Chevrolet Cruze

m6user

There are ways of shaving weight without reducing soundproofing material. The use of higher strength steel and aluminum block engines vs. cast iron are ways to save pds but like you said, they aren't magic bullets either but they are good engineering.

I totally disagree with your mention of the Sonata real world mpg though. Using one review from C&D as your basis is shallow research. If you read many reviews by both owners and professional reviewers you will find that the vast majority have been getting the stated EPA ratings or better.

carfreak09

I was more responding to the fact that the regular Cruze models have class average gas mileage. Special ECO models in the past have been very limited in the options department, meaning it won't appeal to a broad range of people. Maybe this one will be better, but the dealer may not stock many of them either. Chevy should take Hyundai's approach and give all their models stellar mileage. I'm not totally sure yet but the Elantra's 1.8 is all new and more then likely has direct injection, thus explaining the much improved numbers. Although going from a 4 speed to a 6 speed also explains the big increase.

I like the Cruze as far as looks go. And it's innovative for GM. It is on the expensive side though and it's heftier then it needs to be.

dodgeman07

Hyundai released the 2700lb curb weight for the Elantra on Friday, Nov. 12th. I like my cars to have a premium "feel" and already know a 2700lb Elantra won't have that, no reasonably priced Hyundai has it. Heck the little Honda Civic weighs 2800lbs and is like a tin can.

I would have preferred the Cruze to come in at 2900lbs AND offer premium levels of refinement but that didn't happen, so 3100lbs it is for a quiet, smooth, comfortable "premium" ride.

carfreak09

I guess coming from owning a very large sedan like the Buick Lucerne, you expect a certain "heft" so to speak. Your perspective is very different. The heaviest car I ever owned was a 2003 Mitsubishi Diamante, which was light for a luxury car. All my other cars have ranged from 2100-3000 pounds, so I'm used to a different weight class. From my perspective, this weight class does not feel like a tin can, especially when the doors close with a nice solid thunk. I still don't understand how you can surmise that the new Elantra won't have a premium "feel" just because it's lighter. You are making up your mind sight unseen and that doesn't make sense.

overbrook

I've seen numerous reviews/comparisons of the Sonata- its hasnt surpassed its competition in real world mileage in those tests. IL did a test as well and the Sonata's mileage didnt stand out.

If you have a comparo test in which the Sonata actually distanced itself from the competiton in efficiency let me know.

I am baffled as to why so many Sonata fans are obsessed with putting down other cars. The Sonata is a nice car, its not a world beater. At the end of the day its most distinctive trait is the styling- which I am not totally impressed by. The value is nice, but lets be honest- with incentives you can get competing cars for the same money. I like the Sonata's powertrain better than the Cruze's but aside from that I'm not convinced the Sonata is a much better car as so many contend. Did you see the test data on the Cruze? It outcorners, out brakes and out slaloms the Sonata.

overbrook

GM expects the ECO model to be volume model. ECO is available with Auto, bluetooth, power seat, parking sensors, USB port and a few other options. Its not available with sunroof. The ECO isnt designed to be some ultra low volume model that no one buys. The Cobalt XFE was like that- it was a base car with no automatic and no options.

I would like to know how the Elantra is getting such great mileage. Hopefully the press event will give some details because beating the competiton by 5mpg without direct injection or special ECO tweaks seems too good to be true.

overbrook

MT tested Cruze for COTY and got 8.6 to 60, 122ft braking, .82g skidpad and a faster figure 8 time than the sporty CR-Z. Those are pretty good numbers for a compact.

m6user

I don't own a Sonata and it really isn't on my short list but I don't know what reviews you've read but reports on real world mileage are as good or better than EPA. In fact, I'm sure you're well aware that most people can meet or beat the new (post 2008) EPA numbers if they drive even somewhat conservatively with just about any car manufactured since 2008 . I'm not questioning the overall quality of the Cruze versus Sonata and, in fact, believe that it does have a more quality feel and a tighter, more buttoned down drive. I was just talking about your comment that Sonata doesn't meet their EPA numbers while others do and that is just crazy.

I've have noticed Sonata owners that seem to have a chip on their shoulder and have to declare to the world that they made a great choice in automobile. I think this is somewhat common and expected when a brand has been beaten down by poor product and has made a turnaround but is still chastised for product that was offered 15 years ago.

GM is in that same catergory and I see the same sort of putting down other cars by some rabid fans of theirs. Very defensive and a refusal to look at things objectively.

You can go to fueleconomy.gov and see real world reports by owners. If you look at recent year Sonatas they are surpassing the EPA combined numbers as well as other models of Hyundai. If you look at the Chev models they don't seem to do as well. While the number of reports are admittedly not huge, the number of reports from owners from both manufacturers are similar. You can also go to the individual forums on Edmunds here and look at the "real world mpg" threads or the owners reviews and see pretty much the same thing.

dave8697

I'm getting just above what I expected
Set aside my 3.8 SC 3650 lb Buick that got 27.5 overall average on regular and over 30 on trips fully loaded and started driving a new Chevy Malibu 4 cyl 6AT. My expectations were that the 23/26/34 chev would get me 27 overall considering it was 3450 lbs empty and that my commute was half city and half heavily congested interstate under construction with reduced lanes. I'm getting 29 overall. Based on the DIC, I expect to get 32-34 on 800 mile trips similar to the one that got me 30.5 in the Riv. The local driving is above expectations in mileage for the Chev. I take it pretty easy and could also probably beat EPA numbers in a Hundai. My Malibu will score the same as any 4 cyl 6AT Malibu. I don't see adding leather seats as reducing mileage. The LTZ model is rated the same mpgs as my LT1. While one model is advertised as getting top mileage, they all do about the same. Driving style and city% mean more than weight of options. Even the V6 may get a little less in city but probably gets near 32 on a trip. Of course, I could go do some heavy canyon thrashing with it and get 19 mpg from it. I could also do that with a Honda or Hundai. I would expect a Cruze to get 2 mpg more than my 29 in mixed driving and who ever gets hwy mileage except on a trip. All this 40 mpg talk is just that.

m6user

All this 40 mpg talk is just that.

I don't know what you're talking about when you say that. I have no doubts that the Cruze will result in 40mpg+ when taken on a straight road trip. I have three cars/trucks and each one gets 2-4 mpg better hwy than the EPA says it should do. I usually set the speedo on 5 over the limit unless I'm in a state where the xpressway limit is 70 or 75 and then I usually set it at the speed limit. So I'm not babying it or hypermiling by any stretch of the imagination. I have a truck, SUV and a 4cyl car and the car gets the best mpg in relation to the EPA number I think mainly due to wind resistance hits the truck and SUV more at freeway speeds then the car. Hwy mpg is the easiest thing to compare because there are few differences. Set the cruise and go.

When you mention about canyon thrashing, well that is about how the auto mags drive these cars so MPG for them is always way off the mark. Their doing 0-60 runs and stuff like that. They aren't driving normally. So to hang your hat on what they get is not realistic.

I think Consumer Reports does a pretty realistic test of real world driving so I think their mpg numbers are probably pretty close to most peoples real world numbers.

dodgeman07

I understand your point. My current Buick is the largest car I've ever owned. Over the years my stable has included a Honda Civic, Mazda Protege, Audi A4, and (yikes!) a Mercury Lynx. I thought I'd try a large car this time and like many of the "benefits" that driving a full-size automobile imparts.

I'm looking to down-size next year to a C/D segment vehicle, but don't want to give up the smooth, quiet, comfortable ride. I will try out an Elantra. Except for the dash layout, the car looks good and the mileage is excellent.

dudleyr

The Cruze will absolutely get 40 mpg. My 2007 I4 MT Accord is rated at 31 mpg highway and my lifetime average (96,000 miles) is 34.8 mpg. I get 40 mpg all the time on the highway.

The Cruze will certainly do better. The new EPA numbers are a joke - hard not to beat them. Even the old numbers were cut down 28% from the actual measured mpg to account for "operator error"

I do agree about the weight though. It is 100 lbs more than my much larger Accord (106 vs 94 cubic ft of interior space).

carfreak09

Maybe you have that one special Accord that gets awesome mileage but 40 mpg is pretty hard to believe. 34, yes as Hondas tend to beat their epa numbers by a few. What speed do you drive to attain that and what are your tires inflated at? I used to hear people claiming their Integras were doing 38 mpg and I had to laugh. There was no physical way possible that the GSR model could do that, not with the engine screaming at 4000 rpms on the highway. I never got more then 31 mpg in that car on the highway, and 27-28 in the city, right in between its 25/31 rating.

The reality is, most people can match or beat the epa numbers by a few mpg. Those claiming to beat the numbers by 5 or more are either using the inaccurate mileage computer on their car or using flawed mathematics due to different gas pumps filling to a different level. Or their tires are inflated to the max listed on the sidewall and they drive a steady 60 mph.

dodgeman07

I do agree about the weight though. It is 100 lbs more than my much larger Accord (106 vs 94 cubic ft of interior space).

dudleyr where is your data coming from? 100lbs heavier than your Accord? Your Accord weighs under 3000lbs? 106 cubic feet of interior volume? The 2007 Accord was rated at 103 cubic feet of passenger volume and 117 cubic feet overall.

Comparing apples to apples shows the 2007 Accord I4 LX with auto at 3197lbs vs an 1LT Cruze at 3102lbs. The Cruze is almost 100lbs lighter. Even the 2007 LX sedan with a manual weighs 3133lbs.

Total interior volume of the Cruze vs. your 2007 Accord puts them both in the EPA mid-size class with the Accord at 117 total cu.ft. vs. 110 for the Cruze.

dudleyr

At 65 mph the Accord easily gets 40 mpg. 40 psi in my tires 0w-20 synthetic oil. I have gone over 650 miles on a tank of gas and had many tanks near 45 mpg. Just need a stick shift and some driving knowledge. BTW I also have a '90 Integra RS and while it cannot match the Accord for efficiency it does get 38 on the highway - sometimes more.

Semantics - even at the same weight the Accord is still a much larger vehicle than the Cruze. 10 inches longer and much more interior space. The point being the the Cruze is heavy for its size. Yes there are other heavy small cars - Jetta etc.

Not pushing the Accord - just comparing the Cruze to what I drive now.

Looks like they have the Eco on the web site. No leather as I feared. Also no nav, no heated seats and no premium stereo. I suppose I will have to see what the stick shift 1LT or 2LT get for mpg.

Not bashing the Cruze as most manuf's (including Honda) are loathe to offer a high mpg stick shift model with premium features. Just always hopeful when a new car comes out. Maybe the Elantra will be different - maybe not.

overbrook

First of all MOST auto reviews dont offer detailed mileage information. Some reviews tell you what they observed on the car's trip computer but most do not calculate mileage. I dont know where you are getting all of this data on the Sonata but the comparison tests I've seen in C&D, MT and IL don't show any notable mileage adtvantage in the real world. Again, if you've seen a test in which the Sonata handily beats the competition in observed mileage let me know. Owner stories cannot be directly compared since we dont know how each person drives. At least in a magazine test all the car are driven in the same manner for the same distance you so you can make a realistic comparison.

There is no logical reason for GM products to do better or worse on the EPA test vs Hyundai products. And I disagree that EPA numbers can be easily beaten. The new EPA numbers are very optimistic for city driving and mostly realistic for highway driving. My old car got 26 on the highway under ideal conditions (that was EPA rating) but hills or speeding would drop that figure. In the city 17 wasnt even close to accurate.

overbrook

if the ECo offered everything the LTZ offered it would make the LTZ pointless. Remember, the extra mileage isnt free. You lose sound deadening, get low resitance tires and tall gearing. The ECO isnt for people looking for a small luxury car, it has common options people expect in a compact and most will probably be priced under $21k or so. The LTZ has a sportier suspension, more features, larger wheels and a quieter ride in exchange for decent, but not class leading, mileage.

overbrook

First of all EPA ratings were not changed to account for driver error, they were changed to incorporate more real world conditions like AC use and rapid acceleration/deceleration and other things. The consensus is that the new ratings are MUCH more accurate. This view is shared by auto publications and most owners. My last two cars were rated at 20 in the city and I got between 14-16mpg on those cars. The old ratings werent even close to correct.

You cannot compare the weights of cars from two different generations. The Cruze is safer, quieter, has a more advanced tranny, more airbags, larger wheels and a stiffer stucture than your accord. Hondas tend to be light but hondas also tend to be criticized for road noise- no coincidence. Newer cars are stiffer than old cars and all that steel and reinforcement adds up. Then you factor in larger wheels and tires, more sound deadening and more features and weight goes up. Lots of people like to pick on the Cruze (and other GM vehicles) for increased weight but its a trend across the board. The new 5 series is about 250lbs more than the old one.

crkyolfrt

"Just need a stick shift and some driving knowledge. "

I couldn't agree more. But what I don't like is that mfgrs (probably to keep wty claims at bay for lugging) use a lower final drive output ratio in the top cog. So most autos now claim better mpg on the hwy. Many (more all the time) claim better in city also, but again your statement above covers that.

The manual drivers just need the same ratios as the autos and we could do better still.

I also agree on the wanting some luxury (give me quiet, excellent seats, leather too or not as long as the seat is great, excellent stereo, but NO sunroof) but DON'T make me buy an automatic to get those goodies. Cuz I won't, i will do without. I am really not liking the trend with all new vehicles in NA. In Europe they have all the good stuff. Std trannys and turbo diesels in anything you want.

m6user

You stated that the Sonata didn't return it's EPA numbers by referencing a C/D comparo. All I was saying is that from what articles I've read(I read the same mag articles you read probably) and owner reviews it does. That's all. You said during the C/D test the Sonata didn't meet the EPA numbers but were comparable to the Accords numbers which are lower. That's fine but it doesn't mean anything as you say.
From Consumer Reports test of the Sonata

"The new four-cylinder engine racked up impressive fuel economy of 27 mpg overall"

And from Consumer Reports highest mpg charts the Sonata GLS returned 39mpg hwy and the Accord LX-P returned 35 hwy.

Below is a quote from autoblog.com review:

"This engine makes its debut in the Sonata, and with an EPA-estimated 35 miles per gallon on the highway (22 in the city), Hyundai has topped the Ford Fusion for the title of most fuel-efficient non-hybrid mid-size sedan. That's a great line for a press release, yes, but it's also a huge selling point for consumers who demand frugality in new car purchases. These aren't fluffed-up numbers, either, as we easily managed an average of 33 mpg during our week-long test through metro Detroit."

Autoweeks Cruze tester is returning 24.2 combined mpg but the EPA says it should get 28 combined mpg. I don't put a lot of stock in these mag tests but if you're going to reference them don't cherrypick.

You say you can't trust any of the owners reports here on Edmunds of the mileage they are getting. OK, that's you're perogative. I'm sure there are some fanboy exaggerations within them. But, if everyone goes on that assumption than everthing you say is also suspect.

Oh, and just so you don't think I'm some kind of GM hater. I've had about 35 different cars over the years, about half of them were GM and I liked the vast majority of those. GM just hasn't had what I want for the past few years. My last LaSabre Ltd. was a great car but it nickled and dimed me a lot of money over 10 years of ownership. Loved the ride/drive/mpg but it just had to be in the shop too much.

carfreak09

Thanks to Hyundai's direct comparison of their new 2011 Elantra to the competition, I discovered the ECO model's superb mileage is in fact limited to only the manual tranny model. Get the automatic, and the mileage drops to 26/37. And yet Hyundai provides 29/40 on BOTH the manual and automatic on ALL models. That my friends is a home run and a class star. Look at the terrible mileage on the 1.8 Cruze automatic...22/35?? Jeez, why is the city mileage so low? Oh, and guess what, all this talk of how big and roomy the Cruze is...hmm...the new Elantra is also rated a mid size car and is slightly larger overall. Like I said before, the Cruze's thunder was quickly stolen.

Overbrook, here is your answer to how Hyundai managed to get such great mileage out of their car. They even break it down for you with a graph describing where the efficiency comes from. Quite informative and an interesting read.

http://hyundainews.com/Media_Kits/2011_Models/Elantra/Press_Release.asp

dudleyr

Much to like about that new Elantra, Unfortunately they are even worse than Chevy with available options on the stick shift models.

dodgeman07

Again the Elantra is a 2700lb car. Lightest in class and at near sub-compact weight.

Some think that's great. Hyper-milers might love it. I want a real car that drives like real car and will pay a slight weight and mileage penalty to get it.

The Cruze was designed from the start to be a premium small car inside and out. It was designed to drive and feel like a premium car. That means more to me than 2 mpg hwy.

imidazol97

The testing patterns probably don't discriminate between the variations in weight and motors properly. Despite higher weight, the penalty in mileage for a long highway trip where the car's speed wasn't being accelerated from a dead stop regularly would be slight. My Cobalt routinely hits 36-40 for those stretches.

I loved the Cobalt when I finally drove one. It was like a much larger car in feel and sound while rolling. I was judging based on other small cars in which I had ridden or had driven. I know the Cruze has to be even better for feel and for accoutrements; the salesman at the local dealership was insisting I drive one. I think he was sure it would be so impressive, I'd make him a sale right away.

lexan1965

I've had my 2LT cruze now for 2 weeks and I'm averaging 31.5 mpg on the tripometer and manually it's pretty close. I drive 30% city and 70% highway miles traveling close to 80 miles a day back and forth to work.
I'm curious to see if my mpg keep getting better. I'm not a lead foot and I do not jack rabbit off the line on green.

lexan1965

Amen brother! I agree with u 100%

backy

The Cruze looks like a huge improvement over the Cobalt. I always winced when the Hertz person told me I got a Cobalt and nothing else was available. I hope Chevy puts some Cruzes into the fleets so I can take one for an extended drive.

I have a few questions about the Cruze, as there are a few posters here who seem to know all about it:

* How easy is it to special-order one? From a comment from a Chevy salesperson in this discussion, it appears there will be few MT cars automatically shipped to dealerships (because they won't sell, per the sales rep). But if one can be special-ordered, then soon anyone can get an MT Cruze in any trim level, with a little wait.

* Anyone know for sure if the hatchback will be coming to the US? I'd really prefer that over the sedan. Its looks remind me of the Forte hatch (the looks of which I like a lot), and a little of the Impreza. I can afford to wait... probably will not need to buy another car for at least a couple of years.

* Is the LS or 1LT available with a factory moonroof? From what I've seen, they aren't. Which is too bad. That's one thing Hyundai did with the new Elantra that I don't like--moonroof available only on the top-trim Limited (at least it's standard on that trim though). I prefer a cloth interior, but I do like a moonroof.

* What's the lowest price for the 1.4L with alloys, cruise, and USB? (Also a spare tire and front license plate bracket--I can't believe Chevy makes you PAY for those!) From what I can figure from Edmunds.com, the lowest price is $19,930 for the 1LT. Right? If so... wow. There's a lot of other options out there for 20 grand... and a lot less than 20 grand. So the Cruze would have to be God's Gift to Compact Cars to get me to fork that much money over. Maybe it is... since I haven't seen any of the latest crop, except the Forte and Mazda3 and a few others at auto shows e.g. Fiesta, it's hard to say right now.

* What's it like in the back seat for two adults, i.e. six-footers with a six-foot driver? How's the seat bottom? I find many small cars compromise in rear-seat comfort in one way or another--either in back support, or thigh support, or toe clearance, or headroom. Has anyone compared the back-seat room of the Cruze with the Versa, or the Elantra Touring? Those are two cars that I think have exceptional room in back for two adults--almost limo-like with the driver's seat adjusted for me (5'10").

* How comfortable is the standard (non-power) driver's seat? Does it have a lumbar adjuster? Does the height adjuster raise the seat up w/o tipping it forward--a common problem with manual height adjusters?

* How's the insurance rates for the Cruze? I am a little concerned about the collision coverage, given the Cruze has 10 airbags and airbags are very expensive to replace. OTOH, the Cruze should ace all of the crash tests, shouldn't it?

dodgeman07

I can answer a few of these questions backy:

1. The hatchback is a maybe for the U.S. market and it will likely be next summer before we know for sure if we're getting it.
2. Only the 2LT and the LTZ have the moonroof available.
3. You're looking at a $19,800 MSRP for an 1LT w/alloys, cruise, USB, and destination charge added.
3. A 6 footer behind a 6 footer is tight in the Cruze. 5'10" and 5'10" are much more comfortable. Chevy did give up a bit of leg room going with the large trunk.
4. The standard drivers seat does not have lumbar adjustment but it a very nice, roomy and comfortable seat for drivers up to 6'5" and 275lbs. It does not have height adjustment w/o the power seat.

The Cruze offers a quiet, smooth and refined driving experience normally associated with premium mid-size sedans. You need to take a Cruze LT for a spin. It's like nothing else in its class.

backy

Thanks very much, very helpful. FWIW, I added the price of the spare tire and front license plate bracket to the price I calculated, so that would explain why I came up with a higher price than you did on the 1LT.

It looks like a couple of potential deal-breakers for me: rear seat room, and (moreso) lack of a height adjuster except with the power seat. It would depend on how the Cruze compares to others e.g. new Elantra, Elantra Touring, Forte, new Focus, in rear seat room, and also whether the driver's seat has enough thigh support. I had to strike the original Fit off my list a few years ago because of lack of an adjustable seat bottom, and the seating position being intolerable for me.

Also nearly $20k for a fairly basic car will give me a lot to think about, come decision time. It would have to be really, really "premium", since it's priced in the same (real-world price) ballpark as several very nice sedans, including the Fusion, Sonata, and Optima; and significantly more than similar-sized sedans such as the Elantra, Forte, and Sentra.

overbrook

I saw it but it still seems like a stretch without direct injection or a DCT. Most of what is mentioned in the press release exists on other cars and yet only Elantra gets 29/40.

overbrook

you arent going to get a lot of features on a midsize sedan at $20k. Besides, the Cruze is only slightly smaller than the smallest midsize cars.

overbrook

You will not find a lightweight car that feels, sounds or rides like a heavier car in the same class. I have not driven the Sonata but reviews indicate the ride quality is OK and road noise suppression is acceptable, but hardly class leading. When I checked out the car at the auto show it seemed lightweight and insubstantial. The doors and controls and trunk all felt like they were from a compact. You sit in the Sonata and it FEELS like a car designed to deliver a bargain price, not a car designed to compete with more expensive cars. I can say without a doubt that up close the Cruze interior looked and felt more expensive than the Sonata's and I would imagine this new, lightweight Elantra will be more of the same. That may not matter to many people who only want lowest price and best mileage but I'd take better ride quality, interior quality and quietness every time.

backy

What I can get for $20k in a mid-sized sedan include all the things on that $20k 1LT, plus a power driver's seat with lumbar adjustment, plus a roomy back seat, plus depending on model, niceties such as heated mirrors.

Chevy has forced this comparison to (true) mid-sized sedans by pricing the Cruze at that level. Personally, I prefer a smaller exterior, so I would tend to look more at cars like the Elantra, Elantra Touring, Forte, Sentra, and Focus before moving up to a longer car. But I have no problem going up-size, especially if there is little penalty in MPG (which is the case with the Sonata and Optima in particular).

Having lots of good options is good for buyers!

Also, I think it's premature to talk about cars feeling cheap when you haven't seen them or driven them, nor are professional test drive reports even available.

crkyolfrt

A lot has been said about the quietness of the new Cruze. Great, but since economy is on people's minds also, I think Chev should have tried for quietest car in class across the board. In the ECO it has a disclaimer that it is not as quiet, and also on one or two of the other trim levels, you do not get the thicker/quieter windshield, which they also say in a few places of their specs, contributes a lot to interior sound level deadening.

I also think that db meters should be used to compare sound levels among the cars more often. Just like describing seat comfort, or stereo quality, it is too variable among the varied buyers shapes, sizes and likes/expectations. They can be bought. Radio Shack? Amazon? I am thinking of buying a db sound meter for my car shopping. We could report noise levels at say 60 mph on a non-windy day, heater fan on floor, on lo, stereo off, on varying pavement types since some are as noisy as a dirt road etc.

Weight, so what if it is a few hundred pounds more? Engineering (the kind that provides crisp handling but not at the expense of a compliant ride), quietness, structural integrity (and all those air bags...not that the bags themselves weigh much, but where they are attached to, has to have the strength to hold the impact) and even the thicker/quieter windshield, all contribute to weight. Now, the 1.4 litre block will be lighter, but the turbo and associated plumbing, including an intercooler probably, add weight back in. Even seat cushioning that has good support and the ability to endure the test of time and Big Macs, all contribute to weight gains. (there's a pun in there too isn't there? lol)

One thing I think buyers should consider though, altho I doubt is any kind of deal breaker, but turbo'd engines, especially gas jobs, create a lot of heat. So better oils and filters must be used, and the frequency of the oil changes I'll bet is noticeably sooner than their 1.8 engine. This cost all adds up. And finally, even if you are ok with those costs, historically, turbos tend to cost you money years and miles down the road. More so on gas jobs, than diesels, but again because of the heat and shut down practices. Hopefully GM has engineered a gravity feed oil reserve that will lube the turbo's bearings after the engine has been shut down.

For owners wondering what this all means, here is a scenario that should be avoided in order to expect good longevity out of your turbo. Don't skip the oil change intervals. I'd even up them. And if you live at the top of a long steep hill, or if your habit is to race up your (even level) street, which spools the turbo, then you pull into your drive and shut the car down without idling the turbo down for about 60 seconds, and IF GM hasn't provided for after engine shutdown turbo bearing lubing, you WILL suffer longevity issues with the turbo. Other areas too, because what little oil remains on the bearings, literally gets spun and then burnt, off, and the residues get circulated thru the rest of the sump capacity on next startup. This just degrades your oil faster. So that is why I suggest regular oil changes and knowledgeable turbo habits. If turbo'd car hasn't been provided with a lubing system after shut down, a pizza-delivery business (for example) should not choose a turbo.

I am very intrigued with the Cruze and am more excited to test drive it against the Sonata than usual. My beefs tho, are wanting some luxury items, but NOT wanting a sunroof, and if GM handles issues on the car as poorly as they have on...say...their new Equinox. That would be scary. Hopefully even the next to base seats are super comfy etc.

Oh ya, trunk vs hatchback. After years of having owned both, there are no doubt times the hatch is handy, but often those times can be handled by a small utility trlr (has anyone seen a hitch option on the Cruze yet?) or a wife or neighbour with small truck or SUV for those times you want to bring that bar fridge or TV etc home. The rest of time, I find that with a hatch, in the summer all your A/C goes whoosh out of the car, as does your heat in the winter. And the mosquitos go whoosh into the car when you are loading it. Cars with trunks don't have any of those issues, so there really is a place still in our world for trunks.

And another bonus of trunks, usually the stereo sounds better [thumb up]

m6user

It's obvious you haven't did any kind of solid comparison because what you keep saying about all the features that you get on a Cruze that aren't on a typical entry-level midsizer are just false.

I did a comparison on Edmunds "comparator" and found two things that the Cruze has that Sonata, Accord, Camry didn't have on their base models....a passenger seat height adjustor and ONSTAR.

Following are things that some or all of the three midsizer I mentioned above have standard that the Cruze 1LT does not have.

1. 6sp shiftable auto
2. Driver seat lumbar support
3. 4 one touch up/down windows
4. heated driver and passenger mirrors
5. cruise control
6. audio control on steering wheel
7. rear door pockets
8. overhead console
9. illuminated vanity mirrors
10. braking assist
11. spare tire

Caveat: Like I said, I am basing this on the Edmunds data. If it's wrong and you can correct anything, please do.

Also note that on no version of the Cruze can you get Homelink which is at least optional on the others.(something I particular like by the way)

So much for your "you arent going to get a lot of features on a midsize sedan at $20k" argument. I used the base models of the midsizers for comparison. You actually can buy these cars everyday of the week nearly anywhere in the country for around $19k give or take few hundred.

I'm not trying to bash the Cruze. I actually think it's a pretty nice car and I hope Chevy does well with it. After all, we're all shareholders to some degree in GM to some degree aren't we? But please, lets stay in reality in our discussions.

backy

Re decibel meters... several auto publications include those in their tests. And I think they provide useful information. However, they don't measure the quality of the sound. That is, some kinds of sounds tend to be more noticeable than others. Also, different people are sensitive to different kinds of sounds. So in sound as in other aspects of the driving experience, the only sure way to tell if a car is quiet enough for you and is acceptable in other aspects is to drive it... and the longer, the better. I love renting cars that I am considering buying, when that's a possibility. Living with one for a few days or more is much better than a 15-minute test drive to evaluate how I like a car.

On hatches.. if your AC goes "whoosh" out of the car with a hatch, you either need a stronger AC unit, or... try closing the hatch! (wink)

dodgeman07

"...Re decibel meters... several auto publications include those in their tests. And I think they provide useful information. However, they don't measure the quality of the sound..."

Nor do they measure the frequency of the sound. Low frequency sounds are much more disturbing than high frequency at the same decibel level. Test conditions are critical too. Drive with 30mph tailwind and most cars "seem" quiet.

There is no other car in it's class with close to the sound deadening features found in the Cruze. Note that Fleet and ECO models do NOT include all these sound deadening items.

backy

That's what I was alluding to... frequency.

So you can get best-in-class fuel economy on the Cruze, or quiet... but not both.

Will be interesting to compare the fleet-version Cruze (when I rent one) with cars like the Elantra, Forte, and Focus, which to my knowledge don't remove sound deadening features from fleet cars. If the Cruze is substantially quieter than my 2010 Sentra, it will be quiet indeed. The Sentra is a quiet highway cruiser with its low-revving CVT.

dodgeman07

So you can get best-in-class fuel economy on the Cruze, or quiet... but not both.

Yes, that would be a good way to describe it. The new Elantra came in at 2700lbs vs 3100 for a Cruze. That's a huge difference to me and sound deadening materials are a big part of the difference. Without expensive, exotic high strength construction, there is a weight penalty. In this class, you don't get both.

Am I the only one who thinks the new Elantra is a dead ringer for the Honda Insight from the b-pillar forward? Both the Insight and the Elantra weigh 2700lbs too.

backy

Without expensive, exotic high strength construction, there is a weight penalty. In this class, you don't get both.

Based on the weight difference, it would seem the Cruze uses less of that high-strength steel than the new Elantra. From the Elantra press release:

The Elantra’s widespread use of high-strength steel provides a 37 percent increase in body stiffness at a lower body weight.

Here's a question for you, or others who know the Cruze: why does such a small car with a small I4 weigh so much? Even the stripped-down ECO, without all the sound-deadening and with a manual transmission and other weight-saving measures, weighs over 3000 pounds. That's a lot for a compact.

Except for a similar shape to the under-grille scoop, and a streamlined, low-Cd profile, I don't see any resemblance between the Elantra and Insight. Headlamps, grille, fenders, fog lamps, hood, wheels, and side creases are all different. Both have an "H" badge, however. (wink) Another difference is the Elantra doesn't have a battery pack. I wonder how much that weighs...

m6user

Am I the only one who thinks the new Elantra is a dead ringer for the Honda Insight from the b-pillar forward?

You very well may be the only one. There are some similarities but a "dead ringer"? Not.

I read the Elantra uses an aluminum block. Without getting into the pros and cons of that, would some substantial weight be saved there as well as the high strength steel? Also, are you comparing like versions against each other when you mention 2700 vs 3100 and are those numbers correct? Auto vs auto, etc?

The Cruze may just be a little larger than the Elantra too, as it is a large compact, which would also account for a little weight. It's only a couple inches smaller overall than the Kizashi I think.

dodgeman07

Actually the Cruze 1LT (6-sp auto/1.4T) is listed in the link below at over 3200lbs. The ECO is over 200lbs less. They are heavy for a compact but really the cars have 110 cu.ft. of interior volume making them borderline mid-size.

The LT is like a vault; solid as a rock and whisper quiet at Interstate speeds. It's been reported that 200lbs of sound deadening "measures" add to the weight. Several other cars in the compact class top 3000lbs also. The Nissan Sentra SE-R and Dodge Caliber SXT are over 3000lbs, the 2010 VW Jetta is almost 3300lbs with an auto.

GM Link

Yes, the Cruze is a bit heavy but the weight has been put to good use. There is no free lunch however. If you want an Econobox there are plenty of Hyundai, Honda and Toyota dealers ready to sell you an Elantra, Civic or Corolla. The Cruze if a different type of automobile.

backy

Different in, as heavy as a Jetta? Different as in, quiet inside (Sentra is whisper-quiet at interstate speeds also)? Different as in, compact dimensions outside and jiggle-the-bar-as-you-cross-over mid-sized inside (like Elantra and Forte and Prius and Sentra and Versa)? Different as in, you must choose between top-notch fuel economy and the quiet? Different as in, only folks willing to stir a stick (small minority of the population) get the top-notch fuel economy?

Help me understand how the Cruze is a different kind of automobile.

m6user

"The LT is like a vault; solid as a rock and whisper quiet at Interstate speeds"

Careful now, you're starting to sound like a Chevy commercial.

dodgeman07

The Cruze is different as in how it rides, handles and feels. I've driven plenty of 2700-2800lb Civics and Corollas. They are like a tin can on wheels. I want a real car. Compact car buyers in the U.S. used to have to "settle" for an Econobox if they wanted a reasonably priced compact. Now they can buy a Cruze.

fushigi

The new Elantra came in at 2700lbs vs 3100 for a Cruze. That's a huge difference to me and sound deadening materials are a big part of the difference. Without expensive, exotic high strength construction, there is a weight penalty.

At the auto show reveal, Hyundai made specific mention of having metallurgists work on lightweight-but-strong steel for them.

Read the POWER-TO-WEIGHT RATIO COMPARISON paragraph in the press release ( http://hyundainews.com/Media_Kits/2011_Models/Elantra/Press_Release.asp ) for a mention of the high-strength steel.

overbrook

you forgot about the 10 airbags and the 36mpg. The Cruze LT does have a 6 speed auto BTW. And frankly the fact that the Camry has nearly as much equipment is irrelevant to me because I think the Chevy looks better inside and out while being only slightly smaller. Its always tricky when you start comparing MSRPs to out the door prices. I agree you can get a camry for cheap now but thats to be expected from a 3 year old car. The cruze is brand new. In terms of MSRP you are not getting a well equipped midsize car for $20k. In fact, the base Accord is almost $22k.

overbrook

every car has high strength steel. You cant cheat the laws of physics. Weight is dropped somewhere and you can bet sound deadening is one of those areas. The Cruze doesnt lack high stregth steel, it just has lots of rigidity (which ads weight) and additional sound deadening measures. The American cruze was stuffed with more suppression measures than the Cruze's sold elsewhere.

overbrook

you are wrong about the ECO's weight. Where did you get your numbers? Its 214lbs lighter than base comparable LT which means its under 2900lbs- very close to weight of Elantra Limited in fact.

Cruze is longer and likely wider than Elantra with longer wheelbase, it has more airbags, more sound deadening material and in LTZ trim larger wheels/tires. In addition it has an iron block which likely adds at least 50lbs vs the Elantra's aluminum block. Here is the thing, no one will know which car is heavier from behind the wheel in terms of handling. The LTZ's handling is pretty impressive -66.5mph through the slalom which is Mazda3 territory. The Sonata doesnt feel substantial at 3300lbs so I doubt the Elantra will feel substantial.

BTW, no official curb weight is listed for Cruze LS but I suspect its about 3000lbs.

overbrook

If you dont like the car, dont buy it. Its that simple. If you think all the lighter, louder, worse riding compacts are better than you should get one of them. Numerous reviews have stated the Cruze had top notch noise suppression and ride quality.

While its true that the ECO has a stick to get the top mileage the ECO auto tops mileage of Civic and Corolla- which you conveniently left out. Even the standard car with auto is about dead even with those two cars.

I'd be willing to bet sound readings will show Cruze is quieter than the competition across the board.

He is saying its different in that it supposed to deliver no compromise in ride or noise levels vs a midsize car- that means it weighs more than the average car. No one has ever really accussed the Civic of being luxury car quiet. Corolla is pretty quiet but thats not really due to any noise cancelling features, just a quiet engine and small tires.