The Current State of the US Auto Market

uplanderguy

Right on that. The number of deaths is related to how old these cars are before they were recalled. Toyotas that quit running (2.2 million recalled in the past month) would eventually probably resulted in deaths, but the recall happened quickly. BTW, CBS reported 89 deaths attirbuted to Toyotas with UA.

circlew

Most kid-friendly
Ford Escape
Honda CR-V
Kia Sportage

As a rule, small SUVs work very well
for families with children. They offer
plenty of passenger space as well as
room for kid stuff. Adults and older
children can easily climb into and out
of them, and it’s easy to put babies
into child seats without having to
bend over too much. The Escape,
CR-V, and Sportage stand out as
the best. Each one makes child-seat
installation a breeze, with easily
accessible belts, and LATCH and
top tether anchors. Ford allows
parents to install child seats in the
center position, if the child-seat
manufacturer allows it, by using the
two inboard lower LATCH anchors.
The Honda CR-V has a super-flexible
arrangement with five lower LATCH
anchors across the rear seat, allowing
for installation of child seats in any
position. In the Sportage, child seats
should be secure in any rear-seat
position, although the vehicle
performed poorly in the IIHS
small-overlap crash test.

Kia Sportage: Score=70
Highs:Handling, transmission, controls.
Lows:Poor IIHS small-overlap crash-test results,
ride, noise, rear visibility, fit and finish

stever

@tlong, there's a new acronym - NHTSA - No Harm to Stress About.

imidazol97

although the vehicle
performed poorly in the IIHS
small-overlap crash test.

Kia Sportage: Score=70
Highs:Handling, transmission, controls.
Lows:Poor IIHS small-overlap crash-test results,
ride, noise, rear visibility, fit and finish.

Just the car I'd want to drive! LOL

I've been shopping. Front seats too low in hunkias sonata and optima. Rear seat leg room too short--smaller than Malibu.

uplanderguy

What about Sportage reliability? Not seeing any remarks about that. I apparently read something differently than you did. I will admit I'm going from memory.

circlew

Kia Sportage reliability is average. Here is additional info regarding the sportage

Why some models are not recommended. The Mazda CX-5 Sport (2.0L), Kia Sportage, Hyundai Tucson, Mitsubishi Outlander and Outlander Sport, Nissan Rogue
Select and Juke, and Jeep Cherokee, Patriot, and Compass scored too low in our testing. The Ford Escape had below-average reliability. The Jeep Cherokee is also too
new for us to have reliability data. The Ford Escape, Hyundai Tucson, Jeep Patriot, Kia Sportage, and Toyota RAV4 scored poorly in an IIHS crash test.

uplanderguy

You are right, circlew. Mea culpa. It was the Sedona and Sorento which they say are none-too-great reliability-wise.

Interestingly--and not conventional wisdom--is that they show the Sonata turbo "much worse than average" for both '11 and '12. The Genesis coupe is much worse than average for '13. The Accord coupe, both four and six, are much-worse-than-average for '13. Why would the coupe be worse than the sedan (only worse-than-average for '13)? The Optima Turbo is worse-than-average for '11, '12, and '13. Nissan Altima sedan, new-car prediction much-worse-than-average, both four and six.

Most comfortable ride in midsize sedans--Malibu and Camry.

As always, one doesn't have to look real hard to spot inconsistencies. They actually tell you to avoid the '11 and '13 Cruze--but not the '12. Like last year, they say the '05 Cobalt, first year, is more reliable than the '06-08, and the '09 and '10 are better. I own '08 and '09 Cobalts. There are ways I enjoy my '08 more than the '09, although they are equipped differently.

They make the flat statement for Ford Fusion: "The 2007 four-cylinders are having paint and rust concerns." Are we supposed to believe, without questioning, that the procedure for painting six-cylinder Fusions was different than four-cylinders? Come on!

People take it as the gospel, but I still wouldn't let it sway me if I wanted a particular model.

uplanderguy

@uplanderguy said:
They'll be the only domestic small pickups. Ford had owned that bragging right for a long time.

I don't know what the hell I was thinking on this one. Tells you how inconsequential the previous Colorado and Canyon were the past few years. I actually forgot that they lasted as long as the Ranger...maybe even longer (too lazy to check).

I do think it's neat they'll be the only 'smaller' domestic pickup when the new ones come out.

circlew

CR Score Chevy v. Kia

uplanderguy

All I see are red "X's", but I think any comparison between Kia and Chevy overall must rest on the assumption that they have an even number of models...and you know that isn't true.

circlew

Chevrolet
Overall
score
56

Nice interiors, cushy rides, and
smooth powertrains are the
ice cream on this apple pie. But
fuel economy isn’t top-notch
and reliability is inconsistent.

Kia
Overall
score
61

Like its Hyundai sister brand,
Kia builds well-rounded, functional
models that rapidly improve with
every redesign.

uplanderguy

That's all good, but you buy a specific model--not an entire vehicle line. If you believe CR, the current (not old) iteration of the Optima Turbo is unreliable, three straight model years. What about trucks? Oh yeah, Hyunkia doesn't build any. BTW, what were the full comments about Hyundai? FULL comments.

andre1969

I have a friend who's been casually car shopping. Last weekend, we went to CarMax and he drove a 2011 Mazda3 with about 95,000 miles on it, and a 2012 Cruze with only 13,000. They were both base-level cars. I think the Mazda was called a 1-series or something like that, while the Cruze was an LS. I know this isn't quite an apples-to-apples comparison, but they're both base-level compacts.

In my opinion, they both kinda sucked, but for different reasons. The Mazda was small and cramped, and felt claustrophobic. Felt like it had the thickness of a beer can when you rapped on the sheetmetal. And the interior was way too plasticky, but that's the norm these days. However, and this is only from experiencing it as a passenger, but the ride and handling felt great. My friend, who normally drives a stick shift, also liked the way its automatic shifted and accelerated. The ride, I would consider firm, but well-planted. It felt like it cornered well and handled the road well.

The Cruze, on the other hand, felt a lot sturdier and thicker. Much roomier up front, but at a slight loss of legroom in the back. One advantage the Mazda had here was that the seatbacks were padded and soft, so my knees could sink in a bit without encountering anything hard. The Cruze had a little padding, but not enough, so it wasn't as comfortable. I think the Cruze actually had more plastic in it than the Mazda.

Unfortunately though, when the Cruze started up, it sounded like crap. I really didn't pay much attention to how the Mazda had started, because it didn't really catch my attention, in either a good or bad way. But the Cruze had a sound like something was wrong with it, until it warmed up at least. My friend said he hated the way the Cruze's steering felt, and I could even tell from the way he was driving it, wandering around in his lane and such, there there was some kind of disconnect. It didn't seem nearly as confident around curves and sharp turns. The ride smoothed out a lot of bumps, but managed to feel a bit out-of-control and queasy at the same time. It's almost as if they tried to engineer a big-car feel into the Cruze, like Ford did with the '75 Granada, to convince big car buyers that a small car could be a worthy alternative. But often when you do that, you simply end up with a small car that can neither handle nor ride very well...much like a '75 Granada!

IMO, the Mazda put up a bad first impression, but at least redeemed itself on the test drive. The Cruze did just the opposite. I was also impressed that, at 95000 miles, the Mazda still felt tight, squeak, and rattle-free. Just don't rap your knuckles on the sheetmetal.

I wonder what the latest Mazda3 is like? I have to say, that I was impressed that Mazda seemed to put some effort into even the cheapest 3, to make it fun to drive. And as a passenger it wasn't too bad of a ride, but I sat behind the wheel and just couldn't get comfortable in the driver's seat, with the pedals being too close.

Both of them still felt too cramped and claustrophobic compared to what I'm used to, though, so I think I'd grow to hate either one, long term. And I just can't get used to those cheap interiors. You'd think it wouldn't be a problem, compared to my stripper-interior Ram, and my older cars. But in the Ram's defense, I think there's a bit more soft-touch, and with it having a roomy cab, that cheap hard stuff isn't right up in your face. And while old 70's and 80's cars (and my 2000 Park Ave) were cheap in their own way, the ones I've had have simply been plusher, more luxurious models. I'm sure if I compared a stripped-down '76 Nova, Maverick, or Valiant, instead of a fully decked-out Grand LeMans, to a new Cruze or Mazda3, I wouldn't be looking at the 70's through such rose-tinted glasses.

benjaminh

Andre: Great report. I agree with you that entry level compact sedans usually have significant flaws. Interesting how the Mazda3 seemed better with a test drive, while the Cruze was worse. What were the asking prices on these? Is he considering new as well?

uplanderguy

I don't think I'd consider a 1.8 in a Cruze. That's offered only in the base LS. I'd get a 1LT with stick...if I were buying (I'm not, BTW!).

I hear there's more news in the New York Times about stuff known eight years ago about the Cobalt ignitions. That's bad. No excuses here.

Others here would say your friend's experience is, ahem, 'anecdotal', but the fact is, you experienced it; why wouldn't it influence you? Absolutely. Much like my coworker with the '05 Odyssey where he paid $1,800 to replace the trans--that was Honda's offer at 70K miles. Anecdotal? Yes, but when he's a guy I work with, in a group of only five guys, day in, day out, I felt his pain. BTW, his response to the Honda Service Manager: "It's not a Kia, it's a Honda!". LOL

People who ride in my '08 Cobalt (I had two passengers last weekend on an extended trip to York, PA) are often surprised at the total smoothness at idle. It starts as quiet as a new car...quieter than my daughter's '09 for certain (hers, bought used by me).

mcdawgg

@uplanderguy said:
Right on that. The number of deaths is related to how old these cars are before they were recalled. Toyotas that quit running (2.2 million recalled in the past month) would eventually probably resulted in deaths, but the recall happened quickly. BTW, CBS reported 89 deaths attirbuted to Toyotas with UA.

So the 89 deaths that the media reported, was that due to UA by the car, or UA because of a wrong pedal application by the driver? Trying to compare apples to apples.

uplanderguy

Well, one does have to wonder why it was so prevalent on Toyotas. As far as floor mats, I could stack three and they wouldn't even come close to the gas pedal. I ask a lot of questions.

Mr_Shiftright

I think the pedal placement in the car can be a factor to differentiate variations in driver-caused UA among makes, as well as mass hysteria triggered by the media, which is a very real and documented phenomenon. If there was a high profile story about a Ford Fiesta crashing into a laundromat on CNN, you'd have a increase in UA reports in every Ford model ever made.

stickguy

Andre, the new design mazda 3 has a much improved interior, and nicer styling. To me it was really a big improvement overall. But, I agree with your impression about the Mazda being a "driver's" car. The new one, even more so.

andre1969

@benjaminh said:
Andre: Great report. I agree with you that entry level compact sedans usually have significant flaws. Interesting how the Mazda3 seemed better with a test drive, while the Cruze was worse. What were the asking prices on these? Is he considering new as well?

Thanks. Here's the link to the Cruze. It was $15,598.

I can't find a link for the Mazda3, but I think it was around $11,998. I thought that price was ridiculous for something with 95,000 miles on it, whereas I thought the Cruze was a screaming bargain...until I rode in it!

One thing I think is funny about a lot of these cars is how great they seemed when they first came out, but then something better comes along, and they just seem like cheap little cars. I remember thinking what a big deal the first Mazda3 was when it first came out, seemed like such a big leap over that old 323/Protege. And when my uncle brought home his '03 Corolla, it seemed like a vast improvement over what came before. But now they just don't seem like a big deal.

Oh, there was one other car there that caught my eye. Of all things, a Dodge Avenger. I think it was a 2013, with under 20K miles. Had the 3.6 V-6, nav, and a sunroof, but no leather. It was only around $15-16K. It was this nice shade of light blue that sort of reminded me of my first car, a 1980 Malibu coupe. I know the Avenger is pretty mediocre overall, but sometimes when I find a V-6 at a low price, I get a bit of a temptation.

There was also one of those largish-by-today's standards Audi coupes...A5, S5 or whatever? I find a bit of an attraction to these as well, although I imagine they're the type of car you lease or trade before the warranty is up. I forget the specifics on this one, except it was about $31K. These Audi coupes actually remind me, faintly, of my old Malibu as well...roughly the same size and proportions. Probably not an association the folks at Audi want to hear, though!

uplanderguy

Though Shifty...there weren't stories about Ford Fiestas; there were multiple accounts of Toyotas.

That said, this ignition key thing is terrible. I am hard-pressed to think of a worse recall at GM in decades.

benjaminh

I know what you mean about how what used to seem amazing becomes commonplace. When I got my new 2002 Accord LX I couldn't believe how impressive it was. But just 8 years later, when I traded it in, it seemed spartan and old-fashioned.

The Avenger with nav seems like a bargain compared to the other two.

But if he's considering a 2-year old used car for 15k, what about this:

2014 Mazda MAZDA3 i SV Louisville, KY
2.0L 4 cyls, FWD, manual, 3 miles, 41 MPG Hwy, Snowflake White Pearl Mica, stock # M7699, new,
MSRP $17,940
OXMOOR PRICE*
$16,500

Mazda will finance at 1.9 for 5 years, plus you get mpg that can't be beat in a gas car these days. Probably similar prices are available near you....Just a thought.

imidazol97

@andre1969 said:Thanks. Here's the link to the Cruze. It was $15,598.

I don't think I'd buy the 1.8 L. For $15K, I'd instead take a look at busy Chevrolet dealers who buy in fleet and lease cars. I follow one here that seems to pick up some of those. They usually are titled at the beginning as fleet or rental in Ohio. It's odd this one doesn't get marked as such until 13000 miles. I would recommend that he look at some dealers because they will usually offer an extended warranty by 1 year as a certified vehicle beyond the 3/36. Also, I'd recommend he take a good look at a model that's LT1 or LT2 with the 1.6 turbo engine with minimum accessories right now. The pricing is supplier pricing which is like 3 or 4% off PLUS some incentives. That would make a new car price efficient in my mind. I found the Cruze LT2 to be tightly stuck to the road and agile. In fact it rode a little too much like a Civic for my mind; I like my Cobalt's ride.

Here's one for under 20K$
http://www.whiteallen.com/VehicleDetails/new-2014-Chevrolet-Cruze-Sedan_1LT_(Automatic)-Dayton-OH/2097374603

Power sunroof
Pioneer 9 speaker system
RS package

You can see these option packages in the window sticker link on the page.

circlew

CR on the Cruze:

Chevrolet Cruze LS (1.8) 18,375 69 " 0.55 26
For:
Ride, quietness, agility, solid feel, front-
seat space.
Against:
Subpar reliability, so-so fuel economy,
rear seat.

Reliability: Full Black Circle
F.E. Overall: 26 mpg
Road Test Score: 69
Cost/Mile: $0.55
Owner Satisfaction: Average

uplanderguy

Imidazo is mentioning the Turbo, which is in the LT and LTZ trims. The year charts show 2012 1.8 average; 2011 and 2013 full-black circle...see 2013 Nissan Altima and 2011-12 Hyundai Sonata Turbo and 2013 Honda Accord Coupe for same full-black-circles. I like Chevys, but even I wouldn't buy a 1.8 Cruze LS. I'd buy the Turbo, which I have to believe that most people do since it is in the widest variety of models. A plus for me, is it is built down the road and actually helps people near where I live.

Is there a reason you didn't post the Mazda's reliability per CR (which I have no idea of)?

Remember...stay away from four-cylinder Fusions for paint and rust problems....sixes are OK! LOL

andre1969

@imidazol97 said:
In fact it rode a little too much like a Civic for my mind; I like my Cobalt's ride.

I've never ridden in a Cobalt, but was pleasantly surprised at the front seat comfort of the ones I sat in at auto shows. It actually felt like a big car in many respects...good legroom, good footwell area, roomy for the driver in most respects. Sure, it didn't have big-car shoulder room, but I also don't remember feeling wedged up against the door panel, or the center console being too close.

It seemed like a HUGE step up from the Cavalier it replaced! And, while the Cruze is supposed to be much better overall, I do remember thinking, the first time I sat in one, that the Cobalt's front seat seemed to fit me a bit better.

circlew

GM might not pay for recall deaths

"It's completely unfair," said Lance Cooper, a Georgia attorney. Cooper recently won a settlement from GM for a family whose daughter was killed in a 2010 accident involving a 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt, one of the cars involved in the recall.

"It's not like a traditional bankruptcy where they go out of business," he added. "GM continued to exist as essentially the same company."

Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, said his group is asking GM to waive its liability shield.

"They took the government's money, but they didn't accept responsibility to the public who paid for it," said Cooper. "And it's the public that was hurt when their products injured or killed people."

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/11/news/companies/gm-recall-deaths/index.html?iid=HP_LN

circlew

Mazda3 i Grand Touring
(hatchback, MT)
24,040 78 4 new 0.56 32
For: Handling, fuel economy, transmission,
high-end options, IIHS crash-test results.
Against:Ride, noise, rear seat, visibility,
gets pricey.

Mazda3 i Touring (sedan) 21,740 78 4 new 0.53 33
For:Handling, fuel economy, transmission,
high-end options, IIHS crash-test results.
Against: Ride, noise, rear seat, gets pricey.

Predicted Reliability: Above Average

Road Test Scores: 78

MPG Overall = 32, 33 respectively
Cost per Mile: $0.56, $0.53 respectively.

uplanderguy

What was the owner satisfaction rating?

uplanderguy

Frankly, the talk of GM not paying suits brought up sounds a lot like the absolute talk here on Edmunds a few years back that "GM will not honor warranties!", which was farce.

Mr_Shiftright

didn't Saab owners lose their warranties?

uplanderguy

Not sure about that, but I had more than one warranty visit taken care of on both of my pre-warranty Chevys...in fact, they paid for out-of-warranty work on one of them.

uplanderguy

They don't have an owner satisfaction rating for the Mazda 3, as it is 'new'. The Mazda 2's owner satisfaction rating is worse-than-average. The Cruze 1.8's owner satisfaction rating is average; the 1.4 turbo's is better-than-average, and the Cruze Eco's is better-than-average. Comparing to the Mazda 2, the Sonic 1.8's owner satisfaction rating is average, and the 1.4 turbo's is better-than-average.

imidazol97

@uplanderguy said:

I liked the feel of the driving with the 1.4 turbo. It accelerated nicely for the way I drove and more throttle smoothly delivered more power which I assume was the turbo kicking in. I was comparing it to the 2.2 VVT in my Cobalt, not turbocharged, and to the 2.5 L new engine in the Malibu I had just test driven.

People report high mileage with the 1.4L turbo.

With incentives now from GM (and last month) and probably incentives for future months, the new car is a good buy. Just buy a GMPP warranty from Black Cadillac online to cover for 5,6,7 years and your choice of miles, and you're good to go with most expenses covered outside of maintenance. Balancing costs per year against the off rental/lease cars that show up, I think the new is a better buy. The used cars are being held up here. I missed my used car which was a Cobalt 2010 with 40K miles, locally owned, and I could have bought an extended warranty from GM, I suspect, but might have had to do it through the selling GM dealer rather than discounted on the net.

uplanderguy

You know, I have never once purchased an extended warranty on any of my Chevys. Just sayin'.

imidazol97

@uplanderguy said:
You know, I have never once purchased an extended warranty on any of my Chevys. Just sayin'.

I never had until the Cobalt purchase. I haven't used it once. It was a part of estate planning since I am at that age where one never knows what could happen.

andre1969

@imidazol97 said:
I never had until the Cobalt purchase. I haven't used it once. It was a part of estate planning since I am at that age where one never knows what could happen.

I bought an extended warranty on my 2000 Intrepid. It was about $1200. However, back then I delivered pizzas, and the bumper-to-bumper was only 3/36K. FWIW, I hit 36K in 13 months. I did NOT want a car that was out of warranty that I still owed almost four years of payments on!

And, wouldn't you know it, I never had to use that warranty. Not ONCE! There was one item, when the thermostat housing failed, that my local mechanic fixed for $211. But, the warranty had a $200 deductible, so that was basically a wash. Also, as luck would have it, I quit delivering pizzas in late 2000, although I went back on a limited basis in 2001, so my mileage dropped off fast. 100,000 miles came up on Christmas Eve, 2004, at a bit beyond the 61 month mark (purchased 11/6/99).

They tried to sell me an extended warranty on my 2012 Ram. However, on this truck, the bumper to bumper is 3/36K and powertrain is 5/50 or 5/60. I doubt it will even hit 36K by 5 years, so an extended warranty, I figure, is useless, as most of the ones they offered expired by 5 years. I pissed off the finance lady, though, because she tried hard to sell me on one. I told her that I bought one on a 2000 Intrepid and never needed it. Her response was that cars are a lot different today, to which I responded yeah, hopefully they're even better. She tried to protest, saying how even a minor thing these days could be expensive, to which I countered that if the truck ended up getting unreliable and pissing me off, I'd just dump it and buy something 'furrin like a Toyota.. Got her mad, I could tell by that fiery look in her eyes, but she couldn't come up with a response to that, so she shut up and let us finish the deal.

My Dad bought an extended warranty when he bought his used '03 Regal. I think it was $895. He never had to use it, either.

tlong

@andre1969 said:
I have a friend who's been casually car shopping. Last weekend, we went to CarMax and he drove a 2011 Mazda3 with about 95,000 miles on it, and a 2012 Cruze with only 13,000. ...

Hi Andre. Great writeup. As a Mazda owner (we have a Mazda 5, which is the microvan version of the Mazda 3, I can say that I agree about some of the tinniness in the Mazdas. I've also driven the Cruze as a rental, and I totally agree that while it feels more sturdy, its engine sounds like crap ("growly" is how I had put it in my original review).

Now the Mazda 5 interior I think is a bit better than the sedan. But I can tell you that the steering feel and handling of our Mazda is just fabulous. It outsteers and feels better than my '05 Acura TL, even though the Acura is supposed to be a sporty car. The Mazda is not as refined or plush, but it's a joy to drive and it has a really tight turning circle. We've got just over 90K on the Mazda and have had few problems. It also has always been rock solid in terms of rattles, and has none to this day (unlike my Acura). Mazda is well known to offer the best handling of the compact cars. I believe the interiors on the more upscale ones are at least decent, and you can get them in leather.

dieselone

Andre I'm with you. Now that I'm used to luxed up BOF SUVs and pickups it's hard for me to like small cars. My wife's Taurus feels cramped and cheap compared to my Ram. And even though they likely have similar 0-60 times, the Ram feels so much quicker. It doesn't need to rev past 4k rpm for lots of power. (for some reason my wife's 13 Taurus feels sluggish compared to her '11 despite having nearly 30 more hp, it seems it all arrives above 5k rpm and at the expense low rpm torque).

I test drove a used 09 Mitsu Lancer GTS with 30k miles on it with my daughter a while back and pretty much came away with the same opinion as you did with the Mazda and Cruze. Just to much cheap plastic and road noise was horrible. No way could i deal with that. It was a fun car to drive, but even with the bigger 4cyl and 5 speed, it felt slow to me.

tlong

@uplanderguy said:
They don't have an owner satisfaction rating for the Mazda 3, as it is 'new'. The Mazda 2's owner satisfaction rating is worse-than-average. The Cruze 1.8's owner satisfaction rating is average; the 1.4 turbo's is better-than-average, and the Cruze Eco's is better-than-average. Comparing to the Mazda 2, the Sonic 1.8's owner satisfaction rating is average, and the 1.4 turbo's is better-than-average.

Not sure why you are comparing the Mazda 2 to the Cruze when the Mazda 2 is a very inexpensive subcompact. Not the same class as the Cruze, nor the Mazda 3, and not the same car as the Mazda 3 at all.

tlong

@imidazol97 said:
It was a part of estate planning since I am at that age where one never knows what could happen.

Imid, we hope you around for a long time to bother us on Edmunds!

dieselone

@uplanderguy said:

Others here would say your friend's experience is, ahem, 'anecdotal', but the fact is, you experienced it; why wouldn't it influence you? Absolutely. Much like my coworker with the '05 Odyssey where he paid $1,800 to replace the trans--that was Honda's offer at 70K miles. Anecdotal? Yes, but when he's a guy I work with, in a group of only five guys, day in, day out, I felt his pain. BTW, his response to the Honda Service Manager: "It's not a Kia, it's a Honda!". LOL

I understand, but I can fix a transmission and the vehicle I like is as good as new. I can't fix a vehicle that has a cheesy interior, sounds like crap when it starts and drives poorly among other nasty traits. Not that I'd be happy with a trans failure, been there.

That kind of explains how I've had very unreliable vehicles that I Loved and perfectly reliable vehicles that I couldn't wait to get rid of.

dieselone

One of these days I'm going to test drive a Cruze. Definitely a 1.4 turbo model. I've never read anything good regarding the NVH of the 1.8. I did recommend a buddy of mine to check out a Cruze Eco back in '12. He bought it and has been generally happy. He loves the gas mileage. Over 40 easily and has gotten close to 50 on occasion. All hasn't been rosy. He's had it in the shop twice for clutch problems at under 20k miles. It would start to re-engage when pushing the clutch past the 1/2 way point towards the floor. It took two tries for the dealer to fix. The second time it had to be towed as the clutch wouldn't disengage at all. I think they replaced all of the hydraulics and the clutch the second time.

uplanderguy

I'm comparing the Mazda 2 to the Sonic, because CR doesn't list customer satisfaction for the '3' since it's a 'new model'. The '2' compares unfavorably to the Sonic for customer satisfaction. The customer satisfaction ratings for the Cruze weren't fully reported by circlew here.

uplanderguy

Some other 'full black circles' some here might not have anticipated: BMW 330I and 335I, Hyundai Genesis coupe, Honda Accord Coupe four and V6; Nissan Altima Sedan, four and V6, Kia Sedona, Kia Sorento V6, Hyundai Sonata Turbo, Nissan Pathfinder, Nissan Titan, Subaru BRZ, VW Toureg. There are many GM's and Fords with black circles as well; it's just that those are the cars people here would most believe to be 'bad'; the others, probably not. Just sayin'.

circlew

The U.S. attorney's office in New York has opened a criminal probe into the circumstances surrounding the General Motors ignition switch recall, according to reports on Tuesday by Reuters and the Associated Press, citing sources who asked not to be identified because the investigation is not public.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/03/11/gm-justice-department-recall-probe-investigation/6299749/

Dealers will begin replacing the ignition switches on those models next month, GM says. In the meantime, owners are urged to drive using the ignition key only, with nothing attached.

dieselone

<There are many GM's and Fords with black circles as well; it's just that those are the cars people here would most believe to be 'bad'; the others, probably not. Just sayin'.>

Yes I probably would, not because of black dots, but because they're likely lousy vehicles in other areas.

uplanderguy

The 'owner satisfaction' ratings are sometimes a surprise to conventional wisdom.

dieselone

The GM ignition switch fiasco is turning into a huge deal. I read it could end up being the most expensive recall ever. Though that could be over zealous reporting. But if it turns out GM knew about the problem for a long time and did nothing, heads should roll.

So far it seems GMs new CEO is saying the right things. GM's actions going forward will be key in determining the damage to their reputation.

uplanderguy

I rank this right up with the Firestone tires and Pinto gas tanks. It is indeed a huge thing.

Like Pintos, I predict in years down the road we'll hear people say they still thought their Cobalts were good cars. This is half the production run. But it is an enormous thing.

I've preached to my girls to not have a bunch of stuff on their key rings. It's mostly fallen on deaf ears though.