factor here). GM needs to work some magic with the gearing perhaps. A 6-speed auto with gearing to match the engine output and driving conditions could do worlds for the fuel economy and acceleration.

[Guest aatbloke]

*caugh*b18c*caugh*197hp*caugh*1995*caugh* :AH-HA_wink:

The Corolla and Civic both have 1.8L engines and deliver much better fuel economy and better acceleration. The Corolla is nearly as heavy too. The only cars that the 1.8L Astra matches or beats on fuel economy have 2.3 and 2.5 engines, although the 1.8L will likely produce less emissions (which is certainly becoming a factor here). GM needs to work some magic with the gearing perhaps. A 6-speed auto with gearing to match the engine output and driving conditions could do worlds for the fuel economy and acceleration.

Sounds like you need something for that cough: Honda's B18C is no longer in production. Its range of 170-190bhp units were extraordinarily powerful, but also extraordinarily high-revving and none were good all-rounders to live with or to drive unless you used them solely for racing. The Astra's 1.8, as I said, is one of the most powerful non-turbo units in production with this engine capacity; I didn't say it was the most powerful. Mitsubishi's 1.8 litre MIVEC produces 142bhp, and that's an all-new engine, making its debut just last year.

I said in practically every case, which doesn't mean in all cases. The Corolla and Civic do have better fuel economy - roughly 2-3mpg (US). I've acknowledged this earlier in the thread. 0-60 times are quicker, but if you're on a track they make a difference. In the real world dealing with other traffic, most punters won't know the difference because most people - other than say some teenage males - won't floor it every time they approach a motorway. Both the Corolla and Civic are slightly more economical, slightly faster, but neither has as good chassis dynamics as the Astra.

I can't think of any Opel which has had a decent slush 'box other than the old 24v 3.0 Senator. Personally speaking, I wouldn't buy an automatic in any car - I prefer to drive the thing.

Edited May 12, 2008 by aatbloke

[regfootball]

the astra in the us should have had the same engines as the cobalt

[The O.C.]

No way to defend it? It has one of the most powerful non-turbocharged 1.8's in production. It's extremely reliable. It's also good value for money - at least here, anyway. Whatsmore, it's more than adequate for real-world motorway driving.

It gets "handed to" by many other cars in the segment I agree - and in practically every case (with the exception of the Honda Civic) they have larger engine displacements.

In this country we have 29 years' experience of the Astra. Its success over that period of time speaks for itself.

In the USA, its biggest drawback with many people is the fact that it's offered only as a hatchback - and it's fair to say that most Americans still don't warm to hatchbacks.

'Bloke.....again you are TOTALLY missing the point.

I agree with most of what you say.....but on this topic, the fact-of-the-matter is......the Astra is underpowered for this market.....compared to it's competition. There's no spin against that.

Across the pond, I'm sure it's just fine. But you KEEP referring to the Astra's performance over there.....but keep ignoring what we are trying to tell you about the market here...and the competition that Astra is going up against in order to earn consumers' hard-earned money.

But, as you and many others (me included) have said, the market over there is significantly different than the market here......and that extends to what consumers perceive as "acceptable" performance in their compact cars.

Again.....for emphasis......it may be (more-than) competitive in Europe......but Astra's performance, over here, offers a significant handicap compared to it's competition. Even compact-car buyers care about performance. One reason my friend chose the Rabbit, was the gutsy performance of it's big 2.5L 5-cylinder compared to it's similar competitors. And, from his standpoint, he is very happy with his mid-20's fuel economy (he came out of an X5 SUV.)

[The O.C.]

0-60 times are quicker, but if you're on a track they make a difference. In the real world dealing with other traffic, most punters won't know the difference because most people - other than say some teenage males - won't floor it every time they approach a motorway.

When you have a car that runs on the track as slow as the Astra does compared to the competition, it DOES make a difference in even part-throttle acceleration. You don't have to "floor" a car all the time to feel a lack of performance.

As C&D said....."The 1.8-liter is about as wimpy as its 138hp rating would suggest, strolling to 60mph in 9.3sec on the way to a last-place finish in the quarter-mile at 17.1secs at 82mph." In comparison, in C&D's original road-test of the Chevrolet Cobalt (4-05) with an automatic, the larger and torquier 2.2L Ecotec pulled it to 60mph in 8.4secs....again...with an automatic. Curb weight was actually slightly higher on the Cobalt than the Astra just tested. That's almost a full second faster than the Astra with a 5-speed manual.

(EDIT: Also checked.....C&D ran a G5 with the larger 2.4L Ecotec and an automatic....and it went 0-60 in only 7.5secs...! And, they recently tested another Cobalt with the 2.4L and a 5-speed manual......7.1secs from 0-60. And you wonder why we over here all think the Astra is underpowered?)

In that 8-car comparo, (Focus SE, Lancer GTS, Astra XR, Scion xD, Impreza 2.5i, Suzuki SX4 Sport, Corolla, Rabbit S) the Astra was decidedly mid-pack in terms of curb weight.....and in the 5-60mph race, (more accurately reflects how a normal consumer/owner might experience low-end engine performance due to a lack of "jack-rabbit" starts by popping the clutch, etc.) the average 5-60mph time was 8.9secs. The Astra was a 1/2sec off that time at 9.4secs.

Even so, C&D commented that the Astra "...strikes a good compromise between frugality and fun."

Okay enough on this subject.....

Edited May 12, 2008 by The O.C.

[Guest aatbloke]

When you have a car that runs on the track as slow as the Astra does compared to the competition, it DOES make a difference in even part-throttle acceleration. You don't have to "floor" a car all the time to feel a lack of performance.

As C&D said....."The 1.8-liter is about as wimpy as its 138hp rating would suggest, strolling to 60mph in 9.3sec on the way to a last-place finish in the quarter-mile at 17.1secs at 82mph." In comparison, in C&D's original road-test of the Chevrolet Cobalt (4-05) with an automatic, the larger and torquier 2.2L Ecotec pulled it to 60mph in 8.4secs....again...with an automatic. Curb weight was actually slightly higher on the Cobalt than the Astra just tested. That's almost a full second faster than the Astra with a 5-speed manual.

I can understand why Americans see one or two seconds as a big deal, given that the number of vehicles in this segment with these kinds of engines can be virtually counted on both hands. However, in countries where you have a vast swathe of the market with smaller engines (1.4, 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 litres) with an array of 0-60 times in this class ranging from 8 to 13 seconds (as I listed earlier) in the real world a few seconds is practically unnoticeable to most people. If you go by the name of Lewis Hamilton or Petter Solberg however, then I can understand, and appreciate, the concern.

You can't reasonably compare a 1.8 with a 2.0 litre or higher either, in the same way you can't compare a 1.6 with a 1.8. In accurately determining the merits of a particular sized engine, you'd compare for example an Astra 1.4 with a Focus 1.4 and Golf 1.4; an Astra 1.6 with Focus 1.6 and Golf 1.6, and Astra 1.8 with a Civic 1.8 and Focus 1.8 - there is no Golf 1.8 to compare to. If the Astra 1.8 and the Civic 1.8 are the only C-segment cars in your market with that sized engine capacity, then that's all you have to accurately compare: there's no point in thowing in a torquey 2.2 litre unit into the mix.

In my experience of driving in North America, I saw very few people accelerating the damned hooley out of their cars - in fact most of the motorway driving was good deal more sedate (and therefore more pleasurable) than it is here.

With a handful of exceptions, I've driven cars with engines this size, and smaller, all of my life from many different manufacturers. With all due respect, I'll stand by my words: 138bhp is quite sufficient in a 1.8 litre C-segment hatchback.

Edited May 12, 2008 by aatbloke

[The O.C.]

With a handful of exceptions, I've driven cars with engines this size, and smaller, all of my life from many different manufacturers. With all due respect, I'll stand by my words: 138bhp is quite sufficient in a 1.8 litre C-segment hatchback.

OK....OK.....for a 1.8L engine, it is more than competitive for it's engine size........but that was never the original point!!!!! The discussion began with the concern that the Astra is underpowered relative to it's competition.

It just seems like you are being SO obstinate that you can't even acknowledge MY point about OUR market......and instead, since you are too stubborn to acknowledge it and have a reasonable conversation with me about OUR market.....you just keep spouting your position relative to the Astra's 1.8L without even trying to see the point I'm trying to make.

You don't see me debating the realities of YOUR market. That's because I already understand how it's different over there and I acknowledge that.

<Huff>.....AGAIN....the consumer in the marketplace doesn't necessarily shop competitive vehicles with the same engine size alone. They compare vehicles in a similar price- and-size range. AGAIN OUR MARKET IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM YOURS. Frankly I give you enough credit to realize that....but your posts keep indicating that you really don't.

It is ENTIRELY logical to compare, for one example, a Rabbit with a 2.5L engine to an Astra with a 1.8L engine. Know why? They are both in the $16- to $17K range (base prices), compete in the same market segment, and are even dimensionally very similar. THEY ARE COMPETING FOR THE VERY SAME CONSUMERS.

The end result? The VW is way faster and more responsive over the entire driving spectrum......and for that performance, you give up 2mpg (in C&D's test) to the Astra. Many people over here would rather get 22mpg in a more powerful and responsive Rabbit than they would get 24mpg in the sluggish Astra. AND that performance difference IS something that can be felt in normal day-to-day driving....especially if you hook automatics to them....thanks to the Rabbit's greater low-end torque.

I'm not debating 1.8L to 1.8L. I'm trying to get you to look at it from a consumer/market perspective. But you have to realize that our market is vastly different. We DON'T have the choice in powertrains in our cars that you do over there. It's also NOT uncommon for consumers over here to comparison shop, say a 4-cylinder Asian midsize sedan to a V6-powered GM midsize sedan......specifically because GM for many years offered V6 power for 4-cylinder prices....and many consumers responded to that favorably.

Can you acknowledge or debate with me even a fraction of the point I'm trying to make about the Astra and it's engine....in our market? Can you?

[A Horse With No Name]

Some of us do enjoy windy country roads, it's not all freeway driving in the US... I've long enjoyed a drive on the twisty mountain roads in Colorado or Arizona, or driving the winding backroads of eastern Ohio... Not all Americans are as narrow minded as you are..

...exactly...the winding backroads of eastern Ohio would be a PERFECT place to drive an Astra.

Besides, what's the point of this whole thing? I've driven an Astra on the interstate and it had plenty of power to pass and a great ride to boot.

GM needs to promote this little beauty and get some of them out the door and into peoples hands. This car is so good that it should sell by word of mouth.

Chris

[The O.C.]

...exactly...the winding backroads of eastern Ohio would be a PERFECT place to drive an Astra.

Besides, what's the point of this whole thing? I've driven an Astra on the interstate and it had plenty of power to pass and a great ride to boot.

GM needs to promote this little beauty and get some of them out the door and into peoples hands. This car is so good that it should sell by word of mouth.

Chris

I think we are all Astra fans here. But it is underpowered for it's market.

And BTW....I'm not saying I wouldn't buy one! Engine performance is CERTAINLY not the only thing I look for......in fact, I'd take the Astra and its 1.8L over the Cobalt 2.2L or 2.4L JUST so I could have such a WAY better interior alone!

Edited May 12, 2008 by The O.C.

[A Horse With No Name]

OK....OK.....for a 1.8L engine, it is more than competitive for it's engine size........but that was never the original point!!!!! The discussion began with the concern that the Astra is underpowered relative to it's competition.

It just seems like you are being SO obstinate that you can't even acknowledge MY point about OUR market......and instead, since you are too stubborn to acknowledge it and have a reasonable conversation with me about OUR market.....you just keep spouting your position relative to the Astra's 1.8L without even trying to see the point I'm trying to make.

You don't see me debating the realities of YOUR market. That's because I already understand how it's different over there and I acknowledge that.

<Huff>.....AGAIN....the consumer in the marketplace doesn't necessarily shop competitive vehicles with the same engine size alone. They compare vehicles in a similar price- and-size range. AGAIN OUR MARKET IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM YOURS. Frankly I give you enough credit to realize that....but your posts keep indicating that you really don't.

It is ENTIRELY logical to compare, for one example, a Rabbit with a 2.5L engine to an Astra with a 1.8L engine. Know why? They are both in the $16- to $17K range (base prices), compete in the same market segment, and are even dimensionally very similar. THEY ARE COMPETING FOR THE VERY SAME CONSUMERS.

The end result? The VW is way faster and more responsive over the entire driving spectrum......and for that performance, you give up 2mpg (in C&D's test) to the Astra. Many people over here would rather get 22mpg in a more powerful and responsive Rabbit than they would get 24mpg in the sluggish Astra. AND that performance difference IS something that can be felt in normal day-to-day driving....especially if you hook automatics to them....thanks to the Rabbit's greater low-end torque.

I'm not debating 1.8L to 1.8L. I'm trying to get you to look at it from a consumer/market perspective. But you have to realize that our market is vastly different. We DON'T have the choice in powertrains in our cars that you do over there. It's also NOT uncommon for consumers over here to comparison shop, say a 4-cylinder Asian midsize sedan to a V6-powered GM midsize sedan......specifically because GM for many years offered V6 power for 4-cylinder prices....and many consumers responded to that favorably.

Can you acknowledge or debate with me even a fraction of the point I'm trying to make about the Astra and it's engine....in our market? Can you?

I can see your point, for some buyers it would really matter and others it wouldn't. Here in Ohio we have the Nazi Freeway patrol, otherwise known as the Ohio State Highway Patrol. We have some of the highest speeding fines in the nation so the Astra would do just fine here in nice flat Ohio.

In the hills of the bay area where you live O.C., methinks it would be entirely different.

BTW, I've also driven the Rabbit. Biggest difference between the two cars IMHO is that the Rabbit has a nicer dashboard and the manual in the Rabbit shifts more smoothly.

The Astra on the other hand has On-Star. Biggest downside to astra IMHO is that the cabin is a little dark and only available in Charcoal as a color...the car can feel a little cavelike, which is what my daughters (ages 7, 12, and 17) didn't like about the Astra.

We just really need to be happy that there are so many cool small cars in the market right now.

Oh, and when she drove them back to back my wife liked the Astra better than the Rabbit.

Chris

[The O.C.]

I can see your point, for some buyers it would really matter and others it wouldn't. Here in Ohio we have the Nazi Freeway patrol, otherwise known as the Ohio State Highway Patrol. We have some of the highest speeding fines in the nation so the Astra would do just fine here in nice flat Ohio.

In the hills of the bay area where you live O.C., methinks it would be entirely different.

BTW, I've also driven the Rabbit. Biggest difference between the two cars IMHO is that the Rabbit has a nicer dashboard and the manual in the Rabbit shifts more smoothly.

The Astra on the other hand has On-Star. Biggest downside to astra IMHO is that the cabin is a little dark and only available in Charcoal as a color...the car can feel a little cavelike, which is what my daughters (ages 7, 12, and 17) didn't like about the Astra.

We just really need to be happy that there are so many cool small cars in the market right now.

Oh, and when she drove them back to back my wife liked the Astra better than the Rabbit.

Chris

The scary thing is......just how much nicer the Astra is than the Cobalt.....!!!!!!!

(Although I'm mighty tempted by the new Turbo SS....)

[Robert Hall]

...exactly...the winding backroads of eastern Ohio would be a PERFECT place to drive an Astra.

Chris

Yes...those are some of my favorite driving roads in the country, and I've driven backroads in many states.. I've had a lot of fun on the twisty roads of Ohio in a variety of interesting cars--several Mustangs, a 350Z, a Focus (even in rental car form, the '02 was a great handler, IMHO), several Town Cars and Grand Marquis, my M3..

[thegriffon]

I think we are all Astra fans here. But it is underpowered for it's market.

And BTW....I'm not saying I wouldn't buy one! Engine performance is CERTAINLY not the only thing I look for......in fact, I'd take the Astra and its 1.8L over the Cobalt 2.2L or 2.4L JUST so I could have such a WAY better interior alone!

Well, that certainly explains why the 128 hp Corolla and 138 hp Civic are so very popular. It must be all that extra power.

[Guest aatbloke]

OK....OK.....for a 1.8L engine, it is more than competitive for it's engine size........but that was never the original point!!!!! The discussion began with the concern that the Astra is underpowered relative to it's competition.

It just seems like you are being SO obstinate that you can't even acknowledge MY point about OUR market......and instead, since you are too stubborn to acknowledge it and have a reasonable conversation with me about OUR market.....you just keep spouting your position relative to the Astra's 1.8L without even trying to see the point I'm trying to make.

You don't see me debating the realities of YOUR market. That's because I already understand how it's different over there and I acknowledge that.

<Huff>.....AGAIN....the consumer in the marketplace doesn't necessarily shop competitive vehicles with the same engine size alone. They compare vehicles in a similar price- and-size range. AGAIN OUR MARKET IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM YOURS. Frankly I give you enough credit to realize that....but your posts keep indicating that you really don't.

It is ENTIRELY logical to compare, for one example, a Rabbit with a 2.5L engine to an Astra with a 1.8L engine. Know why? They are both in the $16- to $17K range (base prices), compete in the same market segment, and are even dimensionally very similar. THEY ARE COMPETING FOR THE VERY SAME CONSUMERS.

The end result? The VW is way faster and more responsive over the entire driving spectrum......and for that performance, you give up 2mpg (in C&D's test) to the Astra. Many people over here would rather get 22mpg in a more powerful and responsive Rabbit than they would get 24mpg in the sluggish Astra. AND that performance difference IS something that can be felt in normal day-to-day driving....especially if you hook automatics to them....thanks to the Rabbit's greater low-end torque.

I'm not debating 1.8L to 1.8L. I'm trying to get you to look at it from a consumer/market perspective. But you have to realize that our market is vastly different. We DON'T have the choice in powertrains in our cars that you do over there. It's also NOT uncommon for consumers over here to comparison shop, say a 4-cylinder Asian midsize sedan to a V6-powered GM midsize sedan......specifically because GM for many years offered V6 power for 4-cylinder prices....and many consumers responded to that favorably.

Can you acknowledge or debate with me even a fraction of the point I'm trying to make about the Astra and it's engine....in our market? Can you?

Your market is completely different - but comparing the performance of a 1.8 litre 4 with a 2.5 litre 5 is simply unfair regardless of where you are. You may as well compare a 1600cc Focus with a 4.6 litre Mustang.

The point is that in the US market, there isn't enough choice in the C-segment to make accurate comparisons between models. It's that simple.

[siegen]

Sounds like you need something for that cough: Honda's B18C is no longer in production. Its range of 170-190bhp units were extraordinarily powerful, but also extraordinarily high-revving and none were good all-rounders to live with or to drive unless you used them solely for racing. The Astra's 1.8, as I said, is one of the most powerful non-turbo units in production with this engine capacity; I didn't say it was the most powerful. Mitsubishi's 1.8 litre MIVEC produces 142bhp, and that's an all-new engine, making its debut just last year.

I understand they are no longer in production, I am just picking at your word choice. Here in the US, there are very few 1.8's. The Civic, Corolla, and Astra are the only compacts with a 1.8l that I can think of off the top of my head. The Astra happens to be in the middle horsepower-wise of those two, which would make it average, not "one of the most powerful". The B18C engines were the most powerful for their time, but everyone has moved on and most start with 2.0L or larger. As stated by others, we are not saying that the Astra's engine is weak for its size, just it is in a heavier vehicle than it ought to be, and is mated to poor gearing.

The Civic's engine is a SOHC unit, variable displacement (using vtec to control valve opening timing and duration, allowing some of the intake charge to move back into the IM depending on load), and is designed to be economical, yet also happens to deliver more horsepower and torque. If Honda wanted to use a 1.8L on the Civic Si instead of a 2.0L, it would likely produce around 190-200hp. However, people would complain even more than they do now that the engine lacks torque and low-rpm power. Just FYI, the Civic Si coupe weighs about the same as the Astra 3-door. The Civic coupe EX weighs about 170 lbs less than both, mostly thanks to the SOHC engine and economy drivetrain. The Astra is like a Civic Si with power equivalent to the Civic EX, and it just doesn't work. It needs both.

Edited May 12, 2008 by siegen

[Guest aatbloke]

I understand they are no longer in production, I am just picking at your word choice. Here in the US, there are very few 1.8's. The Civic, Corolla, and Astra are the only compacts with a 1.8l that I can think of off the top of my head. The Astra happens to be in the middle horsepower-wise of those two, which would make it average, not "one of the most powerful". The B18C engines were the most powerful for their time, but everyone has moved on and most start with 2.0L or larger. As stated by others, we are not saying that the Astra's engine is weak for its size, just it is in a heavier vehicle than it ought to be, and is mated to poor gearing.

This is what I originally said, and I quote: "It has one of the most powerful non-turbocharged 1.8's in production." A non-turbocharged engine in production is a 1.8 non-turbocharged engine in production, regardless of where it's made and where it happens to be sold. Mitsubishi's 142bhp MIVEC unit is the only normally aspirated production 1.8 I can think of off the top of my head which is more powerful.

But start comparing any 1.8 to a 2.0, 2.2 or 2.5 and you're obviously going to have an immediate power disadvantage - coming from a market where there is a massive raft of models between 1.6 and 2.2 litres, take it from me you're going to notice some difference. If you can buy a 1.8 for the same money as a 2.5, most will naturally go for the 2.5 if they can afford the extra fuel consumption - but that still doesn't make the cars direct rivals nor does it make for a fair comparison. Indeed, 170bhp from a 2.5 isn't exactly state-of-the-art when Volkswagen fit a twincharger 1.4 in other parts of the world in the same car developing the same amount of power - but you still couldn't compare the two because of the torque bands are going to be different. That said, 0-60 and 138bhp is adequate enough for motorway work - I used a 130bhp 2.0 Focus and then a 140bhp 2.4 litre Galant during my time over there and both handled long motorway journeys with ease, just as they would here. Both had plenty of extra power for overtaking when required too. The biggest problem for me was keeping my foot off the gas because you're running a real risk in many states if you cruise at 80-90mph all day long.

The C-segment in the States is too sparsely populated to make many accurate direct comparisons, although I dare say that once you're paying $5-6/gallon, that will change quite rapidly as ordinary people simply won't be able to afford to run 3 litre V6s for ordinary day-to-day activities, hence giving rise to a much bigger choice of smaller cars with a greater choice of engine units.

Edited May 12, 2008 by aatbloke

[The O.C.]

The point is that in the US market, there isn't enough choice in the C-segment to make accurate comparisons between models. It's that simple.

Gee....consumers do it EVERY day.....and guess what? They vote with their checkbooks......

[The O.C.]

Well, that certainly explains why the 128 hp Corolla and 138 hp Civic are so very popular. It must be all that extra power.

Okay then.....explain to me why they perform so much better than the Astra does....!

[The O.C.]

But start comparing any 1.8 to a 2.0, 2.2 or 2.5 and you're obviously going to have an immediate power disadvantage - coming from a market where there is a massive raft of models between 1.6 and 2.2 litres, take it from me you're going to notice some difference.

OK....now you are contradicting yourself.

You just said a few posts back....something along the lines of "0-60s being quicker on the track, but consumers not noticing a difference in everyday driving."

[siegen]

I understand they are no longer in production, I am just picking at your word choice. Here in the US, there are very few 1.8's. The Civic, Corolla, and Astra are the only compacts with a 1.8l that I can think of off the top of my head. The Astra happens to be in the middle horsepower-wise of those two, which would make it average, not "one of the most powerful". The B18C engines were the most powerful for their time, but everyone has moved on and most start with 2.0L or larger. As stated by others, we are not saying that the Astra's engine is weak for its size, just it is in a heavier vehicle than it ought to be, and is mated to poor gearing.

This is what I originally said, and I quote: "It has one of the most powerful non-turbocharged 1.8's in production." A non-turbocharged engine in production is a 1.8 non-turbocharged engine in production, regardless of where it's made and where it happens to be sold. Mitsubishi's 142bhp MIVEC unit is the only normally aspirated production 1.8 I can think of off the top of my head which is more powerful.

But start comparing any 1.8 to a 2.0, 2.2 or 2.5 and you're obviously going to have an immediate power disadvantage - coming from a market where there is a massive raft of models between 1.6 and 2.2 litres, take it from me you're going to notice some difference. If you can buy a 1.8 for the same money as a 2.5, most will naturally go for the 2.5 if they can afford the extra fuel consumption - but that still doesn't make the cars direct rivals nor does it make for a fair comparison. Indeed, 170bhp from a 2.5 isn't exactly state-of-the-art when Volkswagen fit a twincharger 1.4 in other parts of the world in the same car developing the same amount of power - but you still couldn't compare the two because of the torque bands are going to be different. That said, 0-60 and 138bhp is adequate enough for motorway work - I used a 130bhp 2.0 Focus and then a 140bhp 2.4 litre Galant during my time over there and both handled long motorway journeys with ease, just as they would here. Both had plenty of extra power for overtaking when required too. The biggest problem for me was keeping my foot off the gas because you're running a real risk in many states if you cruise at 80-90mph all day long.

The C-segment in the States is too sparsely populated to make many accurate direct comparisons, although I dare say that once you're paying $5-6/gallon, that will change quite rapidly as ordinary people simply won't be able to afford to run 3 litre V6s for ordinary day-to-day activities, hence giving rise to a much bigger choice of smaller cars with a greater choice of engine units.

Don't forget the 1.8L 140HP civic engine.

I drive a 1.8L Integra and 1.9L Escort Wagon often. The Escort is sufficient for normal use, although it is a bit slow accelerating onto freeways and passing, it is adequate but not fun. The Integra is of course quite fast and fun. I believe it also weighs a tad more than the Escort. The gearing and powerband must be superior since it has the displacement and weight disadvantage. These are both 5-speed manuals.

The 2.5 Jetta isn't the best comparison to the Astra, and I haven't tried to make that comparison although I suppose some people will. The 2.2L Cobalt, despite the larger engine, is a direct competitor, as well as the plethora of 2.0L compacts (Kia, Hyundai, Ford, etc). They are the same price range and offer similar mileage. The Astra may have a better chassis, better handling, and European styling.

[Guest aatbloke]

Gee....consumers do it EVERY day.....and guess what? They vote with their checkbooks......

There isn't enough C-segment choice over there to make accurate comparisons. Sure, you might have a 1.8 Astra, a 2.0 Focus, a 2.3 Mazda 3 and a 2.5 Golf, but you can't make any kind of accurate performance-related comparisons because despite being the same size, they're not really direct rivals.

As fuel prices increase and demand for smaller segment cars mushrooms, you may find these manufacturers offering a wider variety of engines in these models as is the case here: get offered five petrol engines and four diesels in the Astra, seven petrol engines and four diesels in the Golf, four petrol engines and a three diesels in the Mazda 3, and six petrol engines and four diesels in the Focus, you can far more accurately group rivals in the segment together based on comparable levels of performance.

[Guest aatbloke]

OK....now you are contradicting yourself.

You just said a few posts back....something along the lines of "0-60s being quicker on the track, but consumers not noticing a difference in everyday driving."

I'm not contradicting myself. In said that in the real world, a few seconds 0-60 on the motorway in real-world conditions (traffic changing lanes, not enough room to accelerate flat out, etc) isn't going to be noticeable to many people.

However, if you're going to compare performance - in terms of horsepower, mid range torque and 30-70mph acceleration, top speed, 0-60mph acceleration - in controlled conditions as magazines do for example, then it's unfair to compare a 1.8 with a 2.5. It's unfair to compare a 1.8 with a 2.0 litre unit for that matter. Fuel economy at a steady 56mph won't be that different between a 1.8 or a 2.0, but there will be a marked difference on an extra-urban cycle. Practically every performance statistic you read in a magazine will barely be ever used or achieved in real world driving conditions.

But here in Europe, we are used to a plethora of engines in this segment. Take any Focus-sized mainstream car and you're likely to get a choice of at least four or five petrol engines ranging from 1.4 litres or so to a 2.5 performance model or something of that ilk. For example, no-one would compare an Astra 1.6 with a 2 litre Focus or vice-versa because the comparisons drawn aren't accurate enough to have any meaning.

Edited May 12, 2008 by aatbloke

[siegen]

There isn't enough C-segment choice over there to make accurate comparisons. Sure, you might have a 1.8 Astra, a 2.0 Focus, a 2.3 Mazda 3 and a 2.5 Golf, but you can't make any kind of accurate performance-related comparisons because despite being the same size, they're not really direct rivals.

As fuel prices increase and demand for smaller segment cars mushrooms, you may find these manufacturers offering a wider variety of engines in these models as is the case here: get offered five petrol engines and four diesels in the Astra, seven petrol engines and four diesels in the Golf, four petrol engines and a three diesels in the Mazda 3, and six petrol engines and four diesels in the Focus, you can far more accurately group rivals in the segment together based on comparable levels of performance.

Choice increases cost. I like having choices, but 5 different gas engines and a range of diesels is too many.

Things may be different over there, but here if the cars are in the same price range and vehicle size, they are comparable. If one offers a 1.8L while another offers a 2.2L, it makes no difference.

[Intrepidation]

Just throwing it in there...the base Caliber comes with a 1.8L makes 148 hp and 128 ft-lb of torque.

[thegriffon]

1.8 I 4s

Lada 1.774 8V SOHC 80.5 hp 102 lb-ft

Chery 1.845 16V DOHC 130 hp 125 lb-ft

BYD 1.839 16V DOHC 120 hp 118 lb-ft (Mazda design)

Chrysler 1.798 16V DOHC D-VVT 148 hp 125 lb-ft (GEMA)

Mercedes 1.796 16V DOHC D-VVT 122 hp 140 lb-ft

FAW 1.765 16V DOHC 118 hp 118 lb-ft (in development)

FAW 1.796 16V DOHC VVT 134 hp 125 lb-ft

Haima 1.839 16V DOHC 121 hp 118 lb-ft (Mazda design)

Haima 1.839 16V DOHC VVT 134 hp 133 lb-ft (in development, different bore x stroke)

Fiat 1.747 16V DOHC VVT 130 hp 121 lb-ft

Ford 1.796 16V DOHC 113 hp 118 lb-ft

Mazda 1.798 16V DOHC VVT 124 hp 123 lb-ft

Mazda 1.789 8V SOHC 94 hp 100 lb-ft (archaic, but still in use)

Geely 1.762 16V DOHC 111 hp 116 lb-ft (ancient Toyota engine)

Geely 1.792 16V DOHC VVT 137 hp 127 lb-ft

GM Daewoo 1.796 16V DOHC 119 hp 125 lb-ft (GM Europe design)

GM Brasil 1.796 8V SOHC 107 hp 119 lb-ft

GM Brasil 1.796 8V SOHC 110 hp 128 lb-ft FlexFuel

GME 1.796 16V DOHC 123 hp 122 lb-ft

GME 1.796 16V DOHC D-VVT 138 hp 129 lb-ft

GMH 1.799 16V DOHC 120 hp 122 lb-ft (big block)

Honda 1.799 16V DOHC VVT 136 hp 127 lb-ft

Hyundai 1.795 16V DOHC 128 hp 120 lb-ft

Mitsubishi 1.834 16V DOHC 138 hp 123 lb-ft

Peugeot 1.749 16V DOHC 123 hp 125 lb-ft

Nissan 1.797 16V DOHC 126 hp 130 lb-ft

Renault 1.784 16V DOHC 118 hp 122 lb-ft (for Proton)

SAIC (MG) 1.795 16V DOHC 133 hp 122 lb-ft

Suzuki 1.796 16V DOHC 123 hp 125 lb-ft

Toyota 1.797 16V DOHC D-VVT 132 hp 128 lb-ft

VW 1.781 8V SOHC 102 hp 112 lb-ft

The only NA 1.8 producing more power, currently in production, is the World Engine 1.8 in the Caliber. The latest GM engine is a smaller, cast-iron block. Both are DOHC Dual-VVT engines, still rare (the Mercedes and new Toyota are the only other 1.8s). High-output or turbocharged 1.6s and 1.4s are the preferred option in new vehicles (BMW/Peugeot, GM, VW, Ford etc.)

[Guest aatbloke]

Choice increases cost. I like having choices, but 5 different gas engines and a range of diesels is too many.

Things may be different over there, but here if the cars are in the same price range and vehicle size, they are comparable. If one offers a 1.8L while another offers a 2.2L, it makes no difference.

It isn't too many: it's providing yourself with the necessary investment in a vehicle to accommodate the dictates of the market. When ordinary people are exposed to paying high fuel prices, then there's a need when you're dealing with the largest vehicle segment in the market.

It does make a difference if you have a 1.8 litre and a 2.2 litre regardless of where you are - for a kick-off, there's going to be a power advantage offset by a marked decrease in urban fuel economy. Americans are simply not used to having an expansive small car market, so they just don't see the difference between the likes of a 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0 and a 2.2 - and that's evidenced quite clearly in this thread. Like I said, if a 1.8 and a 2.5 are similarly priced and sized, people will likely go for the 2.5 if fuel economy isn't an issue - but in performance terms that does not make them direct rivals.

[Guest aatbloke]

Just throwing it in there...the base Caliber comes with a 1.8L makes 148 hp and 128 ft-lb of torque.

That's true, I did list that one earlier and it didn't come to mind in my comments. It has a worse 0-60 time than the Astra though, so it's a case of pick your poison if people think it makes much of a difference in real world driving conditions.

[CARBIZ]

The fact of the matter is that North Americans are addicted to automatics, whereas Europeans are not. I have driven the Cobalt 2.2 on and off our antiquated freeway system and would take it over the 1.8 litre in the Corolla any day of the week.

All of this obsession over 0-60 times is BS. Torque numbers are more important and the 'flatness' of the torque curve. The ecotec engines have a lot of torque where it counts, and coupled with a perfectly mated automatic, it is a winning combination. When one is barelling down a (way too short) expressway ramp, already doing 35 mph, it is the short burst to 60 mph that is far more important. I've tried it in the Corolla and it scares me. The Cobalt does it effortlessly. In fact, the 2.2 in the much heavier last generation Malibu did it effortlessly. I have not driven the Astra, so I cannot specifically comment on that.

All of this yapping about busy highways and traffic is also BS: the 401 highway which bisects Toronto is the busiest freeway in North America. It passed the Santa Monica Freeway a couple years ago. I am not bragging; in fact, it is shameful, really. However, it is just a fact of life in a city where the tree huggers have forced the cancellation of a myriad of expressways over the past 30 years, and where a city of 5 million only has one central east-west corridor. We end up with 16 lanes of hell.