Howdy, Stranger!

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





Chevrolet Cruze

13739414243

Comments

  • eliaselias Posts: 1,830
    how about a Cruze Maxx Diesel ! with standard transmission. (ok, so there are only 2 people in USA who want that configuration.)
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    Make that three! :)
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,628
    I'm not sold on diesels. Probably because I remember the Old Days of foul smelling exhaust and fuel that jells in the very cold weather we can get in Minnesota. But mostly there's a price premium for diesels that I don't know if I'd ever recoup, given the few miles I drive and the price premium for diesel fuel vs. 87 octane.
  • A reporter is looking to interview midsize or small car owners who recently switched from Honda or Toyota to Chrysler, Ford or GM. Email pr@edmunds.com no later than Thursday, January 5, 2012 with your daytime contact information and a few words about your decision and your experience so far.

    Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • carman14carman14 Posts: 7
    edited January 2012
    Just rented a Chevy Cruze in Orlando, who writes these reviews. This car went back the next day.

    Seats are hard and uncomfortable
    No spare tire could be found
    Small trunk barely enough for one suitcase
    Car has a weird acceleration problem, was searching all over for gears as I merged on highways

    Switched to a Chrysler 200 next day much better in all categories and seats are quite comfortable for a 200lb 6fter. Quiet like a library too!

    Not that I want a 200 anyhow....
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,628
    edited January 2012
    You must have gotten a 2011. I think the 2012s have a spare tire standard now. They were optional in 2011.

    I'm surprised you had trouble fitting one suitcase into the trunk. There's 15.4 cubic feet of trunk space, which is pretty big for a compact car. (And bigger than the 200's trunk--that has 13.6 cubic feet.)

    I've rented several Cruze LTs and haven't noticed a gear hunting problem. Also I thought the driver's seat was very comfortable, with good support. It IS firm, but I've found firm car seats provide better long-term comfort than soft/squishy seats. (Volvo and VW wrote the book there.) One thing you might not have noticed about the driver's seat is that, if it was a 2011 w/o the power option, it has TWO height adjustment levers. Which is unusual these days, but provides a lot of adjustment for seat bottom height and angle. I love that feature. I'm sorry to see it's no longer on the 2012 Cruze, at least not all trims as it was in 2011.
  • gparagpara Posts: 23
    This slush box is capable of 50MPG, turbo makes it fast enough to deal with any situation if you can drive a stick.
    Besides my other car is a 1987 Buick Grand National, turbo v-6 that I can blast around with and have my fun with the gas I save with the Eco!!!!
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    Meh! I defy anybody to drive a Cruze ECO with a slushbox (or even a stick version for that matter) in normal real-world conditions where they aren't posing a road hazard (hyper-milers are road hazards) and get 50 mpg.

    Regarding your Grand National; if you define going fast in a straight line "fun" then more power to you. Many of us don't share your passion.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,628
    edited January 2012
    C/D tested the Cruze Eco 6MT vs. the Volt and got 47 mpg with the Eco in their "commuting" test. They also found that mpg at steady speeds up to the low 60s resulted in 50+ mpg on the Eco.

    So 50 mpg on the Eco stick appears achievable in the real world, under the right conditions. Not in all-city driving or high-speed highway driving, however.

    http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2011-chevrolet-volt-vs-2011-chevrolet-cr- - uze-eco-comparison-test
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    I don't have an issue with someone claiming the ECO with a manual can achieve 50 mpg in very isolated circumstances, but in "real world" mode I'm a bit skeptical; doubly so if someone is claiming that kind of economy when the car is saddled with a slushbox.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,628
    I would not call the "commuting" test C/D did an "isolated" circumstance. And 47 mpg is close enough to 50 to think about how someone else's commute could garner 50.

    Also I do most of my highway driving at 65 mph and under. That's the fastest limit on the highways I go on 95% of the time, and it's almost all urban driving where going faster wouldn't be practical/safe most of the time. So again, 50 mpg seems achievable in REAL WORLD driving. Just not in EVERYONE's world.
  • gparagpara Posts: 23
    OK I am an automotive shop owner and I do drive real world 60mph from Lexington, Ky to Chicago 435 miles each way, twice, 52mpg door to door, Lexington to Morristown Tenn. 400+ miles 53mpg at 60 mph. The stick shift eco does get 50+ miles per gallon real world.
    I suggest you check your numbers and data before saying things that are not true, Gary M&G Engineering SAE, ASE BS. IN&T L-1 certification
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    edited January 2012
    Seriously? You call 60 mph "real world"? Here in New England folks who drive 60 mph are called a road hazard. I honestly don't believe there is a single road anywhere in New England where 60 mph is both safe and sustainable.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,628
    Maybe you are thinking of Vermont, where the maximum speed limit on all highways except rural interstates is 50-55 mph. So that would jive with 60 mph not being safe and sustainable, at least on most highways in Vermont.

    Anyway, the OP wasn't talking about New England. There are other "real worlds" out there besides New England.
  • I think he means the other way around - that 60 MPH is way too slow on most roads - particularly interstates, where the speed limit is usually 70 MPH (which it appears to be in Indiana, where most of the Lexington to Chicago trip would occur).

    Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    Kirstie understands; 60 mph is too slow for interstate travel (except for construction zones and deep urban environments where 60 is typically too fast).

    Long story short, I'm thinking there isn't much of the "real world" that includes a safe driving environment for travel at 60 mph.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,628
    edited January 2012
    I understood him just fine. ;)

    He just doesn't understand:

    1) Speed limits in New England
    2) There are other worlds besides New England.
    3) Not everyone drives on interstates when commuting via highways.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    edited January 2012
    I've lived, worked and driven all over the United States and I have roughly a million and a half miles under my belt, and I stand by my statement; there are few places where it is safe to drive at a sustained 60 miles per hours (regardless of whether we're talking about interstates, rural highways, or anywhere else for that matter.

    Said another way, a constant sustained speed of 60 mph is in that bizarre seam between thresholds where its either too slow to be safe or too fast to be safe.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,628
    edited January 2012
    Get off those interstates, man, and see the REAL America! :)

    You are one of, what, 150 million drivers in the United States? Yet you can confidently assert that YOUR world is the only REAL world when it comes to driving?

    If you go 60 mph on most highways in Vermont, for example (which btw is a state in New England), you will be exceeding the speed limit by 5-10 mph. And that doesn't account for conditions. I hear it snows in Vermont sometimes. ;) Yet you assert it is not safe to drive those highways at even 5-10 mph over the speed limit... that such speed is "bizarre".

    I think there's something bizarre here... but driving safely at 60 mph on many of the highways of the USA isn't it.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    New Hampshire; speed limit is 65, however, any car traveling at speeds below 75 become road hazards.

    As for getting off the interstate, believe it or not, I've crossed the entire continent at least a half a dozen times without using a limited access highway for more than a couple of miles at a shot (typically where two or more routes merge for a few miles before separating once again).

    FWIW, my favorite non-interstates are US-6 across Nevada and US-2 between Everett, WA and St. Ignace, MI.
Sign In or Register to comment.