Howdy, Stranger!

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

Howdy, Stranger!

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

How has COVID-19 impacted your car shopping? Click here to help us help drivers like you with a 5-min questionnaire.
Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Chevrolet Cruze



  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,941
    edited November 2010
    I didn't notice anything that screamed "bad sight lines!", but then, I was sitting motionless in a Chevy dealership and was focused on evaluating driving position, controls, interior quality etc. vs. driving experience. It will be easier to evaluate sightlines when I actually drive a Cruze. One thing I noticed, and mentioned, was I wanted to sit higher in the car. There seemed to be plenty of glass up front, but I was rather low in relation to the windows, with lots of room above my head. Not sure why the driver's seat doesn't have more vertical travel, but the range wasn't that great compared to many other cars.

    Notice the glass in the back doors isn't very tall--the price we pay for sedans shaped for optimal fuel economy, I guess.

    Re the A pillar size, nothing caught my eye, but maybe it would if I took the car on the road. My current daily driver, a 2010 Sentra, has HUGE A pillars--so big that I almost hit a guy in a parking lot the other night, as I was moving slowly and he was walking towards my car at a speed as to stay perfectly aligned with the A pillar blind spot, so I didn't see him until the last second and slammed on the brakes (I guess he figured he could win a battle with a moving car). A good lesson for pedestrians, there: don't assume the driver can see you (also, don't assume that they'll stop if they CAN see you!).
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,181
    Thanks. I think the Malibu I rented probabably had a larger than I am used to A pillar as if felt like I had to swing my torso a lot to see during parking maneuvers. That and narrow side windows just made it a pain. Maybe something one can get used to but if given a choice I would choose something a little more fashioned and a taller greenhouse.

    I like to sit up high in a car as well because I'm about the same height as you and usually have plenty of headroom. It's nice to be able to use all available glass for visibility with all the yahoos on the road.
  • Steve EliasSteve Elias Posts: 2,207
    It would be great if a cruze-wagon were available by the time I'm seriously shopping. That would be my top choice, a cruze wagon with manual transmission.

    But why so much disrespect for the 1.8L/non-turbo model?
    I tend to prefer the extremes of mpg & performance as well as bang/buck & TCO.
    So it's the 1.8L model with 6-speed manual transmission that interests me the most ... Looks like that will be $2k or $3K less than the "ECO", and will achieve nearly the same mpg, without any compromises in road-noise.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,181
    edited November 2010
    I don't know if it's so much disrespect as it is a lack of interest. The turbo from what I've seen is a little slow 0-60 in this heavy compact car. I haven't seen a test on the 1.8L but it would probably be even slower. IMO that's why there hasn't been a lot of press or intererest. Plus a little bitty turbo just sounds cooler.
  • Sandman6472Sandman6472 Coral Springs, FLPosts: 5,322
    Had a Malibu rental last year and the sight out was plain awful...had to turn my neck & back too much & with my worsening spinal issues, I had to turn it in after 100 miles on the road. Enterprise was real cool about it & swapped us into an Accord EX...problem solved! Hopefully the Cruze's windows will be taller than the Malibu's or it could be a problem for some folks.

    As usual, thanks for the great review and I can't wait to hear both reviews once you get some street time in. Do me a favor though, also drive the new Accent and give me your feelings about it. The 3 cars I need my wife to test are the Accent, the Cruze & the's coming down to these models. Funny side note, everyone's in the car to go for Thanksgiving dinner & the Mazda won't start...thinking it's the battery. Yesterday went to where I bought it, and they prorated a new battery for us. It's an Interstate model so the new one cost 1/4 of a new one. But reminded the wife to start test driving her choices soon, as something worse could happen at any time!

    Thanks for all your help Backy.

    The Sandman :sick: :shades:

    2015 Audi A3 (wife) / 2015 Golf TSI (me) / 2019 Chevrolet Cruze Premier RS (daughter #1) / 2020 Hyundai Accent SE (daughter #2)

  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,469
    edited November 2010
    Manual transmission wagon would be my first choice as well. I don't really want it barebones though. Comfortable leather seats with lumber and good adjustments would be nice.

    Cruze has good headroom in back, but I totally agree with the foot space - hardly any. It really makes the back feel cramped.

    Sat in a Subaru Forrester the other day - the back seat was like a limo. If they brought over a diesel version of that that got good gas mileage I would give it a look.

    Also drove a stick shift Fiesta a few days ago. Wow what a fun car to drive. Reminds me of my Scirocco - like a go cart. Unfortunately the back seat is like the Scirocco - tiny. Plenty of room up front and nice leather seats.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,941
    edited November 2010
    I'll definitely check out the new Accent when it arrives next year. I probably would have one in the family fleet now were it not for its sub-par crash scores, and relatively low fuel economy for its size. I expect both of those will be addressed in the redesign... I'm betting well over 40 mpg highway for that little car.

    One thing I neglected to mention in my review of the Cruze... cruise is optional on the Cruze 1LT (seems kind of odd, given the car's name). That's an important feature for me. So in fact, I would not be able to go with the $19k base 1LT, the one I'd get would be more like $19.5k, with the spare tire also (there's some blowouts a can of sealant simply will not fix). Plus if I want red (my favorite color for the Cruze), that's over $300 more, so pretty close to $20k... not much less than an Elantra Limited. Yep, discounts/rebates are definitely in the Cruze's future, I think.
  • Sandman6472Sandman6472 Coral Springs, FLPosts: 5,322
    I expect that on any car we buy...our Mazda3s is pretty loaded & we've come to expect that level of creature comforts on anything we buy. Also, things like a remote for the trunk, alloys & a spare or doughnut are must haves at this point. Will be interesting to see which of the 3 will have what we want & at a price point we find acceptable on spending. And even though we haven't had American brand since 1985, that will not sway us either/or...we want the best car, for us, at certain price points.

    Actually like the power lock/unlock on the center console & if the leather was of a good quality/grade, we'd like that also. We didn't care for the Mazda leather, so went with the standard cloth which has held up very nicely! So much to want in these class sizes, but I think we'll find exactly what we both want! Would like to buy sometime in early 2012, that's without anything major happening to the current 3.

    The Sandman :sick: :shades:

    2015 Audi A3 (wife) / 2015 Golf TSI (me) / 2019 Chevrolet Cruze Premier RS (daughter #1) / 2020 Hyundai Accent SE (daughter #2)

  • I don't know if the Cuze has an automatic trunk release. I saw a 1LT when they first arrived and the truck is opened with a latch there is no external lock. The sales guy said if the doors are unlocked so is the trunk. The 2LTs, which I have not yet seen, seem to be well equipped. The Accent or Elantra will feel really slow after driving a Mazda 3S as they have much less torque but you would pick up MPG. The new Elantra still has lower torque.

    I did not drive a Cruze but from sitting in the showroom the over the shoulder visibility seemed similar to the 2010 Mazda 3 sedan. In my opinion the 2010 Mazda 3 had slightly worse over the shoulder visibility then the previous generation your wife has. I have driven Civic, Sentra, last gen Jetta, Prius, Corolla and Mazda 3 sedan and I thought the Mazda had the best over the shoulder visibility of that group.
  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 12,534
    GMs new design philosophy is not to have a remote trunk release or even a trunk key. As you said, if the doors are unlocked, the trunk is also unlocked (but not unlatched) and is released by an exterior touch pad that is typically located above the license plate. This is used in the new Buick Lacrosse and Regal as well.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6, 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Holiday Coupe

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    Really? I don't think that is a very good design philosophy. It is going under the assumption that you travel with the doors locked. Because driving through certain parts of certain cities, a thief will know they can just touch pad their way to grabbing a trunk full of travel bags and goodies. They can grab and run and the owner can't even give a decent description. It happened to a friend. The thieves smashed the side window at a stoplight, grabbed the purse that was sitting on the seat and they were gone like a flash.

    Some people don't like to have the doors locked when they travel. This car may have auto locking doors after 10 mph, but who knows if it can be disabled through the radio programming controls. This becomes more of an issue if, when you leave home, you have a gate to open and close and you are getting in and out of the car all the time and constantly unlocking the doors.

    I want to like this car, as I am after a QUIET, SERENE, affordable, economical, DEPENDABLE set of wheels, and GM needs to do really well with it (and all their new vehicles basically) but it sounds like it is another Korean-blooded, potentially techno-crazed compilation of new 'features' we don't necessarily want. Like push button starting...I haven't yet talked to anyone in person who actually likes push-button starting! Why anyone wants to have to go thru at least one extra step when trying to start the car when one less step has worked for a century, is beyond me. And if the keys are in the ignition, at least you know where they are instead of discovering that they slipped into the bag of the passenger you just dropped off at the airport a couple hours ago, because they grabbed yours sitting there, thinking they were their own. Don't eye roll, it's happened already!

    As for all this techno-wizardry, and with GM, the electronics are made in China, which is not known to have consistent build quality. I'll betcha that might be one of the reasons the Equinox is having so many unrepaired glitches....that and the GMgr behind the brand model.

    And just one more reason GM has a bad idea with this touch pad...who wants to 'touch' the back end of their car if they just got off a salt sprayed highway? Or worse, a liquid calcium riddled dirt road.

    They over think stuff and end up screwing it up.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,941
    I'm with you on the push-button starting. Something I can definitely live without.

    There is a remote trunk release on the Cruze's keyfob (1LT), which I was glad to see because not all small cars offer that (my Sentra 2.0S doesn't have it, for example). But I'd like to see a keyhole in the back for the trunk, as a backup in case the electronics fail. Or if no keyhole, there needs to be some way to open the trunk manually... just in case.
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    edited November 2010
    It is more than a little interesting to read of the numerous Cruze-hating comments on GM 's newest world-class car, a car which by all standards and analyst comparisons is one of the very best available on the road today, especially for the price, particularly considering its rich feature set like the high-end Pioneer audio and NAV system, automatic climate control, high-end interior and cushy and VERY QUIET ride which has been likened to that of a small Cadillac.

    It is further interesting that almost all of the bashing is being done by the Hyundaiphiles who seem to have an obsession with whether or not their cars are the equal of or in fact better than the Cruze. This phenomenon is easily explained. Although Hyundai is building better and better cars regarding which no sane car buff would argue, the fact remains the Pony and initial Hyundai flops are still not far from peoples' minds and yes, Hyundai has been in the car business for a relatively short time while GM has been continually building cars for over one hundred years! The tradition and legacy are unquestionably there despite some ups and downs. GM is now back in a big way with a whole new string of hits and the market is reflecting confidence in this fact by buying once more its stock at a goodly price.

    The sad fact of the matter is that Hyundai is still, for all its fancy Genesis and Equus offerings, a relative newcomer and for all its progress the owners of its cars have not yet been able to escape the inferiority complex that comes with Hyundai's past. Hence, the reason for all the Cruze-bashing. It is not in fact based on reality but history and psychology.

    Fact of the matter is, The Cruze, although a bit underpowered for my tastes, is presently one of the very best buys on the road, backed by that century legacy. It will literally EAT the Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla for breakfast, so ancient and inferior are their cars, yet maintaining a relative high price because of past reputation (quickly now dissipating as a consequence of a number of well-publicized quality gaffes).

    My money is on the Cruze and I would not hesitate to own or recommend one, especially the LTZ with the turbo motor. At this state in Cruze-class motordom everything else is an "also ran" including the Hyundai. For those who simply cannot accept that, perhaps it would not hurt to see a therapist.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,941
    For someone commenting on "Cruze-hating" and "Cruze-bashing", your post seemed to do a pretty good job of Hyundai-hating and Hyundai-bashing.

    Have you compared the Cruze to one of its main competitors (whether you admit it or not), the 2011 Elantra? Have you looked at both of them close-up? Have you driven both of them? I expect the answer is "no", since the Elantra is just now beginning to ship to a few dealers. So IMO, statements such as "everything else is also ran" compared to the Cruze are premature.

    Also, given GM's recent legacy on small cars offered in the USA, going back the past 40 years, I don't know that you have anything to crow about re "legacy". The legacy includes sorry excuses for cars such as the Vega, Citation (and its cousins), Cavalier (and its cousins), Cobalt and G5, and, perhaps the worst car being sold in the USA today, the Aveo. The only decent small car offered by GM in the USA in recent years was the Saturn Astra, and that came direct from Europe and was killed off quickly along with the rest of Saturn. So GM, and Chevy, have many years of negative history on small cars to turn around with the Cruze. While Chevy's competitors, including Ford, Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai, have had strong small car offerings in the US for many years. That's a big shoe for the Cruze to fill. It looks to be a very good small car. But as the folks at Hyundai know well, memories die hard, and it can take a LONG time to turn around negative opinions on cars. Maybe buyers will give GM and Chevy more of a break because we all own a piece of GM, and most Americans I think want to see GM and Chevy do well. Time will tell.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    That is good to know. One problem with a physical rear key hole (since keyless entry has become so common-place) is that in climates where they salt the roads, the locks corrode and freeze up. Even in the wty period, so rightly so, manufacturers are eliminating design quirks that cost them money.

    But I think it is great that Cruze has provided a mechanical lever inside the car to release the trunk lid. I thought there was only the one way in thru that touch pad....oh, I reread your post, so...well at least it is on the key fob also.

    I think Hyundai has even gone the electric route for releasing the gas fill door. That is a frustration somewhere down the road on a dark and rainy night for an owner of an 8 year old car, just waiting for a place to happen, if ever there was one.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    To whom are you inferring? The timing of your post, makes me wonder if it was me?
    If it was, I was not and have not Cruze-hated. I evaluate my findings fairly across the board. I acknowledge the good with the bad no matter what.

    Even if you where not thinking of me with your post, and since you want to speak of 'interesting findings', I think it is interesting that while here and your being sensitive to any car bashing, you chose to bash the Corolla and Civic and generally all Hyundai's.

    While some of your post makes sense to me, it does have quite a few optimistic, if not naive, claims.

    As for your "also ran" comment, there are some people that would consider that since the Cruze has been in use for a number of years in Europe already, that, yes, they may have done a commendable job as serious competition for what is out there presently, that really...they should be trying to be one step ahead of the competition, because as we type, Europe is already working on vehicles that will too quickly make cars like our 2011 Cruze, seem dated. I think GM (and Ford, and especially Chrysler) while are now offering up capable options to the present competition, should be setting their sights with a bit more forward thinking and try to get ahead of the game, rather than just do an admirable job of keeping up.
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    edited November 2010
    For someone commenting on "Cruze-hating" and "Cruze-bashing", your post seemed to do a pretty good job of Hyundai-hating and Hyundai-bashing.

    Nothing of the sort. Had you read my post objectively and without bias you would have realized that I had merely said Hyundai neither has a long legacy as does GM and its owners have some degree of inferiority complexes. This is not Hyundai-bashing. Hyundai will rise or fall on its own merits as automobiles.

    When both the Cruze and the Elantra are available for back-to-back comparisons I will indeed compare them.

    Insofar as the smaller cars GM has turned out over the last few decades I will be the first to admit they were nothing but crap. I would not touch them, nor would anyone else with a lick of sense. That compilation of facts notwithstanding, what we have now is a whole new ball game. The past forty years are history. GM has still been building cars for a century but now it's back in the game. The Cruze is superior by any standard. And just to be accurate, the Aveo is one of the poorest cars ever made by any manufacturer, certainly one of the most dangerous.

    But that was then and this is now. The Cruze is the exact polar opposite of the abysmal Aveo. The Cruze is one of the safest cars on the road, certainly in its size category.

    Any yes, you are quite correct. We all have a BIG stake in seeing GM do well. Hyundai, whose profits go to South Korea, not so much.
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    Easy there, buddy, my post was in no way directed to anything you said, so tone down the paranoia.

    And let's be fair and accurate. I neither bashed the Hyundai, Honda or Toyota. What I said was that the Cruze was easily their equal, Hyundai despite how good their recent automotive offerings were still had a poor legacy, and that the Cruze was better than the older, technologically dated offerings of the now-complacent Honda and Toyota, the quality of which is being proven to be reduced by all of the recent recalls and denials of problems such as the fantasy that floor mats cause multiple deaths in a car driven by a professional law enforcement officer who is trained to deal with just such emergencies and to keep a cool head at all times.

    If you believe floor mats caused that carnage, you are nothing less than naive.

    And who says Europe has a lock on progressive or superior automotive technology? They have had their share of lemons and defective cars, too. Remember the Audi unintended acceleration? Are you aware of the poor quality and reliability of today's Benzes? Know many fans of BMW's i-Drive? How about the defective air bladders in Land Rover's air suspension? Not to mention the insane prices of all of the preceding, a consequence of the need to pay the very generous European worker's pension?

    I will take American ingenuity and "can do" attitude over socialist arrogance any day.


    Would you rather fly in a Boeing-designed plane or a French Airbus? I mean, when your life really counted on it?!
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited November 2010
    AAMOF I am aware of many of the issues you raised (all but one) And realize now that in a fair number of areas, we are pretty much on the same side of the fence here.

    There are exceptions tho.. I never bought into Audi's unintented acceleration fiasco years ago. I'm no big Audi fan, but i will say, had i not already bought a car when all that happened I would have lined up for the deals to be had on mint mint 5000's after that sensationalization grew momentum.

    Step-up solenoids on A/C cycles do induce a burp in revs, but...well, I don't even recall if there ever was any conclusive explanation that I agreed with at the time. I know I would have bought a used manual tranny Audi and laughed all the way home with my savings.
    What I DO know is that every single day people plow their vehicles thru store front windows and mow pedestrians down on sidewalks, due to stepping on the gas instead of the brake. Such capabilities (or lack of rather) should be restricted to 90 HP cars and less, but that is a whole other topic.

    A cop should have KNOWN, that the brakes WOULD have ruled over engine power, had he not let up on them more than one wtf (or even lets give him two to be fair) but after that he should have got on those binders hard and with a vengeance before they heat faded. I will give him that he didn't know he had to push and hold the button to turn the car off. (One more reason I have no use for button starting carp)...again...a whole other topic.

    As for air bladder suspensions (no, that is one I didn't know about in the LRvr's) I know they have been problem prone since I saw the placement and execution of the air system compressor for the rear shocks on my mother's brand new POS (but she loved it) 88 Chrysler New Yorker.

    edit - I have still never been up in anything more than a Cessna....didn't come down in it either.. [blink!] I guess though in my ignorant world of jets, and cuz reps; as you say, are hard to shake, I'd not go with the Airbus.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,941
    edited November 2010
    Had you read my post objectively and without bias you would have realized that I had merely said Hyundai neither has a long legacy as does GM and its owners have some degree of inferiority complexes.

    I love it when the mind-readers here in Town Hall know what folks are thinking/feeling when they post something. Anyway... I do agree with the statement you made, copied above. I do think some GM owners have an inferiority complex, probably brought on by many years of having to own/drive inferior cars. So I can understand such owners looking at the Cruze as some sort of deliverance from crappy-small-car purgatory.

    The Cruze is superior by any standard.

    Absolutes like "any" are dangerous. I can think of a few objective measures right off the bat where the Cruze is not superior in its class, e.g.:

    * Fuel economy: Yes, the soon-to-arrive Eco gets a class-leading 42 mpg. But that is on a car that is offered only with a stick. A small minority of American car buyers today choose a stick over an automatic, especially when slick, fuel-saving 6-speed automatics are available in the Cruze et. al. As far as a car that offers the more popular AT, and as far as FE across the lineup, the Cruze is not the leader in its class.

    * Rear-seat room: I can speak on this with experience. The Cruze has a relatively cramped rear seat compared to competitors such as the Forte, 2010 Elantra, Sentra, and Versa. Not at all class-leading.

    * Price: Here the Cruze doesn't fare well at all against at least some competitors, e.g. Forte and Elantra, when comparing similarly-equipped cars.

    * Power: The Cruze trails several competitors here, meaning it will likely trail in acceleration, since its power/weight ratio suffers due to the Cruze's weight.

    * Braking: The Cruze has standard 4 wheel discs only in its top trim. Some competitors offer 4 wheel discs on every trim level.

    * Warranty: The Cruze trails several competitors in length of the bumper-to-bumper and/or powertrain warranties.

    These are just the objective measures off the top of my head. But I think it's enough to illustrate that the Cruze is not "superior by any standard". Superior in some areas, yes, e.g. 10 airbags, and lots of sound deadening material (except in the Eco). How those translate into crash safety, and NVH, are the important measures though. So I will look forward to seeing the IIHS and NHTSA crash tests on the Cruze, and driving it vs. its nearest competitors to see how much quieter it is.
  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 12,534
    Uh, the inferiority complex he was referring to dealt with Hyundai owners, and explains their never-ending proselytizing on just about every automotive message board about how wonderful their brand performs, and how poorly other brands compare. I suspect there might be some truth to his theory.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6, 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Holiday Coupe

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 11,972
    Besides Hyundai, what competitor does Cruze not compare favorably with in warranty? I believe GM has best powertrain warranty, only after Hyundai, and the 3/36K bumper-to-bumper warranty is pretty standard in the industry. I'd like to know the specifics.

    Also, didn't I read that Hyundai's warranty is not transferrable to subsequent owners? I'm nearly certain that GM's is.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,941
    edited November 2010
    Besides Hyundai, what competitor does Cruze not compare favorably with in warranty?

    Hyundai: 5 year/60,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty; 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty

    Kia: 5 year/60,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty; 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty

    Mitsubishi: 5 year/60,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty; 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty

    Suzuki: 7 year, 100,000 mile transferrable powertrain warranty (3/36 b-to-b)

    In addition, Toyota offers 2 years of free maintenance with new cars, which Chevy does not offer. (Chevy's powertrain warranty has 40k more miles than Toyota's, however).

    The Hyundai, Kia, Mitsubishi, and GM powertrain warranties are all transferrable up to five years. GM's is also transferrable up to 100k miles (if within the five years), while those others are transferrable for only the first 60k. (Suzuki's is transferrable for 7 years, 100k miles.) The extra 40k on the GM powertrain warranty within the first five years of ownership would be nice to have if you drive over 12,000 miles a year... which I don't. However, as noted above, the Hyundai, Kia, and Mitsubishi bumper-to-bumper warranties are two years and 24k longer than GM's.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,941
    Sorry, I assumed the writer meant what was typed and was using correct grammar.

    FWIW, I see a LOT of "proselytizing" about the GM/Chevy brands here, and how poorly other brands compare. I think there's some folks who love a particular brand and go out of their way to make sure the world knows how great it is, and how much they love it and the cars they produce. Which is OK up to a certain point, but I kinda wish they would realize not everyone loves that brand as much as they do and may disagree with them about how great the cars are.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 11,972
    I think a lot of it is, some folks are still "fighting the Civil War" and will absolutely not forgive GM for crimes of the past thirty years. If the car is good, do what I tell my kids..."admit it". I think the sound insulation is one thing I keep reading on the Cruze that is better-than-the-rest. Truth be told, even my coworker Ford buff compliments me on how little road noise there is in my '08 Cobalt LS (lowest trim level) compared to another coworker's '05 Civic and '09 Matrix, when we drive the 300 miles to work every third week. I thought so right off the bat too, but my Ford coworker volunteered his same opinion to me on the matter. I don't think you'll read that anywhere though, but I think the old "blindfold test" would indeed show it's true.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,469
    This thread should probably be renamed to the "Only nice things about the Cruze". ;)

    Every car has disadvantages - even the Cruze. I hope and expect that people will point them out to keep us readers informed. It is frustrating to see posts that indicate the Cruze (or any other car) can do no wrong.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    There's something I'd like to respond to in your post. I know you like to evaluate and compare all the machinery out there, but one thing you touted as a perk in the Cruze, really isn't, given the particular powertrain choices that GM has made. Specifically, their decision to offer a siz instead of 5 speed in the auto. This is one of those times that something is done because of ignorant, public perception. The pressure of; "well the other competitors have a six speed in their auto"....even if it is not only isn't needed, but actually makes the car a lesser package driving experience. I will qualify my statement with more seat-of-the-pants conviction after I drive it myself, but knowing what I know about the incredible torque that is available (and at very low revs) when you turbo an engine, it was likely overkill in deciding to match it to the 6 speed auto. Certainly the way they have it softwared so far. The reason I say this is because I have read from more than one source that reviews are stating that the auto tranny, with the turbo, is a 'hunter'. It's a busy tranny and because of it's constant shifting, it intrudes on the otherwise serene, quiet ambiance behind the wheel. The reason for this was somewhat predictable (unless they can dial it in better with electronics and create a better communicative algorithm between the the engine and tranny) because the turbo creates gobs of torque at super low revs compared to a naturally aspirated engine. Usually, hunting is because of a too anemic engine. In this case the tranny is sensing the slightest throttle input of the turbo spooling and the tranny is essentially saying, "oh, you want to go do ya, here...i'll drop it down a cog for ya". And is yet another reason why manual tran are just so superior to autos. Because you can put it in a gear and have a confidence that it stays there until YOU, (the driver btw) says otherwise. Instead of some computer that only thinks it knows what you want it to do.

    You made another comment about more people prefer autos. Well...yes and no. This has been for a number of reasons I won't get into and debate with you here, but suffice to say that people can't buy what isn't available. The new Elantra and Cruze is a good example. A number of posters (me included) and in numerous other brand forums) already have expressed disappointment in not being able to have a high-end content with the manual tranny. Just because GM offers a manual in the ECO, does that mean that as a manual purchaser, I don't want the same level of comfort and quiet and luxury as what is available to the ones who buy an auto? Of course not, but i am not given the choice. Some would say, well they use less insulation to keep the weight down so they can keep the FE figures, up. But come on...people need to see the bigger picture. Common sense would suggest, that in reality, GM did this so that the less expensive manual tranny, helps offset the higher cost of the alloys and low rolling-resistance tires and a few other goodies.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,941
    I hope Chevy can work out the programming on the Cruze's 6AT to take full advantage of it, as other automakers who offer 6+ speed ATs have. The 6th gear could be used, for example, as an "ultra overdrive" for low revs on the highway, and better fuel economy.

    Doesn't the 6AT in the Cruze have a manumatic feature? I thought it did, just looking at the shifter, but maybe not. That would allow the AT to hold a gear until the driver says otherwise.

    Re autos vs. sticks: people vote with their wallets. If automakers thought that lots of people in the USA prefer sticks over slushboxes, we'd see more cars with sticks. Automakers want to sell cars. So they offer what they think people will buy. There was a comment earlier in this discussion from a Chevy salesperson about how he didn't think he'd see many stick Cruzes at his dealership because they won't sell (paraphrasing). Personally I like a good manual shifter, but after having one ruined by other drivers in the family, and with seemingly more stop-and-go commuting every year, I don't have any in the current family fleet nor do I expect to get one until I can afford a car just for play.. that will be awhile!
  • I see this discussion is nothing more than a forum for Hyundai fans to extol the virtues of their fave brand and put down the Cruze.

    First of all the Hyundai 10 year warranty isnt transferrable so it does nothing for resale value. Secondly, there are numerous components of the Hyundai's cars that are NOT covered for the full five years and people chose to ignore this fact. Thirdly, GM includes free replacement car if your vehicle needs a warranty repair and Hyundai does NOT.

    Toyota's 2 years of free maintenance is probably worth about $200-$300 over that period. Today's cars need such infrequent maintenance that two years of free maintenance isnt much at all. Toyota just added roadside assistance this year even though GM and others have had it for YEARS. Toyota is merely catching up and the 2 year maintenance plan is NOT worth more than a 5 year/100k powertrain warranty.
  • No, what you have is SOME people who arent convinced the Elantra is the Second Coming and then you have people like yourself who are making sure that everyone realizes the Elantra is superior to the Cruze in every way and that we all should take note of the fact that Hyundai is building the best cars in the industry and is on its way to supplanting GM as top dog in the US market. Most people who like the Cruze haven't said the Elantra stinks in any way- that's all in your head. I have said that there is ALWAYS a compromise involved in shaving lots of weight from a car. YOu and a few others have told me that Hyundai has a magic formula and has achieved best in class weight and fuel efficiency with no compromises and the Elantra is basically perfect. Fine, if you think that I fail to understand why you have posted in the Cruze forum dozens of times. I still fail to see what you see in the Cruze since you claim the Hyundai has it beat in every way. You say the Elantra will be faster, just as quiet, just as refined, just as luxurious and handle just as well even though no one has tested the car. If its perfect why are you even wasting time talking about the Chevy?

    As for weight, I never said a light car cannot handle. I said that you often have to chose between ride and handling when a car lacks rigidity. There were plenty of lightweight cars in the 80s and 90s that handled pretty well by the standards of the day, but few would be considered nice riding cars. Toyota models are lightweight and presumably lacking in structural stiffness and Toyota tunes those cars to ride softly. Recent Hyundai products have been criticized for lacking ideal ride quality and that likely comes from trying to add handling prowess to vehicles that lack state of the art ridity. MT complained about the ride/handling balance in the new Optima recently. They said the chassis needs to be fine tuned. The comments on the Cruze's chassis have been overwhelmingly positive.
  • Although I share your positive thoughts on manual transmissions and content levels (although I actually want less tech in a Fiesta with leather), your blanket statement about turbos is way off. The old 2 liter WRX (227hp) with US gearing is a gutless toad at the rpm where my SVT Contour (150hp at the wheels) pulls so beautifully in real world stop and go. I know I've been spoiled since I had 70hp Scirocco/Rabbit power but even that was better than starting my WRX from a dead stop.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    Ultra overdrives are ok in theory, but in practice the overdriven top gear(s)...(plural, cuz in a 6 spd, usually both 5th and 6th are overdriven) have a lot more wear associated with them than the rest of the tranny. So bearings have to be designed differently and that is one area that some mfrs use cost cutting behind the scenes. As an example, years ago I had a Suzuki Samurai. A relatively crude, under-powered, rough riding, fuel-inefficent for a 1.3litre type 4WD SUV. CR slammed it for being too easy to roll over, but all those cases were decidedly driver-error. Were they more prone than a lower riding wider car? Well of course..
    Anyway, I had a major tranny failure very near home (Bless its soul). Had it lock up in 3rd as I was about to downshift from 4th for a corner. LSShort...the final output bearings are roller bearings. They are cheaper and use less fr to back room than needle bearings, but do not have the same level of longevity. There are tons of things like this done in cars evn to this day, that the buyer can't see. The value (or lack of) in their new purchase, sometimes gets revealed a few years down the road (usually well out of wty, and by no accident) when they discover that "pay me now, or pay me later". The trick in today's mkt, is to not overpay now, and

    "Doesn't the 6AT in the Cruze have a manumatic feature?" don't think so..

    "people vote with their wallets" So do mfgrs. There are fewer wty claims for improper clutch use, drivetrain components like CV joints and tranny output shafts etc from people burning rubber (cuz it is so easy to do with a std, and takes fairly big power with an auto) and even engine lugging, as ignorant drivers chug their car up a hill in 5th gear at 20 mph.

    But traffic congestion is a biggy, no question, with the evident support of autos.
    Still Europe they have more cars per sq mi than we do, and still many many std trannys. The dif is, they use more properly designed roundabouts at intersections, so there is less stopping and going.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited November 2010
    I hear you. My comments though I didn't mean to be blanket. They were under the assumption the turbo'ing and gearing were done well. A turbo won't defeat the laws of physics.

    I was just posting about my old Samurai and how hard on gas it was. It was a little 1900 lb 4WD with a 1.3l and while it was not aerodynamic at all ( a bigger issue the faster you drive) it was just a very inefficient engine, tranny, geared, carbed, hp and torque ranged setup for the vehicle it was in. Later the Sidekick with it's 1.6 was capable of much better FE.

    And to this day, many cars with too small an engine may so slight FE gains in govt testing, but in real world, often the larger engine (a 2.4 vs a 1.8) Matrix let's say...does better if driven with equal aggression.

    That's a shame about your WRX. I bet they did that to pass some emissions standards or something. That happens in bikes all the time. Ducati for example, have extremely tall gears. Gets them thru the noise and emission laws tho. At least with a chain drive bike, gearing can be changed later at little cost. Not so with cars tho..

    In the Cruze though, they obviously don't have an overly tall final drive since the turbo makes so much torque at only 1850 revs. Those are city revs. And that is why I guess it seems to be such a hunter and too sensitive to throttle input. Like I say, after my own test drive, I'll know whether these claims I have read are true or not, but because the Cruze is still about a 3200 LB car, and they want it to compete favourably with other new compacts in terms of urge and FE, and because of the torque that 1.4 creates at city rpms, GM must have opted for reasonably low gearing, I can see it being a busy tranny. Hopefully the 6 spd manual is a nice tranny. If its bawky and stiff, then it too won't hold much praise from me.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,181
    Sticks vs autos. You make it sound like the manufacturers all got together and said that because of warranty claims on sticks they were going to limit production on them. Meanwhile, they added tons of safety equipment, electronic wizbang things, etc that also can result warranty claims. Not to mention that auto transmissions back in the day were probably a lot more problematic than sticks at the time.

    Marketing 101 will teach you to give the customers what they want and what they are willing to buy(not always the same thing but usually). Believe me, I always chuckle when I hear about these conspiracies theories from diehard manual drivers. It just doesn't pass the sniff test. If dealerships all over the country reported back to manufacturers "Gee, I sure could sell a lot more of your cars if you offered more sticks" I think the manufactures would comply.

    I remember when sticks far outnumbered autos at car dealers. As the boomers aged they got tired of shifting in increasing congested commuter traffic and the manufacturers gave them what they asked for....more auto transmissions.

    I like driving a stick but my wife won't have a car in the driveway that she can't drive and she refuses to take the time to learn. Probably a lot of houselholds. Believe me, I wish that that anyone that wants a stick could get the exact same options or lack thereof that anyone buying a car with a slushbox can get. But the car makers are pretty savvy to market demands. Stationwagons are very practical but people just didn't want them anymore. SUVs don't make a lot of sense for most of the people that buy them but the manufacturers obliged and charged more at the same time. Now the consumer finally realizes that they don't need off-road capacity after all and don't like the sucky gas mileage of SUVs. So they came up with CUVs which still can haul like a SUV but get a lot better handling and mpg.

    Bottom line, perchance there could be a few more warranty claims by drivers that may drive a stick stupidly, I don't believe for a minute that is why they aren't offered more. I would tend to believe that the same people that would drive the hell out of a stick are probably the same people that tear up autos and the warranty claims are probably similar.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 11,073
    Hm... how about we DON'T do that? I figure most members are savvy enough to read all of the information presented - good, bad, by GM-haters and GM-loyalists - and decide what info is most valid and applicable to them.

    I agree with you - let's get all the information & opinions out there, as long as they serve a legitimate purpose (i.e., no bashing just for funzies).


    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Share your vehicle reviews

  • You touched on something that I'm curious whether you can explain further. Could you please tell us what "numerous" components aren't covered by Hyundai in their warranty that other automakers do? I find it humorous that people who are miffed by the fact Hyundai offers such a long warranty when their car of choice doesn't find anything to try and discredit it. Yes, Hyundai's bumper to bumper warranty has limitations on the radio, the battery, and normal wear items like brake pads and clutch linings. Everything else is covered. That means that if the alternator fails at 59k, Hyundai will pay for it. With a Chevy, you will be out of $200-400 in repairs. How about the AC compressor? The price rises dramatically there. These are components that have a history of not lasting as long on a GM compared to imports so therefore you have a higher chance of encountering a problem. As for the drivetrain warranty, Chevy and Hyundai are equal as far as mileage is concerned and undoubtedly have the same limitations. Yes, if you sell your Hyundai, the next owner loses the powertrain warranty but the bumper to bumper stays at 60k, thus improving resale when comparing 4 year old cars with less than 60k. But let's be honest here, the majority of people buying Hyundais buy them for value and are not the type to trade every 2-3 years so this point is moot. If you drive 15,000 per year, you will only get 75k miles of coverage on the Cruze, whereas with the Hyundai you will get the full 100k coverage.

    As for warranty repairs, I believe Hyundai's stance is to provide a rental when a warranty repair debilitates the car overnight. I know when my 2000 Accent required the throw out release bearing to be replaced and was held overnight, I was given a rental by the dealer free of charge. Perhaps this was a nice dealer, but my guess is they billed Hyundai. By the way, the dealer replaced my entire clutch assembly under warranty after 20k, even though the warranty stated it was not covered past 12k. Any manufacturer would have balked at paying for that when their warranty allows them a loophole and its a part that is subject to owner abuse. I was quite satisfied to say the least. I have my doubts Chevy would have been as accomodating.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 11,972
    I have my doubts Chevy would have been as accomodating.

    When I bought my first stick-shift Chevy in '90, a friend said, "GM clutches last 25K miles, good luck". Well, I went 108K on that car, never replaced clutch; 129.6K on the next stick Chevy; no clutch replacement; 112K on the next stick Chevy; no clutch replacement, and 42K on the current stick Chevy, no clutch replacement.

    My Chevy dealer replaced all four rotors on my wife's van for free at 40.8K miles. GM's warranty doesn't exclude rotors after 12K miles like I think just about everybody else's does. My dealer went above and beyond the warranty on that for me.

    At 79K, the van (fully five years old; no extended warranty) needed a Pressure Control Solenoid in the trans, a steering rack, and the horn repaired. Admittedly, these shouldn't have needed replacing--and the van still drove good--but GM picked every cent of those repairs up. (A frequent poster on edmunds hates when I mention this--he may very well remind me here that I posted about this already elsewhere and I shouldn't cross-post--seriously.)
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,941
    edited November 2010
    I really don't know why I am replying to your posts (i.e. blasts), but I am going to call you on them. And I will make you a little deal. You said:

    I still fail to see what you see in the Cruze since you claim the Hyundai has it beat in every way. You say the Elantra will be faster, just as quiet, just as refined, just as luxurious and handle just as well even though no one has tested the car.

    So here's the deal: go back in this discussion and find the statements from this discussion in which I said:

    1) The Elantra has the Cruze beat in every way,
    2) The Elantra will be faster, just as quiet, just as refined, just as luxurious and handle just as well. (And note, this is a compound sentence with "and".)

    Then copy the excerpts from my posts, along with the numbers of the posts, into a new post.

    If you find posts from me that say what you claim I said, I will never again post in this discussion.

    If, on the other hand, you can't find posts to back up your claims, you will post an apology to me and to everyone else you are blasting here and promise to stay on topic from now on.

  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    When I bought my first stick-shift Chevy in '90, a friend said, "GM clutches last 25K miles, good luck". Well, I went 108K on that car, never replaced clutch; 129.6K on the next stick Chevy; no clutch replacement; 112K on the next stick Chevy; no clutch replacement, and 42K on the current stick Chevy, no clutch replacement.

    Over the years I have owned many GM vehicles... a majority with manual transmissions.

    I am certainly no GM fanboy, but I will say I have NEVER had a single clutch related issue on ANY car I have owned.... domestic or foreign make.

    IMO, far more clutches fail from incompetent driving than actual clutch malfunction.
  • My Integra's clutch lasted 160k, all the way until it was stolen and my mom's Accord lasted 184k until it was totaled. My dad's 66 Fairlane still has the original clutch with over 180k, even though he burned the hell out of it backing up a steep hill with a camper attached. My Accent's clutch didn't fail. The throw out bearing was making noise and the dealer decided to replace the clutch since the failing bearing may have caused undue wear on the clutch. He didn't have to replace it and Hyundai could have denied to pay for the repair, but they fixed it. I was mainly pointing out that Hyundai doesn't try to squirm out of their warranty whenever possible.

    Rotors are one of those in between parts. Sometimes they are covered and sometimes they aren't. Usually, brade shudder caused from rotor warp will be fixed under warranty. What you should be concerned about is that your van even needed rotors that early. Rotors should easily last at least 100k, if not 150k. Again, my Integra and my mom's Accord had original rotors at the time of their demise.

    I'm glad to see your dealer went to bat for you. If I decide to give Chevy a try, I might need to buy from your dealer! There are stories of dealers doing this all over the place from all makes. It certainly helps when you are a repeat buyer (I suspect you are with so many Chevys under your belt). The point of my post was simply that Overbrook was trying to discredit Hyundai's warranty as inferior or not as good as advertised. I was only attempting to fix the misinformation.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 11,972
    Actually, the dealer that did the rotors for free, was not even the dealer I bought the van from. I only bought one car, my '08 Cobalt XFE, there.

    The dealer that did all the work for free at 79K miles was yet another my hometown dealer closed in the, um...restructuring...of last year. Actually, before I even approached that dealer, I emailed GM Customer Service on a Saturday about the issues, and they called me that same afternoon! So, the coverage was decided by GM in Detroit.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 11,972
    edited November 2010
    Rotors should easily last at least 100k, if not 150k

    Tell me where I should go for rotating, balancing, etc., where the dopey techs don't just slam a gun on them and overtighten or unevently tighten. That's 90% of rotor problems. I ask them to use a torque stick, but their expression "says it all" about what they think about that.

    Incidentally, it is very common, on Edmunds boards, to see customer complaints of warped rotors at 10K or so miles, on Hondas, Lexus models, and everything in-between. Also, looking at car magazines' long-term tests also commonly reveal rotor issues on all sorts of makes, during their 30K or whatever of testing.
  • Steve EliasSteve Elias Posts: 2,207
    edited November 2010
    uplander, you are vastly overestimating expected brake rotor life, unless by using "should" you are indicating wishful-thinking. or possibly you live in an area which is flat and has few cars or traffic jams or signals or other reasons to use the brakes ?

    however you are correct that rotor issues are common in many/most/all makes, sometimes absurdly early. improper lug torquing can certainly be a contributor to some of those cases.

    often the only fix for a rotor-warp issue is to replace it. machining & using proper lug torque doesn't necessarily fix a rotor that has warped previously.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,181
    Tell me where I should go for rotating, balancing, etc., where the dopey techs don't just slam a gun on them and overtighten or unevently tighten

    I've bought two sets of tires from Costco and they torque the lugs every time both at tire installlation and rotation. It's a pain in the [non-permissible content removed] cause they always ask you to come back the next day or after 25 miles to retorque. At first I thought it was just a ploy to get you back in to shop or to discourage someone to get the free tire rotations. They even call you at home if you haven't come back in to retorque. I guess they don't want any claims against them for rotor warping or wheels falling off. Now that they have built a Costco 8 miles from where I live it isn't such a hassle making the return trip.
  • I'll try to stay on topic like you do- constant posts about the Elantra and is superiority vs Cruze.

    When you can explain what positive attributes you admire about the Cruze I will be impressed. All your posts are related to defending Hyundai or putting down Cruze. When people bring it up you say "I didnt know this forum was only for positive comments about Cruze". No, the forum is supposed to be about the Cruze for people who might want to buy one, there is a separate one for the Elantra. If all of your cruze related comments involve the Elantra you arent really that interested.

    If the Elantra checks all the boxes for you I dont understand why you are patrolling the Cruze forum.
  • 1. I am stating facts about Hyundai's warranty, not putting it down
    2. GM's warranty includes courtesy transportation across the board, that is not the case for Hyundai. I'm sure SOME dealers offer transportation but its not Hyundai's corporate policy.
    3. If a bumper to bumper warranty doesnt include radio/CD/nav systems for 5 years, nor wear and tear items nor AC refrigerant its not good for much else. I also think its odd that brakes and pads are covered for only one year. The powertrain has a separate warranty so basically the full warranty covers workmanship defects and electrical problems for 5 years. I have not seen another car warranty that excludes the audio system for the full length of the warranty.
    4. Hyundai's warranty is better than average but not as good as it appears to be before you read the fine print.
    5. Extended warranties are very affordable.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,181
    backy can stick up for himself but it's obvious you have not read his posts carefully or you would have seen that he has made many positive comments about the Cruze and has explained fully why he is visiting this forum. Probably for the same reason I am and that's to discuss the pros and cons of the Cruze as compared to other cars in the segment for a potential future purchase. I think it's funny that you didn't respond to his offer which indicates to me that you were wrong in your statement or just too bullheaded to even comprehend the challenge.

    When the 2011 Sonata first came out I frequented that thread and every time I brought up anything remotely negative some fanboys accused me of being a plant from another manufacturer and were constantly asking me why I was even posting since I didn't own a 2011 Sonata. I was actually interested in the vehicle but some things about it bothered me and I was looking for someone to convince me that those things either weren't that important or could be lived with.

    You remind me of some of those chip-on-the-shoulder people that were so convinced that the Sonata was the best thing since sliced bread that absolutely no other car in the class can compete. Well, it did turn out to be a pretty darn nice car as I think the Cruze will be(note to overbrook, I'm saying something nice about the Cruze here) but both have their drawbacks as well as a lot of attributes. People with blinders on just make the whole discussion frustrating. You should take them off and just discuss the car factually and not get all bent out of shape if someone challenges you.

    If you're going to cry "oh, I just don't understand why you're in my forum" all the time it makes you look pretty childish.
  • Oh, I agree. Techs shouldn't be allowed to use an air gun on wheels. However, you can counter this tactic by either loosening and retorquing the wheels yourself as soon as you get the car back or as soon as you get home. Doing this will greatly reduce the chances of the rotor warping. I did this with the tire iron on a previous Mitsubishi that was known for these problems and the rotors stayed smooth much longer.
  • The warranty is not good for much else when you exclude the radio, AC refrigerant, and wear and tear items?? Goodness, is that all a car is made up of? LOL You make yourself look so silly. Wear and tear items aren't covered by any warranty. The warranty is there to cover mistakes in workmanship, not to replace pads for some dodo that rides his brakes all the time. The radio is covered for 3/36k, same as the Cruze. Radios rarely break so I could care less that it isn't covered for 60k, especially when there are cheap aftermarket solutions. What I do care about is that the power steering, alternator, AC compressor, power windows/locks/mirrors, HVAC controls, remote entry, etc, etc, etc ARE covered for 60k, not 36k. Big difference there. These are items that will cost an arm and a leg if you have to pay for them.
    Extended warranties are affordable?? Yea, if you enjoy paying $1200 extra. This is money I nor most people are willing to spend, especially not when you can get it for free.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    Oh, I agree. Techs shouldn't be allowed to use an air gun on wheels. However, you can counter this tactic by either loosening and retorquing the wheels yourself as soon as you get the car back or as soon as you get home. Doing this will greatly reduce the chances of the rotor warping. I did this with the tire iron on a previous Mitsubishi that was known for these problems and the rotors stayed smooth much longer.

    Ditto....And, you also need to check the tire pressure, too!

    But, I go one step further. I actually remove the wheels and take them to the tire dealer in my truck, and simply re-install them myself, using an appropriate torque-wrench and settings.

    I realize this is a bit unusual, but I am fortunate to have a hydraulic lift that allows me to remove all wheels simultaneously.

    An air wrench without an air pressure regulator in the hands of an inadequately trained "tire dude" can be a dangerous combination.
Sign In or Register to comment.