The Cruise is a nicer car to drive than the new Malibu. But, I agree, the manual is the only way to go.
Bought a Cruze Eco tonight
- Thread starter milehigh
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Nick R
I can concur that the 2011 AT isn't exactly great. I've driven a few 2012s (friend, and a rental) and the tranny seems much more well sorted. And much lower RPMs at speed. My 2011 turned 2900RPM at 75mph.
Why did you get rid of your Cruze at such a young age? As I recall, didn't your family get a bunch of new G.M.'s at the same time?
I can concur that the 2011 AT isn't exactly great. I've driven a few 2012s (friend, and a rental) and the tranny seems much more well sorted. And much lower RPMs at speed. My 2011 turned 2900RPM at 75mph.
Why did you get rid of your Cruze at such a young age? As I recall, didn't your family get a bunch of new G.M.'s at the same time?
Originally Posted By: ryansride2017
Originally Posted By: Nick R
I can concur that the 2011 AT isn't exactly great. I've driven a few 2012s (friend, and a rental) and the tranny seems much more well sorted. And much lower RPMs at speed. My 2011 turned 2900RPM at 75mph.
Why did you get rid of your Cruze at such a young age? As I recall, didn't your family get a bunch of new G.M.'s at the same time?
IIRC his 2011 AT Cruze couldn't break 32 mpg to save its life, and it had some financial strings attached also. Not to re-hash the thread about that...
At 75 my Eco MT is sitting at 2500 RPM, IIRC. At 65 it's sitting at 2000 RPM. With the turbo capable of making full force (~16 PSI stock) at 1800 RPM, turning lower RPM's really does make a difference in this car.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
I can concur that the 2011 AT isn't exactly great. I've driven a few 2012s (friend, and a rental) and the tranny seems much more well sorted. And much lower RPMs at speed. My 2011 turned 2900RPM at 75mph.
Why did you get rid of your Cruze at such a young age? As I recall, didn't your family get a bunch of new G.M.'s at the same time?
IIRC his 2011 AT Cruze couldn't break 32 mpg to save its life, and it had some financial strings attached also. Not to re-hash the thread about that...
At 75 my Eco MT is sitting at 2500 RPM, IIRC. At 65 it's sitting at 2000 RPM. With the turbo capable of making full force (~16 PSI stock) at 1800 RPM, turning lower RPM's really does make a difference in this car.
While waiting for an inspection sticker at a Chevy dealer a week or so ago I looked the Cruze's that were in the showroom. Nice little cars, nice deal with the RS trim
Only thing I was a little leery of was the comfort of the seats. They seemed hard
Goose
Only thing I was a little leery of was the comfort of the seats. They seemed hard
Goose
Originally Posted By: Blue_Goose
While waiting for an inspection sticker at a Chevy dealer a week or so ago I looked the Cruze's that were in the showroom. Nice little cars, nice deal with the RS trim
Only thing I was a little leery of was the comfort of the seats. They seemed hard
I bought a Cruze Eco in October as I drive to Illinois a couple of days per week (220 mi round trip). The seats are actually very comfortable. They seem firm at first but I think there is a small layer of "memory foam" (push your thumb down on one of the seats, your finger will leave an indentation for a few seconds). They are very comfortable for longer trips. Overall, I'm very happy with this car.
So far, I'm averaging just over 40 mpg calculated.
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/dmchyla/cruze
I just turned over 5,000 miles, going to do my first oil change next week.
While waiting for an inspection sticker at a Chevy dealer a week or so ago I looked the Cruze's that were in the showroom. Nice little cars, nice deal with the RS trim
Only thing I was a little leery of was the comfort of the seats. They seemed hard
I bought a Cruze Eco in October as I drive to Illinois a couple of days per week (220 mi round trip). The seats are actually very comfortable. They seem firm at first but I think there is a small layer of "memory foam" (push your thumb down on one of the seats, your finger will leave an indentation for a few seconds). They are very comfortable for longer trips. Overall, I'm very happy with this car.
So far, I'm averaging just over 40 mpg calculated.
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/dmchyla/cruze
I just turned over 5,000 miles, going to do my first oil change next week.
Good cars. Got an 2012 Lt almost 14k on it. Hasn't missed a beat, no issues!!
I guess this is a good example of why you don't buy the first year of a new model, let the manufacture do a year's worth of real world testing first.
GM did this with the ATS as well, revamping all MT in them.
GM did this with the ATS as well, revamping all MT in them.
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
I guess this is a good example of why you don't buy the first year of a new model, let the manufacture do a year's worth of real world testing first.
GM did this with the ATS as well, revamping all MT in them.
As a moderator on one of the first Cruze forums that pops up in a search, I see far more issues related to the 2011 Cruzes than the 2012's or 2013's. GM made changes to the Cruze pretty quickly for the 2012 model year that made the 2012 a more fuel-efficient and reliable car than the 2011. Things like a lower final drive ratio for the automatic transmission and improved clutches for the manual transmission. Not to say those newer Cruzes are perfect because they aren't, no car is. The most common ongoing issue is the electronic thermostat going on the fritz, and even that is fairly isolated.
My Cruze hit 42k miles recently, and has proven itself to be a good car for racking up the miles in. No major problems to report, and the biggest issue so far is the gauge cluster being a little rattly when it's cold. Not a deal-breaker in my book.
I guess this is a good example of why you don't buy the first year of a new model, let the manufacture do a year's worth of real world testing first.
GM did this with the ATS as well, revamping all MT in them.
As a moderator on one of the first Cruze forums that pops up in a search, I see far more issues related to the 2011 Cruzes than the 2012's or 2013's. GM made changes to the Cruze pretty quickly for the 2012 model year that made the 2012 a more fuel-efficient and reliable car than the 2011. Things like a lower final drive ratio for the automatic transmission and improved clutches for the manual transmission. Not to say those newer Cruzes are perfect because they aren't, no car is. The most common ongoing issue is the electronic thermostat going on the fritz, and even that is fairly isolated.
My Cruze hit 42k miles recently, and has proven itself to be a good car for racking up the miles in. No major problems to report, and the biggest issue so far is the gauge cluster being a little rattly when it's cold. Not a deal-breaker in my book.
I have had the car now for about a month and ~1300 miles. So far, I really like it! The car is smooth, quiet and the turbo 4 is quite "zippy" in most situations. The 6MT shifts smoothly, and the clutch is easy to modulate. Seats are comfortable, and the audio system is decent.
The Cruze handles well in the few snowstorms that we have had this month- on the OE GY Fuelmax tires.
Overall MPG so far? Approximately 40 in mixed conditions with many cold/snowy days. My 3 tanks so far have been between 37.7-42.3 mpg.
I'll update more as time/miles accrues.
I highly recommend it thus far as a great small family/commuter car.
The Cruze handles well in the few snowstorms that we have had this month- on the OE GY Fuelmax tires.
Overall MPG so far? Approximately 40 in mixed conditions with many cold/snowy days. My 3 tanks so far have been between 37.7-42.3 mpg.
I'll update more as time/miles accrues.
I highly recommend it thus far as a great small family/commuter car.
- Status
