Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Chevrolet Cruze

1131416181929

Comments

  • I'd look at a 1LT. Power mirrors, 6-sp auto with manual shifting and 1.4T engine make is a better choice. Cruise control is not available on the LS and is a low cost option on the 1LT. Power mirrors are not available on the LS.

    Intake manifold? I don't know there but 1.4T is a better engine to have in every respect. Much more torque at low rpms. The Cruze needs that extra torque.

    And yes, I would consider the Cruze's 6-sp auto to be a "sport shift". Backy's $3,000 off MSRP would make the Cruze a great buy. I didn't expect to see that until next summer; that offer would put a well equipped 1LT at under $17K.
  • Can someone tell me what part Daewoo had in the Cruze? I was under the assumption that Opel had designed the platform and GM had designed the interior and exterior, so I was surprised to hear that Daewoo had a hand in its development.
  • Opel and Daewoo are part of GM. You cant talk about them as separate companies. The platform is European- its the basis for the Opel Astra. Much of the design and engineering was done in Asia under the lead of Daewoo in S. Korea. I don't think they had much to do with the 1.4L engine since that was mostly developed for the US market.
  • morin2morin2 Posts: 399
    Thanks backy for confirming the manumatic operation. It looks like it would work the same way as my departed Subaru Outback by pulling the shifter to the left and then up for upshifts and down for downshifts.

    The seat fabric looked better than I expected on both. If there is any difference, it is minor. The LS has a two-tone color that looks better than it sounds. It breaks up the dark interior nicely. The LT uses one color (at least on the 2LT that I drove) and has the upholstery covering the dash and parts of the doors. The LS has plastic dash covering, but its not the sea of cheap plastic that I'm used to from my older pickups. I actually prefer the plastic because the mesh on the fabric covering the dash & doors is large and I can see it trapping dirt and being a pain to clean. I sometimes volunteer with archaeological digs and get in my car in filthy states, so it would be very easy to transfer some of that dirt to the LT dash and doors (think Charlie Brown "Pigpen" character here). The fabric itself on the seats of both trim levels appears to be higher quality than that used in my wife's 07 Forester and in my departed 09 Outback.

    GM has "preferred pricing" for families of GM employees and retirees. The preferred price of the LS with AT, spare and mats is 17,668 (including dest) less 750 EVA (employee vehicle allowance), less 750 incentive, less whatever GM card rebate a person has accumulated.

    I'm still debating the merits of the 1.8 normally aspirated vs the 1.4 turbo. In normal driving on my test drive, the performance seemed similar, but traffic was heavy and probably limited a better comparison.

    I prefer to do my own maintenance. Has anyone performed maintenance on either of these engines? Oil changes? Spark Plug access? Ease of coolant change? Anything else?

    I remember the GM fiasco when they went with a composite intake manifold on their venerable 3.8 and don't want to buy a future problem.

    Thanks!
  • morin2morin2 Posts: 399
    I forgot to answer backy's question about the power option differences between LS and LT.

    The LS does not have power mirrors. They are manually adjusted from the inside by a lever, like an old inexpensive economy car. Not a deal breaker for me. I set 'em and forget 'em anyway. The mirrors are black plastic on the LS while they are color matched on the LT. You don't notice the black mirrors on the darker LS cars, but that black mirror on the otherwise nice white Cruze gives it a decidedly fleet or rental appearance. If I go with the LS, I'll get the gray one that I test-drove, because you don't notice the black mirrors on that color - and because I know that car had no rattles or squeaks. I did find some dirt/metal frag in the paint on the white car because it was conspicuous - right above the driver door and because I had more time to examine that one in the warm showroom.

    The LS does not have cruise control. This can be a deal breaker for some, but not me. I hate cruise control. The last umpteen cars have had it and I dislike using it. The longest trips I take are 500 miles south to TN and 500 miles north to MA, and I prefer to anticipate hills, traffic, lights, and road conditions without cruise control. Its a feature I despise nearly as much as remote starters. My son, on the other hand, uses cruise control to drive 7 miles to work, so obviously drivers differ greatly :)
  • steven39steven39 Posts: 636
    hi,i was just curious,getting hit from behind at 60 mph is very fast.were you hurt at all??and given subaro's reputation for quality and toughness how did the car hold up??if i were you,if the car held up ok i would stick with another subaro,the cruze might not hold up so well when getting hit from behind as fast as that.
  • morin2morin2 Posts: 399
    Thanks steven39 - yes I was banged around a bit by the crash, but maybe not so bad because I never heard any braking so I didn't have a chance to "brace" for the crash. It was just like my car suddenly exploded. The collision from behind drove my car into the car ahead of me at the traffic signal, but it happened so quickly that I was not aware of 2 separate crashes. I still have a stiff neck 13 days later, but its gradually diminishing.

    The 09 subaru outback did its job to protect me by crumpling. Basically, the car sacrificed itself and protected the entire driver-passenger compartment. The car was totalled.

    I considered getting another Subaru - but I preferred the 09 Outback greatly over the 2010-11 Outback. The 2010 Outback for example eliminated even folding side mirrors and turned their previously useful roofrack (which I used for a kayak) into something decorative rather than functional. The 09 was the last year of that generation and had sensible option packages. Mine was in perfect condition and excessively cared for & maintained and I know that I would not be able to find another one so perfect. The used ones I've seen on the lots are trashed - so I wonder how they were maintained. I know they were driven hard because I hear people describe low mpg on the same model car that I calculated 29.7 mpg (rated 20/26) when I drove it over its entire 39K lifespan. If they still sold the 09 new, yes, I would get another. The options packages on the new Outbacks inflate the price too high for the few little things I'd want - and they include things I don't want. The 2011 Forester is more tempting, because of the new engine, but a base model is $6K more than a Cruze and I would get about 10mpg less in driving my 110 mile commute. Its a matter of burning 3.9-4 gals a day with a Subaru vs 2.75 - 2.85 gals a day in a Cruze. I'm a big fan of Subaru, and posted a lot on the subaru forums, but they, like many others, especially VW, are losing their older traditional buyers by overloading their vehicles with foolish options packages and removing basic features that were useful in the past - like folding side mirrors and the roofracks.

    I love the AWD of the Subaru, but the reality is that I must share the roads around here with homicidal maniacs. So, discretion means staying home rather than going out into conditions that I can handle just fine - but most other drivers here cannot handle at all. I saw three serious accidents, one requiring a medevac chopper just on my way home yesterday from the Chevy dealer where I drove the Cruze. I can sum it up - lack of attention (texting, etc.), speed far in excess for road conditions, combined with tailgating. In addition to the accidents, I saw two vehicles spin around on the highway when the lead vehicle chose to stand on his brakes for no apparent reason, causing the tailgater behind him to abruptly change lanes a few feet from another, all this at about 70 right in front of me. I see this nonsense everyday and don't think the AWD helps me much when the real danger is from fools rather than highway conditions that I can easily handle from 40 years and nearly 2 million miles of cautious driving experience.

    The Cruze has all the airbags of the Outback. It doesn't have all discs, but the rear drums seem to stop it ok. In addition, it has new knee airbags, so maybe that will help next time in a lighter vehicle.

    My commute has become an issue of not "if" I will get smashed into, but "when". Right now I think the Cruze will both protect me and save me about $1000 in fuel, compared to the Subaru over the course of 30K miles/year.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,458
    edited December 2010
    >It doesn't have all discs, but the rear drums seem to stop it ok.

    The Cruze does have discs on the rear on some models. But I agree about drums on the rear being just fine. They've stopped me well in emergencies in my 1998 leSabre with 180,000 miles and all previous cars. I don't see the necessity of discs in rear.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    " remember the GM fiasco when they went with a composite intake manifold on their venerable 3.8 and don't want to buy a future problem. "

    Well I can't speak for the quality this time around either, but at least on an inline block it is not being bolted down unevenly. With a V block they get 'pulled apart' as they get bolted down. It is one of the reasons why inline engines are known to last longer and with fewer moving parts than V's. They use V's of course, cuz they can make them shorter front to back.

    I can't find where I first read about the turbo mounting, but they touch on it here: http://www.chevroletcruzeforum.com/index.php?/topic/315-chevrolet-cruze-fuel-eff- icient-powertrain-offerings-led-by-technically-advanced-ecotec-14l-turbo/

    here is an excerpt: "Integrated turbocharger and exhaust manifold: For lower weight, quicker throttle response and easier packaging in the Cruze, the Ecotec 1.4L turbo uses a unique, integrated turbocharger and exhaust manifold. The turbocharger size was chosen with an emphasis on low-speed torque and throttle response. Typically, turbochargers are mounted at the outlet of the exhaust manifold or farther downstream in the exhaust system, but this design incorporates the turbocharger's turbine housing into the exhaust manifold as a single component. It requires fewer parts, is lighter than a conventional system, helps lower engine compartment temperatures and helps the engine warm up faster. The faster warm-up benefits emissions performance, as it enables a close-coupled catalytic converter that promotes a quick “light off.”"

    I find your comments interesting and of well thought out value and input to anyone considering the Cruze. Personally I love cruise. I even installed an electronic cruise on my bike. The only times I discourage cruise use if I am chatting with a 'new' driver (or an old one) is if they use it on slippery roads. Cruise should not be used even in heavy rain. Especially if you are on a highway with grooved wheel tracks that hold water and promote unannounced hydroplaning. Altho, todays electronics with ESC and TC etc I suppose they would catch it. Some of this new tech tho I do not agree with. Drivers should be more in tune with what is going on underneath them, not insulated from it. Altho, that said, I am after an exceptionally quiet interior. I am tired of road noise.

    As for you and picking the 1.8 vs 1.4 (I haven't driven either yet cuz it hasn't quit snowing) but I suspect this: The 1.4 makes some impressive torque at very low revs. Very similar to turbo diesel low revs. Anyone who gets hung up on HP numbers might short change themselves of a very nice drivetrain combo in the Cruze turbo (except that I have heard the auto is a hunter with that engine, being too willing to throttle inputs and downshifting more than wanted) Interesting in a way, cuz usually hunting is associated with an underpowered engine. Not in this case tho I don't think. Anyway, I suspecct the biggest dif between these two engines, is the turbo will be a LOT more willing to merge or accelerate if you see a spot and a lane you want. It will burn some gas while you spool the turbo during that maneuver but then when coasting/Cruzing, ha, along you have the efficiency of a small displacement engine. Personally though, I think that since the Cruze can't really be considered a light-weight by anyone's estimation, they should have had at least a turbo'd 1.6 or 1.7 would be even better. That way you could end up with 175 to 190 ftlb of torque. A CRV, or Sportage or Rogue type vehicle has around 165 to 170 ftlb and they weigh only about 200 lb more than the Cruze. (some variables depending on Cruze trim and whether the others are AWD or FWD, but you get the point I'm making) I suspeccct that that is why some reviewers are saying that the Cruze could use some more urge, even with the turbo 1.4. That would suggest that the 1.8 (which has less torque and at a much higher rpm range) might be a bit of a slug in the Cruze. I think tho, that a buyer who is not much of a speeder and have inherent patience when commuting, travels mostly with either just themselves or one passenger, would likely be perfectly happy with the 1.8. It has less complexity one would assume. The turbo uses many extra sensors and such that the 1.8 doesn't require to the same degree. Some sensors last forever, others can be plagued with problems or the wire connections that link them all together shortly after wty. (Murphy's Law at work)

    I am really looking forward to driving the two back-to-back. Oh ya...one thing that I find very frustrating is that if I like the manual tranny with the 1.4 then I have only one trim level choice that has that combo. Std tranny lovers run into this more and more. The Elantra and Sonata are a good examples. In the Sonata, you can't even have seat heaters unless you have an auto :(
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited December 2010
    I wholeheartedly agree. I was trying to portray the virtues of that combo on the Jetta forum to some guy. He was sold though on the fad of rear discs. One thing I will say tho, I suspect rear discs do work more seamlessly with stability control systems.
    But for infrequent drivers especially, rear drums are easier to service and cost way less to maintain. Rear drums often outlast 4 or more front rotors. Most braking is done off the front wheels anyway. The rear just helps keep things in line as they assist.

    I also prefer how the parking brake works on rear drums. Simple, costs less and less complex and even requires fewer adjustments.

    I actually would prefer to have rear drums on my next car. Fortunately, if i choose the Cruze or Jetta/Golf, i will get my wish (but not if I choose the TDI). If it's an Elantra and most others, they have gone with the trendy sell.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,768
    Thanks for the info. I have grown used to power mirrors since getting a Civic LX in '88 and would like cruise because I do sometimes take the car on all-day trips, so it looks like the LS is a no-op for me. I did catch a glimpse of the two-tone LS interior at a dealer when I stopped to look at the 1LT on the showfloor, but the LS was almost entirely covered in snow so I didn't get a good look inside. But I noticed the two-tone treatment did seem to brighten up the interior vs. all black on the 1LT I sat in.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    Found where I first read about the composite IM. They are claiming smooth interior finish for good flow. Makes sense, cuz to get that smooth a surface on cast iron or aluminum, it would have to go through an internal polish process.

    http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/111003.html

    excerpt:
    "The intake manifold is a composite part. Katerberg says the advantages of the material are low mass and a good surface finish for air flow. The turbocharger is actually integrated into the exhaust manifold. As Katerberg puts it, "It was done primarily for packaging. Partly for weight. Most importantly, for emissions and performance." The turbocharger is sized for low-speed torque, not peak power—although it should be noted that as the 1.4-liter engine produces 138 hp, or about 100 hp per liter, the peak power number is certainly a respectable one. However, Katerberg points out that its 148 lb-ft of torque is reached at 1,850 rpm, then the torque curve is essentially flat."
  • Why do you say drums are easier to service than discs? You have to repack the bearings when taking the drum off and there are more steps to replacing the linings than replacing disc pads. Replacing pads takes 15 min whereas a drum takes much longer. Plus, a drum brake looses more braking capacity for much longer than a disc when it gets wet. A rotor needs to rotate only a few times before its dry and ready to provide max braking power whereas a drum takes many rotations to dry the linings. This can be dangerous for the unsuspecting driver who just hit a deep puddle. Drum linings do last much longer than pads and therefore require less service, but their braking performance suffers a little over a 4 wheel disc setup. I guarantee you that a Cruze with 4 wheel discs will stop quicker than one with drums. For the ease of changing pads, the better max braking performance, better wet weather performance, and better looks, I much prefer discs in the rear.
  • Discs have two advantages that I know of- less weight and better heat shedding for better fade resistance. Drums really dont hamper stopping distances. Most people dont do enough hard braking in a short period of time for the detriments of drum brakes to even be a factor in normal driving. At this point drums have been associated with "cheap" and thus they have disappeared from most cars. As recently has 5-6 years ago some midsize sedans like Malibu and Accord had drums on lower models.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,768
    I suppose if Chevy thought drums were so great, they'd be on the high-trim LTZ also instead of discs.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    You only quoted half my quote. Here is what i said:
    "infrequent drivers especially, rear drums are easier to service and cost way less to maintain."
    And i stand by it. Have you ever seen what happens to rotors that don't get driven for weeks on end? And if you have never serviced a rear rotor/parking brake system on an Isuzu Trooper, then that would explain why you think discs are easier. Furthermore, more rear drums slip onto hub just like most discs. So WB'ings don't get involved.

    "I guarantee you that a Cruze with 4 wheel discs will stop quicker than one with drums. "

    You do eh? Tell me, when you go to a Casino, I'll bet you're down right away?

    It might, but it might not. Perhaps you think that rear braking offers more retardation than it really does. As I always use this example when teaching mbike riders, try this...with your bicycle, stand beside it and push it along. Now, use the rear brake and feel the resistance to keep pushing it. Now let the rear off and use the front brake and see that it does two things. First, you will feel the huge difference in its ability to brake. Second you will see that weight transfer unloads the rear of the bike/vehicle which makes the rear brakes even less effective due to loss of traction. That is why I say rear brakes just help keep a vehicle in line under heavy braking. If you tow a trailer with substantial tongue load with big heavy vehicle that holds a lot of people or a load, then the rear contributes moreso, but on vehicles like the Cruze, drums have been more than capable of doing the job for years.

    So with my explanation above, I have also already addressed your wet drum point, which was valid in its own way...just not a deal breaker on the rear.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    See post 488:
    "At this point drums have been associated with "cheap" and thus they have disappeared from most cars. "

    there's your answer, and it is proven by the conception of some here right now reading this thread and saying exactly what you just said. GM would suffer sales if they didn't have 4 discs on the top line trim.

    Underdogs like Hyundai (perhaps, perceived underdogs) are putting 4 discs on cars like the Elantra, merely so internet checkbox checkers can say, "Well Elantra even has discs on rear, I'm getting the Elantra".

    And that is why I said words like hype and trendy.

    If we were using these cars on a racetrack, then ok, discs start to make a bit more sense, but these are mass-produced street-use cars.

    As I have already pointed out, discs can work a bit more seamlessly with ABS and ESC and that is a far more valid reason we are seeing them pop up more often. But fad and trend is actually what is behind it, just as a poster has already said..."they look better".
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,458
    Here's a drive experience writeup of a diesel Cruze in Australia.

    Might want to talk to the government regulators about allowing diesels here.

    Diesel Cruze drive notes.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,768
    edited December 2010
    If we were using these cars on a racetrack, then ok, discs start to make a bit more sense...

    I think that says it all. If you were a professional driver and you need a braking system that can stand up to extreme conditions, e.g. those of a racetrack, you think discs make more sense.

    So why don't they make sense for everyone, if the technology is widely available and, at least on some cars, doesn't have a price premium?

    Also, in case you hadn't noticed, the Cruze has ABS and ESC standard.

    So those are two reasons why discs make more sense, that have nothing to do with fads. Thus if one car has 4-wheel discs and the other doesn't, that is a plus (for the car with discs) in my book.

    Face it... discs cost a bit more, so some automakers choose to avoid them on inexpensive cars, except maybe on their top-trim models. You can try to apologize for them by saying stuff about "fad and trend", but as you yourself have pointed out, discs ARE better than drums, so talk of fads and trends is kind of pointless.

    And yes, they do look better...
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited December 2010
    Of course I noticed Cruze has ESC and ABS as std. Not sure the point you are making. They have both systems and it works on both drums and discs. The nod going to discs perhaps by a hair.

    But I think among the points I have been making, COST of ownership is the one I keep touting.

    I prefer rear drums. And I'm not alone here.

    I have numerous reasons why I prefer rear drums. We have a ridiculous stunt law here that if you look even the wrong way at a cop, they impound your car and cut your right foot off. So don't even think about racing around the streets...not anymore. So drums more than do the job.

    Drums have a not only more serviceable parking brake setup in areas of corrosive roads, they are a far more effect brake. Again, I prefer then because daily I park on extremely steep hills and drums hold tighter, and with less lever be it hand or foot, effort. So drums more than do the job.

    Drums can easily outlast rotors 4:1 and even more. Furthermore, they can be turned down, let's say...once and suffer that much diminshed braking surface. Rotors can be turned...again, let's say once, and they have the same surface area, but because they come from the factory just thick enough to resist warping, all with the goal of weight-saving, if you do turn them, they are quick to warp, so turning is much of an option. So drums more than do the job.

    And if you don't drive the same vehicle for weeks on end, drums do not rust up the way discs do, and after 6 mo of that, they need turning just to get back the original braking force, (which leaves you prone to warping right away so u might as well buy new... so in effect, drums are BETTER at maintaining the original braking force, in those circumstances of infrequent use. And cost less the whole time both in original cost and ongoing maintaining costs and replacement costs. So....again, drums more than do the job.

    And wait till you have to start replacing seizing calipers and the damage that they do long before you figure out that that is what they are doing. Then you will see a huge cost escalation difference. So...finally, drums more than do the job.

    And in order for discs to look better, they really should have the calipers powder-coated and kept clean. And in order to really see them well, you won't find OEM factory alloys with webbing thin enough to let you in. So get your wallet out again to buy aftermkt rims that will complement the look.
    Discs cost more, all ways, all times.
  • eliaselias Posts: 1,941
    Lack of cruise control might be a showstopper for me too, since I consider Boston to Florida a local drive. :| ;)

    Reportedly the Buick version of the cruze will be automatic-only and will offer a *heated steering wheel*. Nice! Almost enough to get me to look at the Buick/automatic-only offering - I really want a vehicle heated steering wheel - usually only big-$ luxury cars offer it .
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,768
    Of course I noticed Cruze has ESC and ABS as std. Not sure the point you are making.

    Actually, it was YOUR point, re discs being better with ABS and ESC.

    Funny... I've had several cars with rear discs, and did not experience any of the issues you listed. And I don't leave my cars sitting around for "weeks on end", so discs rusting is not an issue.

    If I can buy one car with rear discs for less money than a car with rear drums, and the cars meet my needs in all other respects, I don't understand the cost issue.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    "Actually, it was YOUR point, re discs being better with ABS and ESC. "

    I said they had the nod. But at a COST! My question was what was your point in pointing it out? Context should always be valid.

    "Funny... I've had several cars with rear discs, and did not experience any of the issues you listed. And I don't leave my cars sitting around for "weeks on end", so discs rusting is not an issue. "

    You just answered your own query.

    "If I can buy one car with rear discs for less money than a car with rear drums"

    You can? Oh I get it, you are about to say the name Elantra I bet..

    " I don't understand the cost issue."

    That's unfortunate.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,768
    It seems you and some other posters here are pre-occupied (I'll stop short of "obsessed") with the Elantra. I agree it's a strong competitor for the Cruze, but not the only one. And not the only one with rear discs on something other than the top trim.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited December 2010
    There is quite the irony in your post. I too will stop short here I guess, but that is the name you were going to say wasn't it? Or was it going to be Kia?
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,768
    It was a general remark about Cruze's competitors that offer rear discs on something other than the top trim. How do you know I didn't have Mazda in mind?
  • sandman_6472sandman_6472 Coral Springs, FLPosts: 2,736
    edited December 2010
    Is there really going to be a Buick model? I think that would appeal to the wife more, as she had a Buick when we married and it was a really nice driving car & I'd bet the interior would look a bit more upscale. Hopefully the exterior would have some of the current Buick styling also...much nicer...in my opinion! Never have been a big fan of Chevy styling & would prefer a Buick any day.

    When will this model be at the dealerships? Really think her choice is going to come down to the Hyundai siblings, the Mazda3 & the Cruze/Buick twins. And she just mentioned yesterday that she'd like to keep the current M3s till 100k, as we've never done that before...ever!

    The Sandman :) :sick: :shades:

    2014 Hyundai Tuscon SE/2005 Mazda 3s/2008 Hyundai Accent GLS/2009 Nissan Versa SL hatch

  • All things equal (same tires, same suspension), a 4 wheel disc setup will outstop a disc/drum setup every time. The difference isn't noticeable in everyday driving, but isn't that one emergency sudden stop what really counts? Magazines have tested many times the difference between drums and discs and the difference is usually around 10 feet at 70 mph, sometimes much more. That's the difference between stopping in time and totalling your car. The reason for the difference is simple. There is more force provided by a caliper sqeezing pads towards each other than there is by a drum pushing linings outwards in opposite directions. Plus, discs provide more contact area and better heat dissipation, thus leading to stronger stopping forces.

    As for maintenance, I've never touched an Isuzu Trooper so I can't say what was different about that one. But every rear brake I've ever done were simple 2 bolt jobs. The only issue was that Honda and Mazda sometimes uses a rear caliper that has to be turned to retract it instead of just pushing it in, which requires a special tool or some improvisation. Either way, they were still easy quick jobs. The fact rear brakes aren't used as much means that most cars will only need one brake job in their lifetime, regardless of whether it has discs or drums. I've never seen a drum that doesn't require repacking of the wheel bearings but I'm sure they are out there (perhaps on trucks and SUVS?). My current car requires this extra step though. I've also run into leaking wheel cylinders on more than one occassion that caused sudden loss of brakes, but have never seen this happen to a caliper. Therefore, I consider the reliability and longevity of parts to be less in a drum.

    As for wet braking performance, consider this: You run into a deep puddle on the right hand side of the car and than have to brake suddenly for whatever reason. With drums in the back, you will lose just about all the braking power from that right rear wheel, which will cause the car to jerk hard to the left, possibly taking the driver by surprise. The car will also not stop near as quick and that rear brake will stay soaked for a few miles, making the car more dangerous in less capable hands. With 4 wheel discs, you probably won't notice anything wrong and the brakes will have full effectiveness with a few wheel revolutions. The difference is dramatic, even on just the rear brakes. My dad's old classic with 4 wheel drums is downright scary driving in the rain.

    I've left my old Rabbit sitting for 6 weeks before in humid rainy weather and while the discs got rusty, the rust was gone in less than a 1/4 mile of noisy braking. Few people let their cars sit this long so I don't think rust is really a concern here.
  • I forgot one important drawback to drums.....You can't see the linings and they don't have wear noise makers attached, so you have no idea when they need to be replaced without removing the wheel and the drum. This is a big aggravation! It can also lead to shops charging money to pull the drums to check the linings, only to suggest you might as well replace them since they have it all apart. On most cars with alloy wheels, you can just peer into the wheel and see the pad thickness. Not so with drums!
  • I've had drum brakes on many vehicles in the past. They required replacement once every 6 to 7 years or well over 100,000 miles. They work great and cause no problems. For the rear wheels of a FWD car, it is a none issue.
Sign In or Register to comment.