The General's New Car-- Chevy Cruze

[The Critic]

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/07/31/2011-chevrolet-cruze-first-drive-review-road-test

I can already tell from this review that this car will not be sporty enough for me. Why can't GM build a Mazda 3-like compact car?

 

[Bill in Utah]

Miss...

Everyone wanting to buy a vehicle like this is not going to like the almost 30 cents a gallon more that you HAVE to pay for Premium gas.

Then we have things like this;

"The manifold-integrated Honeywell turbo takes half a second to spool, which confuses the gearbox. The transmission then drops a gear just in time for the engine to begin pouring on every ounce of its grunt, causing yet another shift. In the meantime, you're left with your foot to the floor and no noticeable increase in speed. In fairness, GM says that the models we drove were all pre-production, and any acceleration issues would be ironed out by the time the cars hit dealer lots."

I see fleets of these test cars going up and down the freeway all the time and they can not figure out the "issues" before they give the vehicle to the PRESS!

This means that you will have the issues.

I like how it looks and would NOT buy the 1.4l. The 1.8l gets worst fuel MPG so it would be out.

Like I said... A miss and I'd pass even if GM did not build it.

Bill

 

[SLCraig]

Why did they have to off the Saturn S-Series? The best small car GM has ever made for sure.

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted By: SLCraig
Why did they have to off the Saturn S-Series? The best small car GM has ever made for sure.

That car should've been axed a long time before they finally axed it. The car was crude, horribly unreliable and unrefined. The only decent attributes of that car were its dent-free door panels and the decent styling.

 

[StevieC]

I like the look of it!

 

[Bill in Utah]

Okay, I've now edited out all the bashing and off topic comments on this thread and placed it back on the board.

Only posts talking about the vehicle and GM have been left.

PLEASE keep it on topic. PLEASE do not bypass the censor. IF you can not type an sentence with out using normal words please refrain from posting.

Thank you, Bill

PS: As always. Any comments PM me. Do not enter them in this thread.

 

[Hokiefyd]

In general (ha), I think it's on the money. Even with offerings from abroad, if you wanted small and efficient, you generally had to give up NVH. If this car really is "Lexus-quiet" like the article describes, and if it really does ride "Malibu-soft", it's probably just what most folk in the target demographic want. One of my few "dislikes" of my former Corolla was the firm ride. And that car was one of the "plusher" of the small sedans. If the Cruze rides like a Malibu, is as quiet as a Lexus, and returns mid-upper 30s in mixed driving, I'd say it'll be a real winner.

Of course, the Cobalt was similarly-praised when it came out, so we'll see if the enthusiasm for it lasts.

 

[opus1]

In all fairness, Bill, and after reading the article:

a) the 1.8 won't require premium
--- and --
b) the article "expects" that the 1.8 will be worse on gas, but doesn't mention EPA numbers.

I "expect to lose 2lbs this week.....we'll see what reality has to say about that.

I see where you're coming from, but this is one article with a fair amount of speculation and guessing.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Everyone wanting to buy a vehicle like this is not going to like the almost 30 cents a gallon more that you HAVE to pay for Premium gas.

Then we have things like this;

"The manifold-integrated Honeywell turbo takes half a second to spool, which confuses the gearbox. The transmission then drops a gear just in time for the engine to begin pouring on every ounce of its grunt, causing yet another shift. In the meantime, you're left with your foot to the floor and no noticeable increase in speed. In fairness, GM says that the models we drove were all pre-production, and any acceleration issues would be ironed out by the time the cars hit dealer lots."

Does the 1.8L take premium? The 1.4L is quite a niche engine for the type of mainstream user that will run this car. Im sure it will detune itself to run on regular, given this car's demographic.

The point about the turbo will be irrelevant. You may see fleets of these cars, but I havent seen a single one. While folks driving econoboxes should save the $1k and drive MT, since they are generally too lazy, this will be fixed by software. LOTS of cars get multple flashes of software within their first year or two. And lots of cars are AT and turbocharged, including GM offerings, so this will be a moot point.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: The Critic
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/07/31/2011-chevrolet-cruze-first-drive-review-road-test

I can already tell from this review that this car will not be sporty enough for me. Why can't GM build a Mazda 3-like compact car?


You don't buy an econobox for "sporting", and even the 3 is no sports car. Why make claim to something and do it poorly in the big scheme of things when you can offer near-identical performance for the common user's standpoint and be far more comfortable and mainstream. Nobody will mistake a 3 or a cruze for a corvette anyday, and in the big scheme of things, the 3 and cruze, similarly equipped will perform roughly the same.

 

[bigmike]

I like the way it looks.

I'd probably like this car alot more if it didn't have such poor HP numbers.

I'd rather have a car engine in a car and a bike engine in a bike.

 

[SLCraig]

Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: SLCraig
Why did they have to off the Saturn S-Series? The best small car GM has ever made for sure.

That car should've been axed a long time before they finally axed it. The car was crude, horribly unreliable and unrefined. The only decent attributes of that car were its dent-free door panels and the decent styling.


It's a small GM, it's going to be unrefined. As per the article.
I'm sorry you feel that way about yours, I love my Sattys. They ride great, good on gas, comfy, and cheap.

 

[Bill in Utah]

I meant the 1.4l req premium gas. Not the 1.8l...

No I'm not convinced that they will figure out the "acceleration issues" by the time the cars hit dealer lots.

And only one person went with their bias and posted it after the warning...

Bill

 

[01rangerxl]

I think it's probably going to be better than all of the other compacts GM has offered recently. It looks like a reasonably nice, well built, comfortable car. It will be good basic transportation for a lot of people. It's the sort of car my parents might buy as a commuter car if my dad would consider a GM (he won't).

Even though the test car in LTZ trim looks nice, I'm betting the base models will be true to their rental car roots. At least GM isn't sticking a 4-speed auto in them.

 

[JustinH]

I love how people post how they love their 96 econobox. Take a drive in any new car, and the difference is night and day between anything else.

I have a 2004, and it is a piece of garbage compared to what is happening today.

Quiet steel, better sealed doors, and other improvements make this thing sound in the cabin like a lexus.

As for the question about fuel, I bet that GM figures a way to get this thing to run on 87 octane. Its too low end of a car to require premium. I bet it will have a knock sensor that will pull most of the boost out on regular, and give it back with good gas.

If you are coming out of a car that gets 25-30mpg (like most of the small cars of the 90's and 2000's), then putting premium into something that gets 40mpg is a no brainer. Probably $3 extra per fillup.

The car looks nice, I'm just fearful of buying a GM turbocharged powerplant..

 

[The_Jeff]

I have an issue with putting the turbo and manifold in the same casting.

They tried a combo intake/exhaust manifold on the 70's 250/6 and people hated it.

I just see some unforseen circumstance by making this a larger module. Maybe heat stress from the turbo heating up more quickly than the manifold?

I don't know, my crystal ball is not that good. But I'd want more than a 3/36 warranty.

As for cushy ride, that's something even the lowly cavalier got right, with lots of suspension travel like a larger car. I see nice low profile tires on that test model; just change the spring rates and go for stiffer sway bars and you have a "sport" model if you want it.

 

[daves87rs]

I get to drive one soon-can't wait!

I've gotten the chance to play with one (inside and out), and get to watch all the test cruzes driving around here (like the Fiestas and 12' Foci being tested in dearborn) And from what I've heard, that trans "issue" is already fixed (current test cars are from the very first batch, like the Volt)

The cruze makes my old GM products look real bad...it's so much better, it's not even funny. I know it's not going to be sporty, but should still handle well. (Remember, the target market is going to be the corolla anyways) Even kinda has the rolla's shape a tiny bit, with the chevy front end.


I'm not too worried, because besides the rough crowd people, this car will do just fine. It reminds me a bit of the current Nox, which is a pretty sweet SUV. It's even comfy to sit in! (I like the seats)


Looks to be a good value....

 

[daves87rs]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: The Critic
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/07/31/2011-chevrolet-cruze-first-drive-review-road-test

I can already tell from this review that this car will not be sporty enough for me. Why can't GM build a Mazda 3-like compact car?


You don't buy an econobox for "sporting", and even the 3 is no sports car. Why make claim to something and do it poorly in the big scheme of things when you can offer near-identical performance for the common user's standpoint and be far more comfortable and mainstream. Nobody will mistake a 3 or a cruze for a corvette anyday, and in the big scheme of things, the 3 and cruze, similarly equipped will perform roughly the same.


+1

This car is for young familes, not for the turner crowd. that's what the Aveo will be for...

 

[Benzadmiral]

A handsome little devil it is, and that includes the two-tone interior -- a "teacup breed of Malibu." The HP number for the 1.8 is only a bit less than my old 4-cylinder C230 had, and that accelerated just fine in traffic and onto interstates. And if it gets even close to the kind of mpg they say it will, and is as plush-riding and quiet inside as touted, I'd hit it!

 

[daves87rs]

Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
A handsome little devil it is, and that includes the two-tone interior -- a "teacup breed of Malibu." The HP number for the 1.8 is only a bit less than my old 4-cylinder C230 had, and that accelerated just fine in traffic and onto interstates. And if it gets even close to the kind of mpg they say it will, and is as plush-riding and quiet inside as touted, I'd hit it!


+1



It's going to be a tough choice between this car or a 12' Focus...