Rental car mini-review, Chevy Cruze

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
A co-worker, 6' tall and broad-shouldered (he wears a size 4XL shirt) could barely even get in the passenger seat and could not drive the car at all.

Well, a compact car is not for everyone.
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
I only put ~50 miles on it, but here are my impressions.

Good: power was very impressive, especially for a tiny 1400cc engine. Mileage was good...about 32. Quiet on the highway.

Bad: DSG transmission was dreadful. Rolled back at stoplights, hunted on hills. The car was incredibly cramped and claustrophobic...my knee was jammed into the unnecessarily-wide centre stack, I had to fold myself almost double to get in the driver's seat. Even all the way up, the column is way too low. (This particular car did not have a height-adjustable seat.) A co-worker, 6' tall and broad-shouldered (he wears a size 4XL shirt) could barely even get in the passenger seat and could not drive the car at all.

Verdict: keep shopping!

The next time I want to test drive a vehicle.....I will go to my local enterprise rent a car and take a used and abused version for a spin. Then and only then will I submit my "informed" decision on the vehicle.
 
Originally Posted By: GutsyGecko
I agree with the diesel and stick. I have no idea why they wouldn't offer them together. That would have been a dream fuel wise...


Look around - manuals nowadays often offer less fuel economy than automatics. Just look at the '14 Mazda3, both with 6 speeds......
 
Originally Posted By: DevilsRule
The next time I want to test drive a vehicle.....I will go to my local enterprise rent a car and take a used and abused version for a spin. Then and only then will I submit my "informed" decision on the vehicle.


I'd be curious how often that works for ya. Usually when I go to rent a car I'm presented with maybe two options, neither of which is something I'd really like to try out. I recently got a '14 Forte which was nice to try out (pretty loud and unrefined). But the time before that I got a '13 Corolla.....
 
Originally Posted By: kam327
Originally Posted By: GutsyGecko
I agree with the diesel and stick. I have no idea why they wouldn't offer them together. That would have been a dream fuel wise...


Look around - manuals nowadays often offer less fuel economy than automatics. Just look at the '14 Mazda3, both with 6 speeds......


That's not the fault of the technology, per se. It's usually a matter of gearing choices to make the car feel sporty and avoid needing to downshift on hills. If they actually set the gearing up well, the manual with get the same or better mpg.
 
Originally Posted By: rslifkin
That's not the fault of the technology, per se. It's usually a matter of gearing choices to make the car feel sporty and avoid needing to downshift on hills. If they actually set the gearing up well, the manual with get the same or better mpg.

Still, the end result is what it is, and a customer cannot easily change that gearing.
 
Originally Posted By: rslifkin
Originally Posted By: kam327
Originally Posted By: GutsyGecko
I agree with the diesel and stick. I have no idea why they wouldn't offer them together. That would have been a dream fuel wise...


Look around - manuals nowadays often offer less fuel economy than automatics. Just look at the '14 Mazda3, both with 6 speeds......


That's not the fault of the technology, per se. It's usually a matter of gearing choices to make the car feel sporty and avoid needing to downshift on hills. If they actually set the gearing up well, the manual with get the same or better mpg.


In every case eh? It's dangerous to speak in generalities. Mazda's Skyactiv automatic locks up the torque converter 90% of the time, largely closing the mechanical efficiency gap between it and a manual. And of course the dual clutch automated manual used by VW, Ford and Dodge should have no difference in mechanical effciency.

I would contend that the computer will do a better job of keeping revs low and reducing fuel consumption than a human can do.
 
Originally Posted By: kam327
Originally Posted By: DevilsRule
The next time I want to test drive a vehicle.....I will go to my local enterprise rent a car and take a used and abused version for a spin. Then and only then will I submit my "informed" decision on the vehicle.


I'd be curious how often that works for ya. Usually when I go to rent a car I'm presented with maybe two options, neither of which is something I'd really like to try out. I recently got a '14 Forte which was nice to try out (pretty loud and unrefined). But the time before that I got a '13 Corolla.....


I travel a bit for work, and airport locations usually let you pick your car and have a ton of inventory. I always try to pick something I haven't had before and have driven pretty much everything offered at this point! Last week I picked a Spark even though I could have had a fullsize - just to try something new!
 
Originally Posted By: dishdude
I travel a bit for work, and airport locations usually let you pick your car and have a ton of inventory. I always try to pick something I haven't had before and have driven pretty much everything offered at this point! Last week I picked a Spark even though I could have had a fullsize - just to try something new!


Did you write a review?
 
Originally Posted By: kam327
Originally Posted By: rslifkin
Originally Posted By: kam327
Originally Posted By: GutsyGecko
I agree with the diesel and stick. I have no idea why they wouldn't offer them together. That would have been a dream fuel wise...


Look around - manuals nowadays often offer less fuel economy than automatics. Just look at the '14 Mazda3, both with 6 speeds......


That's not the fault of the technology, per se. It's usually a matter of gearing choices to make the car feel sporty and avoid needing to downshift on hills. If they actually set the gearing up well, the manual with get the same or better mpg.


In every case eh? It's dangerous to speak in generalities. Mazda's Skyactiv automatic locks up the torque converter 90% of the time, largely closing the mechanical efficiency gap between it and a manual. And of course the dual clutch automated manual used by VW, Ford and Dodge should have no difference in mechanical effciency.

I would contend that the computer will do a better job of keeping revs low and reducing fuel consumption than a human can do.


The automatic still has the penalty of more moving parts and likely more rotating weight in the assembly (and often more total weight). Heck, if I were to swap a manual into my Jeep (of similar strength to the stock auto), I'd be dropping about 100 lbs.
 
I recently asked our GM rep. about the waning availability of manual vehicles. His answer was simple; driving a stick, while preferable to a small percentage of the driving public is statistically not preferable to the driving public as a whole. Only six percent of all new vehicles sold in the US last year are manual. The recent advances in the automatics stem from manufactures desire to build their vehicles with a single driveline. It is much cheaper to build your entire line of vehicles automatic than to develop and build a manual for a statistically tiny percentage of the market.
 
Originally Posted By: DevilsRule
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
I only put ~50 miles on it, but here are my impressions.

Good: power was very impressive, especially for a tiny 1400cc engine. Mileage was good...about 32. Quiet on the highway.

Bad: DSG transmission was dreadful. Rolled back at stoplights, hunted on hills. The car was incredibly cramped and claustrophobic...my knee was jammed into the unnecessarily-wide centre stack, I had to fold myself almost double to get in the driver's seat. Even all the way up, the column is way too low. (This particular car did not have a height-adjustable seat.) A co-worker, 6' tall and broad-shouldered (he wears a size 4XL shirt) could barely even get in the passenger seat and could not drive the car at all.

Verdict: keep shopping!

The next time I want to test drive a vehicle.....I will go to my local enterprise rent a car and take a used and abused version for a spin. Then and only then will I submit my "informed" decision on the vehicle.


Hardly. Note: the car had <5000 miles on it.
 
Originally Posted By: glock19
Originally Posted By: dishdude
I travel a bit for work, and airport locations usually let you pick your car and have a ton of inventory. I always try to pick something I haven't had before and have driven pretty much everything offered at this point! Last week I picked a Spark even though I could have had a fullsize - just to try something new!


Did you write a review?


No - but for what it was, I was pretty impressed. Interior was quiet, nice ride height and easy to get in and out of. Plenty of room upfront. Backseat would only be good for kids, and the cargo area was small but the back seat folds down. Nice gauges, nice ride and handling, and nice touchscreen radio.

Not a bad little package!
 
If your buddy couldn't fit, he was doing something wrong. The seats in every Cruze are height-adjustable, and the steering wheel tilts/telescopes. Must have overlooked those features. At 5'8" and 150 lbs I have no issues fitting in. Nor did my 6', 180 lb brother. He needed to crank the seat down a bit, otherwise his head was jammed into the headliner with where I had the seat. He was fine once he fiddled with the seat and the steering column. Likewise, he had no complaints about the rear seat.

FYI, the Cruze does much better in the MPG department with a manual behind the 1.4T. It's a rare tank that I'm not above 40 mpg, even in the winter. Then again, I re-gapped my inconsistently-gapped plugs and run premium fuel. Those two alone are well-documented to net a 2-3 mpg gain in that engine.

Lastly, the Cruze just doesn't get that great of fuel economy much past 70 mph or so. On a windless day, with the cruise control set at 72 mph on flat ground I'm getting 41 mpg. Add a puff of wind and it's into the high 30's. A far cry from the 47-49 mpg I can get on my 60 mph commute.
 
So, to summarize...

6' tall, 260 lbs (a large individual, by any standards) could not drive a compact car. He can however, fit in a pickup truck and a mid-size sedan.

Terrible car.

Glad he has "broad shoulders", but the truth is he's in the upper 5% of size. Most that size are probably morbidly obese and need a larger vehicle for that reason.

Your verdict, based on your information anyway, seems completely pointless.

Maybe you could refine it to say, if you're extremely large, keep shopping.
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Then why does it drive like a mis-programmed DSG?



Could be related to the electronic throttle. I feel like the DBW in the 2012 Colorado I drive sometimes makes the 4L60E shift funny.

I see a fair number of newer GMs throwing a code for "accelerator pedal position sensor fault."
 
Originally Posted By: cchase
So, to summarize...

6' tall, 260 lbs (a large individual, by any standards) could not drive a compact car. He can however, fit in a pickup truck and a mid-size sedan.

Terrible car.

Glad he has "broad shoulders", but the truth is he's in the upper 5% of size. Most that size are probably morbidly obese and need a larger vehicle for that reason.

Your verdict, based on your information anyway, seems completely pointless.

Maybe you could refine it to say, if you're extremely large, keep shopping.


He fit fine in a Focus, a Cavalier, a Civic, an Aveo, and even a Swift.

At 5'10" and 240lbs, I found it extremely cramped. The Cruze is a small, cramped car.
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: cchase
So, to summarize...

6' tall, 260 lbs (a large individual, by any standards) could not drive a compact car. He can however, fit in a pickup truck and a mid-size sedan.

Terrible car.

Glad he has "broad shoulders", but the truth is he's in the upper 5% of size. Most that size are probably morbidly obese and need a larger vehicle for that reason.

Your verdict, based on your information anyway, seems completely pointless.

Maybe you could refine it to say, if you're extremely large, keep shopping.


He fit fine in a Focus, a Cavalier, a Civic, an Aveo, and even a Swift.

At 5'10" and 240lbs, I found it extremely cramped. The Cruze is a small, cramped car.


Then you weren't doing it right, I'm a 5'11 and 250lb and I fit perfectly comfortably in both my own, and my dads cruze. Actually I got in his yesterday and had to move the seat FORWARD and raise the seat bottom in order to be comfortable. My focus is more "cramped" than the cruze, and I'm still completely comfortable in that.
 
OK, you're right, the Cruze is the perfect car and I'm really stupid.

I'm done, please lock this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
2024 Chevy Equinox 1.5T AWD Rental Car Review
Replies
6
Views
3K
Brons2
edyvw
2024 BMW X7 4.0i Review (rental)
2 3
Replies
43
Views
4K
edyvw
Nick1994
2019 Jeep Cherokee Limited - Hertz Review
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
addyguy
J
  • Locked
Rental Camry review
Replies
9
Views
2K
AutoMechanic
B
  • Locked
Rental Review- 2020 Chevy Colorado
2
Replies
23
Views
8K
Silverado12
Back
Top Bottom