Howdy, Stranger!

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





Chevrolet Cruze

145791029

Comments

  • stickguystickguy Posts: 15,084
    how can a guy with the screen handle of "dodgeman" never have owned a dodge? That would be like me not knowing how to drive a stick!

    j/k here.

    You do raise a good point (well, to me). 60 series tires is fine on a "normal" family type car. the proliferation of low profile rubber, even on eco cars, is silly. 45 series tires that aren't even that wide (like 215s) are just silly on anything but a sports car.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's) and 2007 Volvo S40 (mine)

  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    The current rage of low profile tires and ridiculously huge wheels is a fad. They contribute nothing to handling quality but do increase purchase price and cost of ownership substantially.

    I stay away from them whenever I can.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 15,084
    given the dismal state of the roads by me (south jersey/philly area) it is a wise idea to get the tallest profile you can.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's) and 2007 Volvo S40 (mine)

  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    For sure.

    The roads are deteriorating all over North America and a smaller wheel with a higher profile tire to absorb the punishment is the trick.
  • Well, at least I owned one Mopar product - the Le Baron, which was NOT my best purchase. ;) Funny thing about the dodgeman07 screen name though. Back in '06 when I signed up with edmunds.com, I was driving a 2004 Chevrolet Malibu LT V6 and was very interested in the Charger which had just come out. I liked it so much that I used dodgeman07 for my screen name. Well I test drove the Charger and the Lucerne and went with the Buick in '07 and I'm glad I did.

    Back to the Cruze. Yes, the low profile tire craze has gotten out of hand. 70-series rubber use to be standard on most passenger cars and now with 60-series being the tallest sidewall you can usually find, I want to stick with it. It does improve ride quality and with my canyon carving days behind me, they're a much better choice.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    The sales figures indicate otherwise. Do some research and you might learn how wrong you are. Enclave routinely outsells MDX. Equinox has been in demand since launch and has sold without incentives. CTS outsells TL, IS and G37 sedan almost every month.

    SRX is outselling every lux crossover except RX.

    Camaro is best selling car in its class.

    The Kia sorento has NEVER passed the Equinox in sales and you should provide a link if you claim otherwise.

    Another point you avoided- GM (the maker of so many substandard vehicles) is still the #1 seller in the US in spite of losing 4 brands. Hyundai isn't even close to GM's sales. Hyundai isn't close to Chevy's sales along. Hyundai is doing great but your assertion than CURRENT GM vehicles are behind the competition is flat out false.

    Based on the success of the past few launches there is NO reason to expect the Cruze to be anything but a hit. I finally saw one on the road last Sunday.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    Cruze gets 36mpg, not 35mpg.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    There is a lot of bloviating on these forums. Sheesh, you know what they say about opinions...they're like...well, you know, everybody has one--but there is nothing worse than opinions masquerading as facts. I first noticed at work about twenty-five years ago, that people who get the facts wrong are typically the ones who act the most confident when they're talking. I wish I knew why that was.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 15,084
    obviously at this oint all speculation. But after seeing it in person, and scoping out the interior, I predict it will be a hit. Especially if the driving experience is anything close to matching the 1st impression.

    only thing that concerns me is that it may be a bit of a "tweener". Kind on the big end of the compact class, and also on the more expensive side. So, it is in a slightly gray area of competing up and down. Along with being somewhat of a premium offering, and priced as such, it may confuse buyers a bit.

    But hopefully, once the reviews and initial sales are out, people will get intriqued and give it a look.

    No comparison though to a Corolla, seemingly not even in the same class. Even the CIvic seems kind of small and outdated here. ANd the Cruze is quite a bit bigger then either one.

    Mazda 3 seems to be the closest match for content/postiioning/price, but the Cruze has way more room (but no hatch yet).

    I think it is the perfect size though. Pretty much what a mid size used to be (Accord, Mazda 626) before they all became bloated, supersized barges.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's) and 2007 Volvo S40 (mine)

  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    ".....Really, go read any of the reviews or forums about the Sonata. The car easily gets 35mpg on the highway, due to the efficiency of the 2.4L DI engine, the 6-speed trans and the .27 drag coefficient. "

    So, my father just returned from a trip from RI to Atlantic city with his 4000 lb, 3.0 V6 2010 Lacrosse, with 4 people and luggage, overall FE was 30.6, including the around town driving. 35 mpg actual is not that far off.
  • dave8697dave8697 Posts: 1,498
    Who gets hwy numbers from their typical tanks of gas? Even 5 miles of city driving tacked on to the end of a 30 mile interstate run will knock you down a few mpg.

    And why would I need to read a review to confirm a number that does not impress me? I get 34 with a 10% heavier car with an automatic under the same conditions. But the reality is that within a typical tank is lots of city driving. Another reality is that shaving 10% of the weight out of a car will mean thin stuff.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    I dont think manual will be offered in LT trim. Just base, ECO and eventually LTZ trims.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    Larger wheels are more than a fad, they are a permanent fixture of new cars. We aren't going back to 70 series tires. Larger wheels fill the wells and make a car look sportier looking. Generally, prices are higher with larger tires but on family cars you can get affordable replacement tires in 17" and 18" sizes. I have a car with 18" rims and the ride quality is fine. Generally speaking, less sidewall leads to better handling response..
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    Generally speaking, less sidewall leads to better handling response..

    And to more broken wheels and blown tires, too!
  • GM announced last week a manual will be offered on all trim levels. Not available until spring though.
  • I guess the point is that family sedans should offer 16" rims and 60-series tires. They ride better, are less expensive to replace, and offer more than adequate handling response.

    Corvettes use to go with 50-series tires for handling response. Now 18" rims and 50-series (& even 45-series) tires are on commuter cars. It's totally unneccessary. Adds cost and compromises ride quality in the name of - aesthetics - no thanks.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,394
    edited October 2010
    >Larger wheels fill the wells and

    Now, why do we need the "wheel wells filled"? That makes no sense when the result is a terrible ride quality on roads less than smooth and offers tires and wheels that are more susceptible to road hazard damage?

    >make a car look sportier looking.

    Yup, most people buying a quality sedan are concerned about looking sporty...! NOT.

    The idea that tires have to rubber bands has indeed evolved just for appearances. I read posts about how one car was better because they had lower profile tires available and their rim size was 1 inch larger than that other awful car.

    It's not reality.

    I'll look at the tire sizes to determine what I put money into. It's just like investing: I certainly don't put funds into instruments that are more likely to have failures but they look pretty and other people perceive them as "sporty."

    Same for picking a car.
  • dave8697dave8697 Posts: 1,498
    My friend's wife hit a tall curb just going down the left lane along a median. Cell phone related. The black painted steel 17 inch rim was a $261 replacement at the Hundai dealer.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    I had 16" wheels with 50 series tires for 6 years and then 50 series tires on 18" wheels for 3 years- never a blow out in that time span. I don't expect any on my current car either. Tire construction has come a long way just like every other aspect of automobiles over the last few decades.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    These things are OPTIONS. The cruze has 16" wheels standard and most compacts have 15" wheels standard. Cruze offers 16", 17" and 18" wheels and few are going to pony up for the LTZ with the 18s. I believe the Impala has 16" wheels standard while the Malibu now has 17s standard. In today's world 16" or even 17" wheels aren't considered big and you can get affordable replacement tires in those sizes since these cars are sold with all season rubber.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    what cars are you speaking off with "terrible" ride quality? My last two cars had 18" wheels and ride quality was fine. I've been in lower end cars with 15" wheels and the ride wasn't more supple. Early Cruze reviews suggest it rides better than Civic and Corolla even though both have smaller wheels. How do you explain that?

    If you think styling doesn't play a role in car buying decisions than you havent been paying attention. Have you noticed the sales of the new Sonata? The car is really nothing more than the old car in terms of value, space and features- the biggest change is STYLING and its made the car MUCH more popular than it's predecessor. In addition, I would like to know why you think manufacturers are using larger wheels if customers don't like the style enhancement they provide. To me, any family car with 16" or smaller wheels looks cheap now.

    BTW, large wheels don't mean tires have to be extremely low profile. My car has 18" wheels on 50 series tires. Even cars with smaller wheels typically use 55 series tires. My car has 235/50 tires which means the sidewalls aren't even that thin. 50 series tires on 215s may degrade ride quality but that may not be the case on 225s or 235s. The Buick Lucerne offers 245/50s on 18s which means the sidewall is plenty thick.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,447
    "I dont think manual will be offered in LT trim. Just base, ECO and eventually LTZ trims. "

    I suppose that won't be the end of the world - as long as they take back the cartoony 18" wheels. Don't need to look like I am 16 again. My preference would be a loaded ECO with leather etc., but I really doubt that will happen.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,394
    >245/50s on 18s which means the sidewall is plenty thick.

    Lower profile ratio means the tire is too shallow for the load bearing it's doing.
  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Posts: 574
    edited October 2010
    The original theory behind low-profile tires was limiting sidewall flex in hard cornering. That's why "sports" cars in the 1980's went low profile. Now with the big wheel, "hey look at me", 18" rim craze, manufacturers go with lower profile tires so they'll fit in the wheel well and you can still turn the car!

    The overall diameter of the tire/wheel combo is roughly the same whether it's a 215/60R16 or a 235/50R18. 18" rims on family sedans are a classic example of putting form before function. If it looks good - do it. I prefer my wheel well filled with rubber that's less expensive and performs better in it's intended application.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,447
    Large rims actually hurt acceleration and fuel economy. They are heavier and the rotating unsprung weight is the most critical.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,394
    >The original theory behind low-profile tires was limiting sidewall flex in hard cornering.

    My 79 Mustang Pace Car had lower profile Michelins. The shorter sidewall really improved the handling. But the ride was harder.

    There's no way around the fact that a physically taller sidewall allows more flex and gives a better ride and is less likely to rupture on impacting a pothole or allowing more force to hit the rim and damaging it.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,447
    That mustang probably had 55 or 60 series. '83 GTI - one of the best handling front drivers ever had 185 60/14 tires.
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,842
    Cruze may seem large, it will make more sense when Chevrolet fills it's line with two new models both smaller than Cruze.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    So what function is sacrificed by 235/50 18" tires in a family sedan? What can't the car do well?

    Have you actually seen the prices for lower end 18" all season tires? A 17" performance tire costs more than an 18" all season tire on a family sedan.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    Not always true. An 18" forged alum wheel likely weighs less than a 16" steel wheel. Lower end cars like cruze come standard with steel wheels with wheel covers. I guarantee you the 17s on the Cruze weigh less than the base wheels. Higher end cars have forged alum wheels which weigh even less than conventional wheels. The Cruze ECO will have special 17s that are lightweight and I'm sure they weigh considerably less than 16" steel or aluminum wheels.

    Cruze with 16s or 18s gets the exact same mileage. There is no evidence that a car with larger wheels gets worse mileage.
145791029
Sign In or Register to comment.