Chevrolet Cruze

overbrook

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.

dudleyr

"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.

imidazol97

>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.

dodgeman07

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.

dudleyr

Large rims actually hurt acceleration and fuel economy. They are heavier and the rotating unsprung weight is the most critical.

imidazol97

>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.

dudleyr

That mustang probably had 55 or 60 series. '83 GTI - one of the best handling front drivers ever had 185 60/14 tires.

moparbad

Cruze may seem large, it will make more sense when Chevrolet fills it's line with two new models both smaller than Cruze.

overbrook

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.

overbrook

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.

Kirstie_H

What it can't do well are things it's not designed to do well - like scream around a tight corner at high speed.

We've got one vehicle with ultra-low profile tires, and there are roads around our neighborhood that we have to avoid when driving it because of rough surfacing.

On a family sedan, I'd cross it off my list if it required "performance" tires. No thanks.

dodgeman07

Back to the Chevrolet Cruze. I did not intend to start an argument about the relative merits of current tire wheel offerings. I merely wanted to point out that the Cruze LT is available with 60-series rubber, even a loaded 2LT offers 215/60R16 tires with aluminum wheels. That is a very good move. Many new models, even family sedans, force you into 50-series rubber that I don't want.

imidazol97

The 215X60X16 would certainly be a better tire and wheel. My Cobalt has 55 profile tires and they're a little too rude.

overbrook

Large tires arent performance tires necessarily. My last car had 225/50 18s that weren't even H rated. They were quiet, all season tires that weren't even that expensive to replace (although I never had to do so) so its not accurate to equate anything larger than 16" tires with "performance", poor ride quality or high replacment costs. The average family sedan today comes with 17" or larger wheels unless you get the base model. 16" wheels are becoming less common and 15" wheels on family sedans have disappeared.

overbrook

55 series tires are the most common on family sedans. Most GM cars offer 50 series tires but GM uses wider tires on its sedans than Honda and Toyota so the sidewall isn't really thinner in most cases. Malibu has 225s and Regal has 235s- most competing family sedans have 215s or 225s with 55 or 60 ratings.

50 series rubber is rarely standard on an affordable family car.

dodgeman07

50 series rubber is rarely standard on an affordable family car.

Really? Did you check? We're rapidly heading that way.

The Ford Fusion starts with 225/50R17 rubber at the SE level. The Honda Accord goes to 50-series at the EX level. Take a look around. You can't even get 60-series rubber on a Malibu at any trim level. The LS starts at 215/55R17.

Sandman6472

Have these on both cars but would prefer 60 series for the better ride. Both kids also have 55 series but on 15" rims and the ride is very smooth actually. But 1st choice would still be 60 series. Tire prices have also gone up but am not surprised since some petrol is used in them if I'm not mistaken.

Still have not seen any Cruze's yet on the streets, not even many test drives from the dealership I pass everyday. Still a bit early in production I suspect. The closeness of the Chevy store will definitely factor into our decision when purchasing next year. Same dealer does our Mazda service and the Hyundai store is a block away. Prefer to have them so close, as our Nissan & Honda store are on the other side of town at the same location.

Throwing around the idea of letting my son take my Civic since it's got so low mileage & me getting a small runabout since I've just retired & plan to look for part time work after the holidays. Could get interesting!

The Sandman :sick: :shades:

airpower

GM will begin Cruze production of units with manual transmissions in mid-December or early January. Every single Cruze model will be available with the manual. Units will be on dealer lots in early Spring. This does represent a change from the original order guide. They are pushing to get to the magic 40MPG number. The Cruze ECO may just do it.

If you can't wait, you may order an LS model now, for early January delivery.

See your local Chevy dealer for ordering information.

igozoomzoom

Wonder if they'll resist slapping the XFE badge on them?

overbrook

The ECO replaced the XFE model. You will not get 40mpg on any model except the ECO manual. It uses a host of tricks to get from 36 to 40mpg- its not just the manual tranny. Unlike the Cobalt XFE, the ECO is well equipped though.

dudleyr

Saw my first Cruze the other day. The dealership had one so I took a look. The salesman tossed me the keys and said take it for a spin. I didn't bother since it was an automatic and I didn't want to be disappointed since automatics always seem sluggish to me. In hind sight I probably should have at least taken it around the block.

I did take a very close look and sit inside.

Front seats are very comfortable (better than my Accord) and there is plenty of room in front. The dash is OK, about on par with Nissan, but below Honda and Toyota. It is not the wonderous thing some reviews are saying, but it is a huge step up from some previous GM products. Not too crazy about the upholstry on the dash.

The rear seat is comfortable to sit in and has more headroom than a Civic or Corolla, and it has plenty of toe/foot room under the seat, Knee room isn't terrible (better than Corolla, a little worse than Civic), but just above the ankle the front seat protrudes so you feel fairly confined. I was hoping for better here given the size of the Cruze. This was with the seat adjusted so I was sitting behind myself. I am 6'-0" with a long torso so I did not have the front seat all the way back.

The trunk is supposed to be a class leader. It is well shaped, but seems kind of shallow - smaller than my Accord's trunk.

The car looks nice on the outside. The only part I am not crazy about is the front end/grill. That is not a deal breaker as I feel the same way about my Accord.

If this car really delivers on the 40 mpg and the new Civic does not, then I will be very interested especially if I can get a loaded Eco with leather and lumbar. At least GM and other American car companies are far more likely to allow custom orders than the foreign makers, so this may be available.

One other wild card could be the new Elantra - we will see how that looks.

overbrook

I totally disagree with your sentiments about the interior. It is hands down one of the best in class. I would love to know what Toyota's you are comparing it to because I have driven Corolla and Matrix and their interiors arent on the same level as Cruze. It's not even close. Only the 3 and Civic are comparable. The Civic's interior is more solid and upscale than the Corollas, but the Cruze has far more nice touches like the chrome accents on the knobs and vent sliders and the faux metallic trim at the base of the center stack. In terms of ambience the Cruze beats the Civic and I am not a fan of the futuristic civic dash design in the first place.

Cruze has a larger trunk than the Accord- 15.4 vs 14 cu ft.

The upholstery on the dash isnt on every model, I sat in an LTZ with the biege leather and you get vinyl trim on the dash that matches the leather color.

dudleyr

Faux metallic and chrome accents are what makes it look cheap. Also too many different colored lights. Not horrible mind you, but it sure could be cleaner.

Even Accord has taken a step back lately. The gen 8 dash is not nearly as nice as the gen 7.

stickguy

Just out of curiousity, I compared the Cruze dimensions to some cars I used to have. And it confirmed, to me, that this is really a "mid sizer", at least by my standards!

One of my favorite cars that I owned was a 1991 Mazda 626. At the time, a mid size car, sompeting with camry, accord, etc. And plenty roomy, big trunk, and suitable for family duty.

It was also 3" shorter than a Cruze (179 vs. 182) And of course wasy lighter at 2600 #s. And somehow, it performed just fine with a scarey low HP total of 110. Cruze also has almost exactly the same trunk and gas tank volume.

a 1991 Accord was only about 184" long, so just slightly bigger.

Now that Accords are all bloated up (wide bodies, up over 190"s), they should be (and in some cases by EPA volume standards are) considered full size! And stuff like a Cruze and Jetta (almost exactly the same dimensions) as a mid size family car.

And if my perspective on full vs. mid size seem off for an American, back in the late 60s/early 70s my family (with 3 kids) car (and our only car) was a 1969 Volvo, not an LTD!

dodgeman07

...and it was not with the RS Package. I heard the RS Package will not be on dealer lots until December but my local dealer had installed fog lamps on a 2LT model they have in stock and they really dress up the front fascia. They're a very nice attractive "factory-type" fit replacing the black plastic panels below the head lamps.

I can do without the rocker panels and deck lid "lip" spoiler; just adding the fog lamps makes this car look even sharper. And Hallelujah! The full Cruze catalog is now available for .pdf download!

Cruze Catalog!

overbrook

Faux metallic and chrome accents are foung on higher end cars so it makes no sense to say they make the Cruze look cheap. Plain interiors (such as Corolla) look cheap. Small pieces of bright trim are one thing that separate luxury interiors from bland, economy car interiors.

The Cruze has a light blue LED backlighting inside. What colors are you talking about exactly?

b_body_1

GM is on the right track
onstar, gm and google/android are working together and that alone will be an insane improvement over the whole auto industry.

stickguy

read the latest issue of autoweek last night. They had a picture of the (non-US so far) Cruz 5 door. Bring it here please! Nice looking, and will open up a whole nother bunch of potential sales.

carfreak09

Amazingly, last week I saw 2 Cruzes driving down the same road a few hours apart. One looked to be a white 1LT (rental perhaps?) and the other was a beautiful cranberry red 2LT or LTZ. It had either 17" or 18" alloys. I must say, the Cruze looks very sharp and elegant in red. GM is improving their style in leaps and bounds.

overbrook

over 5000 sold in first full month and 18k produced so far.

dudleyr

Any reports on real world mpg yet? I read the USA Today review and they only got about 22 mpg in suburban driving. This is a little troublesome. I realize it is not an accurate test, but even my much larger Accord rarely gets less than 30 mpg on a tank. I would have expected at least 32 mpg for casual suburban driving.

Sandman6472

Getting this consistently with my Civic on a day to day basis of in town driving. Hoping the Cruze will at least get somewhere near 28 mpg's...looks like a promising vehicle too! Can't wait to do a back to back test with it, the new Elantra, new Civic & new Corolla. Seem to be comfortable in this size of car. Also need to try the Accent with the Fiesta. Sat in the Mazda2 and have decided against a hatchback. Will be interested to see how the wife likes all these rides also.

Best part is that all but 3 of these choices are within 4 miles of our front door...close is really a great asset for us!

The Sandman :sick: :shades:

dodgeman07

Any reports on real world mpg yet? I read the USA Today review and they only got about 22 mpg in suburban driving. This is a little troublesome. I realize it is not an accurate test, but even my much larger Accord rarely gets less than 30 mpg on a tank. I would have expected at least 32 mpg for casual suburban driving.

One driver who bought an LTZ reported 27mpg city and 38mpg hwy in a review posted on edmunds.com. With my driving style, that is what I would expect. I easily beat the "new" EPA numbers which are 24mpg city and 36mpg hwy for the Cruze with the 1.4T engine.

You're right, "casual suburban driving" should yield around 32mpg for many drivers like myself. James Healey at USAToday usually bashes American made products. His Cruze review yesterday was no exception.

overbrook

Exactly, you cant take anything Healey says seriously. He has the least detailed, most biased reviews I've seen in any major publication.He trashed the Regal as well and totally contradicted what other reviewers said about the car.

dodgeman07

Official EPA numbers for the Cruze ECO were released today and they are better than expected!

28mpg City and 42mpg Highway!

overbrook

very impressive. A long time ago I heard that they were going to offer Jetta TDI type economy from a gas engine- they werent lying. Jetta is 30/42 but costs $4k more and uses expensive diesel.

crkyolfrt

the difference is, the TDI WILL deliver those figures over the course of varied driving and 4 seasons. I am certain that Cruze will NOT average out those numbers like the TDI will. If you drive both with a heavy foot, the diesel will shine even moreso.

Comparing those two makes as much sense as a TDI to a hybrid. One will deliver real-world figures by your average person on the street and the other only in a special controlled dyno environment.

But if someone drives very little each year and only keeps a car 10 years or less, then a better case can be made for the gas job.

dodgeman07

Why don't you think the Cruze ECO will achieve those numbers (or possibly better)? The new EPA test cycles are much more rigorous and most people easily beat the EPA numbers these days.

With my driving style, I expect close to 28 city and 42 hwy with a regular Cruze LT and 6-sp auto. I'm certain those numbers are attainable by average drivers.

That said, I love the idea of more diesels being offered in the U.S. and hopefully somebody besides VW will offer them to American consumers.

carfreak09

I don't know about leveling the competition. Hyundai just released numbers for the 2012 Elantra. All models will be rated 29/40 (at least all with the 6 speed auto). This was achieved with a 1.8 non turbo engine rated at 148 hp and 131 lb ft of torque. Hyundai made the smart decision to bestow class leading mileage on all their models instead of forcing you to buy a special model. I think Cruze's thunder just got stolen.....

b_body_1

well that's 1 year after the cruise comes out LOL...
Also so many forget, when you buy a import the profits go overseas
send that $ out of the us

lexan1965

I've had my cruze LT2 now for a week, third tank of fuel...I drive a lot! I'm averaging 31 mpg with 30% city and 70% highway driving. This car is just great! I love everything about it.

carfreak09

Umm...Actually, the 2012 Elantra is being released at the LA auto show very soon and will hit dealers shortly thereafter, probably by January. When will ECO models hit the showroom? So, it's not a year later, its at the same time.....

dodgeman07

I hadn't seen those numbers yet but would not be surprised if they're that good. Hyundai and Kia strip a lot of weight out of their vehicles and if you don't mind road and wind noise, that's fine.

Personally I don't like the "tin can" feel that lightness imparts. I don't want the roar of the wind and road in my ears when I drive. Some people don't care and Hyundai/Kia is perfect them. Vehicles that look good but drive like econo-boxes are not for me though.

m6user

It's not the 2012 Elantra, it's the 2011 Elantra and it will be in showrooms before the end of the year. This is directly from the USA Hyundai Pres. press conference. Go to Hyundai-blog.com for more info.

m6user

I don't think the windnoise etc. on the Hyundai/Kia cars is that bad but you're right about them being less solid feeling. Luxury cars and other cars of substance are often denigrated by car mags for their weight but that same weight means lots of heavy soundproofing materials, thicker glass etc which in turn results in a lot nicer touring experience.

dodgeman07

That still blows me away; there has been no 2011 Elantra available this year and it will be December before the "new" 2011 Elantra is released. I'm digressing on that point though. The 2700lb 2011 Elantra offers the weight of a sub-compact and that helps it's mileage - a lot.

Don't expect a 2700lb car to ride and feel like a premium mid-size sedan. You'll need to be in Cruze to get that in this class.

carfreak09

Umm...I don't hear any roar of wind or road noise in my '10 Hyundai Accent. In fact, it's quieter than my previous Acura Integra and is one of the quietest small cars around. Hyundai goes to great lengths to quiet their cars so they aren't pulling weight from this area (hell, they even stuffed styrofoam blocks of sound deadening material into the front quarter panels, something I've never seen before). You are making obvious assumptions about weight. No curb weight info has been released on the '11 Elantra, so you just decided to come up with a number as fact?

Frankly, 3100 pounds for a compact is ridiculous and too heavy. I had no idea the Cruze was that porky and am disappointed. Can you imagine how much better the mileage would be if it weighed a more reasonable 2800? Not to mention performance and handling. A car does not need to weigh this much to feel solid.

overbrook

I think its funny that so many people are making a big deal out of the ECO model. If you want the mileage the ECO model is available. So what that its a special model? Hyundai's mileage sounds impressive but once again we are left wondering how they are whipping the competition in mileage without any tricks. No direct injection, no DCT, no special weight saving features and yet the car gets 28/40. SOunds great, just like Sonata but in real world testing the Sonata has proved to be no more efficient than competing cars with lower ratings. C&D compared Sonata to Accord and Legacy and I believe the Sonata tied the Accord in mileage in spite of being rated 2-4mpg higher than the Honda.

overbrook

If you dont like the Cruze, dont buy it. The Jetta is over 3000lbs and the Focus likely will be as well. The cruze ECO weighs about 2800lbs so you can stop complaining about weight. Cruze is almost as large as the Kizashi and thus it weighs over 3000lbs. Lighter cars like Corolla and Civic have less equipment, less size and less rigidity. Expect the Cruze to get top notch safety ratings- thats one reason for the weight.

overbrook

numerous reviews have noted Sonata's noise isolation is OK, not stellar. I would expect the same of the Elantra. The extra weight has to be shaved from SOMEWHERE. There are no magic bullets.