Thinking about Cruze or Fit

[WithinDotCa]

I've driven Tercels (two of them) for the past few decades. My current Tercel is at the point where I want to replace it...too many things to fix, which I would if it wasn't for the fact that I'm sensitive to something in the ventilation. More so in the current one, but also in my first on. I'm not interested in pursuing the vent problem in this thread, as I've already devoted years to solve it and eventually accepted it as unchangeable.

I'll mostly be driving to/from work, with the occassional trip betwee Toronto & Ottawa (Highway 7 if possible for the scenery), with winter tires in the winter. Mostly myself, but with elderly passengers in T.O.

I did the research and compared the metrics for the Cruze & Fit, and intend to test drive them. Meantime, can anyone share their opinion about what they would prefer and why?

Finally, a friend said that he tried double clutching on a modern car and did something nasty to the gears. Is this endemic of modern clutches? What is a stick shift like on the Cruze or Fit?

[89s1]

Not sure on that one, becasue as far as I knew so long as it actually has a clutch pedal double clutching is the same on a modern car as it is on a vintage.

It's also pointless 99.8% of the time. Especially on a car with a brand new gearbox.

edit: Having never driven either of those 2 cars, I think i'd vote cruze. For some reason they seem more old people friendly to me. :dunno:

[Tik-Tok]

Why the hell would your friend double clutch a synchro transmission? I would no longer take advice from that person when it comes to cars.

[89s1]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
Why the hell would your friend double clutch a synchro transmission? I would no longer take advice from that person when it comes to cars.

Yeah.... I kinda beat around the bush a bit, but this is more in line with what I wanted to say.

[vengie]

I rented a cruze and drove to Tofino with it, the 1.4turbo was a great little motor! I actually didn't mind the car.
My vote 100% is the cruze

[Sugarphreak]

...

[roll_over]

Are we talking a new fit?

[Idiot Stick]

Wife's got a 2011 auto 1.4turbo cruze. Water pump failed at 40k km's. Ac compressor failed at 43k kms.

Was all covered under warranty but still.

It is a sporty little car compared to my 4door 2013 civic though, but i didn't buy the civic for its sportiness lol.

As for the fit, its damn near the same cost as the civic, 10-15$ difference biweekly. I didnt even look at them other than that

[jaylo]

We currently got a CR-Z and it is a peppy vehicle for a hybrid and we can get as low as 5L/100km in the city (btw its for sale lease takeover) :D

[sxtasy]

My sister was shopping this segment, she test drove the fit and Cruze. You get a lot more value in the Cruze, as well as the turbo delivers most of its power throughout most of the power band. She has had the turbo model for roughly a year and no problems yet.

[gpomp]

K2Be90e2gug

[01RedDX]

.

[hellraiser456]

I was having a "buy a reasonable car" week and test drove these. I think i would end up with the fit solely because of reputation. Yes you get more with the cruize, but they are starting to show some troubling problems at their young age. Also for an economy car, a turbo just doesn't make a ton of sense. Its another part that can fail in my opinion for this sector of cars.

The honda is basic, light and fun to drive. Plus i hated the clutch with the cruize. it had no feel to it, even for a hydraulic clutch.

So +1 for fit. Versas are ok. better than a cruize.

But after this i snapped back to my senses and bought another coupe.

[WithinDotCa]

Thanks for all the anecdotes, guys/gals. It will be bought new. I want to converge, so I don't want to repeat the mulling phase with an option other than a Cruze or Fit, but thanks for the other suggestion. I'm also going to forgo a hybrid -- so many questions about the technology and its true environmental impact.

As for 2x clutching, I realize there are haters and evangelists, and I'm no expert. I just try to determine best practice, and this one seems to have a divide on the wisdom. No, I'm not trying to be cool like in F&F. I watched it long ago for the entertainment, but never presumed to extrapolate to real life, and all the tech gibberish went over my head anyway. I didn't even know that it was a source for much of today's interest in 2x clutching.

Here are 2 articles that seem to give some reason for 2x clutching.

http://hondaswap.com/general-tech-articles/what-double-clutching-3515

http://electronicdesign.com/archive/whats-all-double-clutching-stuff-anyhow

It seems to alleviate wear on the syncros, especially downshifting, and is needed to pop into 1st without stopping. 1st is described as usually having no synchros, though for some reason I can still pop into 1st if I push hard enough -- no grinding is audible. I often go into 1st without stopping, and it is easier to pop in to 1st if I do 2x clutching.

However, I also read that 2x clutching it means twice as many clutch operations, which comes with its own wear. *Assuming* that these factors are correct, I don't know which is better, making it easier on the syncros or the clutch.

Would the wisest compromise be to do 2x clutching only to downshift and/or only to downshift into 1st?

I know that haters of 2x cluthing often feel very strongly about it, but it would be helpful to explain what is the flaw in the above webpages rather than simply stating (emphatically) that is is no good.

[Twin_Cam_Turbo]

Originally posted by WithinDotCa
Thanks for all the anecdotes, guys/gals. It will be bought new. I want to converge, so I don't want to repeat the mulling phase with an option other than a Cruze or Fit, but thanks for the other suggestion. I'm also going to forgo a hybrid -- so many questions about the technology and its true environmental impact.

As for 2x clutching, I realize there are haters and evangelists, and I'm no expert. I just try to determine best practice, and this one seems to have a divide on the wisdom. No, I'm not trying to be cool like in F&F. I watched it long ago for the entertainment, but never presumed to extrapolate to real life, and all the tech gibberish went over my head anyway. I didn't even know that it was a source for much of today's interest in 2x clutching.

Here are 2 articles that seem to give some reason for 2x clutching.

http://hondaswap.com/general-tech-articles/what-double-clutching-3515

http://electronicdesign.com/archive/whats-all-double-clutching-stuff-anyhow

It seems to alleviate wear on the syncros, especially downshifting, and is needed to pop into 1st without stopping. 1st is described as usually having no synchros, though for some reason I can still pop into 1st if I push hard enough -- no grinding is audible. I often go into 1st without stopping, and it is easier to pop in to 1st if I do 2x clutching.

However, I also read that 2x clutching it means twice as many clutch operations, which comes with its own wear. *Assuming* that these factors are correct, I don't know which is better, making it easier on the syncros or the clutch.

Would the wisest compromise be to do 2x clutching only to downshift and/or only to downshift into 1st?

I know that haters of 2x cluthing often feel very strongly about it, but it would be helpful to explain what is the flaw in the above webpages rather than simply stating (emphatically) that is is no good.

Double clutch into first otherwise don't bother any other time, I never even double clutch my car into first and its not even hard to get into gear or ever grinds.

[01RedDX]

.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Rat Fink]

.

[heavyD]

I would test drive both and pick the car you like the best out of the two.