And somehow GM misses street expectations of a 19% Y/Y increase in March sales, posting an 11% increase to 231,052 total GM vehicles. Total GM sales in February were 209,306. In other words, net of the 46K cars "stuffed", GM would have posted a sequential decline in sales?
Are we rehashing this old saw again? Hadn't we decided after discussion ad-nauseum, that shipping to a dealer wasn't a 'sale' for GM, it was sales to a customer?
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Notice that overall rating given to Cavalier was Poor, the lowest of 4 ratings. In contrast, a competitor of the Cavalier, Honda Civic, got the highest of 4 ratings, good.
Was the Civic priced similarly to the Cavalier? I think we know the answer to that one.
I never buy primarily on crashworthiness. I do like accident avoidance, which is why every GM back then, even the cheapest, had standard ABS which other carmakers didn't bother to do. I had two Cavaliers and got cheap, dependable service out of both, with well over 100K miles. The last one looked nearly new. And as a coupe, I think they looked a lot better than other cheap coupes.
And the others were based on the S-10, for gosh sakes! Talk about the mists of prehistory being dredged up!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Was the Civic priced similarly to the Cavalier? I think we know the answer to that one.
As cars continue to improve and get safer and safer, I wonder if these crash test results are starting to look more and more like Consumer Reports' reliability ratings, where the difference between the best and a marginal performer really isn't that huge?
For instance, yeah, the Cavalier failed their test. But it's not cut and dry like, buy a Civic and you'll walk away unscathed, buy a Cavalier and you're guaranteed to die. Looking at the results, I see it as more like if you wreck in the Civic, you'll probably get bruised up a bit in the chest and left leg, while a similar wreck in the Cavalier might hurt your neck, and give you a broken left leg.
Even the Chevy Astro, which is one of the most disturbing IIHS crash tests I've seen, scored well for driver's chest, head/neck, and right leg/foot.
Was the Civic a better car and worth every additional penny? I KNOW we know the answer to that one.
Wasn't the answer to competition in small cars for GM during the 24-tear time span!
One significant factor to consider when deciding whether a Cavalier is right for you is safety. Throughout its life cycle, the Cavalier has received poor to lukewarm crash test scores. Another is overall quality. Cavaliers have suffered from build quality issues; subpar materials quality and outdated design were also problems, particularly with later models.
Cavalier was a pure value option and had many shortcomings. To each his own and here is a balance review from Edmunds.
Was the Civic priced similarly to the Cavalier? I think we know the answer to that one.
Civic and Cavalier competed in the same market segment. The Cavalier was inferior to the Civic in many regards and the tests/data show Honda, and Toyota, had much better engineering than GM.
I believe the Corvette actually qualified as an "Exotic" so therefore it is exempt form Crash tests along with Ferraris, Lambos' etc. Although I do remember a crash test on a Porsche Boxster (can't find the link) where the thing basically shattered upon impact.
Was the Civic a better car and worth every additional penny? I KNOW we know the answer to that one.
Not for me, personally. Assembling the Cavalier employed people in my old and new hometowns, not to mention local suppliers. I liked the styling of the coupe better (OK, the sedan resembled an egg). I had wonderful service in a dealer one mile from my driveway...many miles to the nearest Honda dealer at that time. And when I was visiting my mother in her nursing home in my hometown of 7,000 people then, I locked myself out of my Cavalier and it cost a whopping five bucks to make a key at the Chevy dealer that was there. Nearest Honda dealer? Twenty-five miles away.
When I traded it in on my Cobalt, at 112K miles, the salesman could not believe it had that many miles, it looked that sharp (that new-for-'02 deep, deep metallic green, 15" aluminum wheels, ABS, and very subtle spoiler). In fact, it's a better-looking car than my current Cobalt I think. And in six years I never had so much as a bumper-kiss to or from another car. The car sat outside every day of its life with me, in snowy and salty NE Ohio.
I might add as a 'catch all' comment, that conventional wisdom by the car rags does not make those who follow without trying 'lesser' cars, more enlightened. It only makes those types think they are more enlightened. Check things out yourself...at length. Don't quote as fact, a rag's opinion when you've never tried the 'lesser' car.
My brother-in-law is 18 years younger than me. He had to borrow the Cavalier once, when it had 105K miles. He returned and said, "I thought it'd be a P.O.S.--not at all". Typical open-minded comment!
Matter-of-fact, I enjoy thumbing my nose at convention...probably one reason I buy GM new and Studebakers, old.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Fiat 500 was the one big surprise, with a Marginal rating as recently as July 2011. They revised production after August 2011 and improved their score:
Overall, crash results in almost any new car are going to be significantly better than the best cars were 10-15 years ago.
Crash avoidance .vs. crash worthiness ???
I'll take crash worthiness, simply because there's no such thing of crash avoidance if you're sitting still at a light and get t-boned or rear-ended.
Seems like I remember MB using both in their advertising a while back, touting the best crash worthiness of a car (a MB, of course) was crash avoidance. And, of course, if you DO have a choice, it's the better choice. Unfortunately, few drivers/passengers have that choice.
Most folks would decide to be somewhere else than being involved in a crash.
As for ABS, BMW's Performance Center states that less than 1/4 of the drivers going through a driving course there TODAY understand the correct way to utilize ABS braking systems properly, so even crash avoidance measures fall short if the operator doesn't understand how to use them.
I might add as a 'catch all' comment, that conventional wisdom by the car rags does not make those who follow without trying 'lesser' cars, more enlightened. It only makes those types think they are more enlightened. Check things out yourself...at length. Don't quote as fact, a rag's opinion when you've never tried the 'lesser' car.
Right down my alley. I religiously chose GM (the lesser car) and finally decided to see what all the import fuss was about. Now I know.
The Cavalier was GM's answer to small car. Not until they imported the Cruze design did they have a real winner.
The Cobalt is another value car from Chevy. Does what it's supposed to do but at lesser rates. That's why it goes the path of the Cavalier.
Not until they imported the Cruze design did they have a real winner.
Which reminds me of a question I asked here a week or so ago but got no answer, but it sounds like you know the answer.
Is the Cruze a Daewoo? That's not my impression. Was it engineered and designed here but built there before being sold here? Every Cruze ever sold in the U.S. was built in the U.S.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Is the Cruze a Daewoo? That's not my impression. Was it engineered and designed here but built there before being sold here? Every Cruze ever sold in the U.S. was built in the U.S.
Announced as the Chevrolet YGM1 concept car at the Tokyo Motor Show in 1999, the original Cruze was derived from the subcompact Suzuki Ignis (known as the Suzuki Swift in Japan). The development of the Cruze departed from the original five-door hatchback Suzuki as a sport utility vehicle (SUV), using either the front- or all-wheel drive layout. Despite the Chevrolet branding, the YGM1, like the production car, was the work of GM's Australian arm, Holden. Along with the styling, Holden also executed most of the engineering work and were responsible for devising the "Cruze" nameplate.
GM revealed the production Chevrolet Cruze in October 2001, with Japanese sales commencing the following month. Manufactured by Suzuki in Japan, the Cruze was also sold in Australasia from 2002 through to 2006 as the Holden Cruze. From 2003, Suzuki of Europe began manufacturing the Cruze as the Suzuki Ignis—representing a facelift of the original Ignis.
The Cruze and it's Hybrid will compete well and here's a little exercise that calculates the savings of the Hybrid vs. ICE version. The Cruze is a winner for GM, IMHO.
Sorry the info you posted is not correct for the car that is currently sold as the Cruze, might have been correct for something that was called the Cruze previously ( sounds like maybe some sort of crossover perhaps). I am not sure of the exact details but I am pretty sure that both GM Europe and GM Korea had engineering input into the design of the current Cruze. I am not sure what changes were made for the North American market or where they were engineered. I do know for certain that the current car has no relation to a 2001 Suzuki. I am pretty sure it either uses a revised version of the previous delta platform ( the Astra etc.) or an all new Platform jointly developed by GM Europe and Korea.
The data previously posted applies to the previous generation of the Cruze.
Here is the current generation info:
Underpinned by the front-wheel drive GM Delta II platform, GM has confirmed the Cruze development program occurred under a global design and engineering team. Most of the design work was conducted by GM Daewoo (now GM Korea), with GM's Opel division responsible for most of the engineering. This development program spanned over 27 months at a cost of US$4 billion. A total of 221 prototypes were tested in Australia, Canada, China, South Korea, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.
GM in 2008 introduced the Cruze compact car, carrying the "J300" internal designation.This J300 iteration serves as a replacement for the Chevrolet Cobalt and Daewoo Lacetti—both unrelated cars. The first renderings of the Cruze were revealed by GM at a press conference on July 15, 2008, with the first official images released on August 21, 2008.
Cruze production sites include Gunsan, Jeonbuk, South Korea;, Saint Petersburg, Russia; Shenyang, China; and Halol, India; Hanoi, Vietnam since April 2010 in complete knock-down (CKD) form, Ust-Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan from May 2010; Rayong, Thailand after December 2010,, Valencia, Venezuela, and São Caetano do Sul, Brazil from 2011. Holden's localized hatchback version of the Cruze to be built at the Elizabeth, South Australia factory from late 2011 will join the Cruze sedan manufactured there since March 2011.
GM in the United States has upgraded the existing plant in Lordstown, Ohio to manufacture the Cruze, investing more than US$350 million. At the ceremony of the start of production of Cruze at Ohio, Mark Reuss, the president of GM’s North American operations said, "This is everything for us". It is described as GM’s most significant new vehicle introduction into North America since the Chapter 11 reorganization in 2009, and is GM's latest attempt to build a small size car that North American consumers would "buy because they like it — not simply because it is cheap".
Problem is that for the majority of drivers still on the road, they were taught to "pump" the brakes instead of standing on them, because ABS wasn't widely available, if at all, when they learned to drive.
I, for one, have bought many cars since ABS came out, but not a single dealership representative bothered to mention the correct way to drive with ABS brakes (except the driving classes at the BMW performance center).
Again, safety features don't mean squat if the driver fails to understand how and when to utilize the safety feature.
Maybe your link shows this, but I remember the four-door Cavalier rating higher in some form of crashworthiness than the coupe. I didn't care; I liked the looks of the coupe much better so that is what I bought.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I was going through a stack of Wall Street Journals and there was a review of the new Verano. I was suprised that the reviewer said after opening the hood he could see the right fender was improperly attached. That's very disappointing given that GM spent a bundle to modernize the Orion plant.
The "improper attachment" in the article mentioned a difference of "...four millimeters". Wouldn't exactly keep me from buying a car I wanted, especially one priced several thousand less than others out there. Plus, it's no doubt an early example to be in 'the press pool'.
Isn't it funny that we consider 180 hp and 0-60 in a little more than eight seconds, not good anymore? I could live with it. I'd deal with that and enjoy the uber-quiet all the reviews are saying about it, and saving a few thousand.
I dislike the chrome taillight eyebrows though!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
It doesn't really matter in your case since you enjoyed it and it served you flawlessly. At the end of the day, that is what really matters. If I had your experience with GM vehicles, I would keep buying them as well.
Good for you and I truly hope every additional purchase serves your expectations just as well as your past experience.
Plus, it's no doubt an early example to be in 'the press pool'.
Agree completely. I've read many a review that stated issues that were apparent on the initial review vehicle which were fixed for good and never heard from again.
The CR-V tranny re-flash is an example. I never experienced a problem but the software was changed just as well.
Particularly when it comes to shifting programs/infotainment systems upgrades and the like, those areas are becoming more prevalent. The more technology advances, the more QA needs to cover and they are the most likely area to be front and center with any issues where new launches are concerned, IMHO.
I think I'd try painting the chrome strip or try putting a type of masking tape of a color I liked over it to see how that changes the "personality" of the rear end of the vehicle. I suspect just a dull silver color would blend it in so it doesn't have as much of a foreign flavor to the taillights.
If it was really a pre-production car or a test fleet car, that is pretty bad reporting...I'd be interested to know if the author used a micrometer to gauge that gap (as WSJ doesn't have a great rep for automotive cred) and how many miles were on it.
For the rear end, maybe someone can make a kit to cover the weirdness, like some have done for the ghastly beak on the 09+ Acura TL.
Here. I think this makes my point about the chrome piece. I can't be sure if there's a chrome piece there or not because it blends with the light silver of the Excell. Blend it in. Dull it down. Cut the extension toward the middle of the trunk past the margin of the red lens.
"Most domestic and foreign carmakers this year are struggling with slower vehicle sales in China amid the expiration of government incentives and weaker economic growth. Fuel prices in China also rose to a record high on March 20, further denting market demand on concerns of higher driving costs.
So far, however, GM appears to be bucking that trend."
I have always thought that Willys was the underpinnings of the military competence in vehicles and forerunners of AWD.
Never followed the auto models but Jeep continues on from the venerable Willys brand. Without Jeep (GP for the General Purpose designation for the US Army), Chrysler would not exist today, IMHO.
Willys and Ford were the first pioneers of 4WD but Willys won a patent battle after the war and Willys won the rights to the Jeep name.
The "improper attachment" in the article mentioned a difference of "...four millimeters".
That may well be, but I would have thought they would have included laser alignment with all that money spent on upgrading Orion which should have precluded it from happening (well, I guess you can't stop some lousy employee from screwing it up if they don't really car about their workmanship).
If it was really a pre-production car or a test fleet car, that is pretty bad reporting
I'm not sure we know any of this is fact. Outside of the editorial page, the WSJ is usually pretty factual and unbiased. Seems to me that it was the car Buick provided and if it was a pre production vehicle (which doesn't really make a lot of sense at this point in time for Buick to do after its already been released to the public IMO) then it is up to Buick to tell them so. Usually when I've read reviews on new vehicles wherever, they state when the review is based on a pre production vehicle and the guy who did the review has been doing them for various newspapers for a long time. Actually, I don't recall anything in the article and review about the fender being stated as 4mm off either, just that it was noticeably misaligned when the hood was opened.
This bothers me the most. My Dad's '69 Skylark (350 CI/230hp) was what Buick used to be about. It was refined compared to Chevy and could get out of it's own way quite nicely.
The Verano's sole engine option is GM's 2.4-liter direct-injection in-line four-cylinder producing 180 horsepower and 171 pound-feet of torque, bolted to a six-speed automatic transmission and pitted against a vehicle curb weight of around 3,300 pounds. This powertrain is every bit as thrilling as it sounds, which is to say, it isn't. Zero to 60 mph takes more than eight seconds and, with the throttle matted as you attempt to merge on the interstate, the Verano bleats so tragically a veterinarian would likely want to put it down.
That is ridiculous in a Buick so-called "Premium" car.
The author seems more interested in impressing the rest of the media with his cute twisting of words and comparisons along with his doing the politically correct (for some) thing of critiquing a GM product harshly so it couldn't possibly be confused with his preference of a foreign brand that is proper enough to have his butt in the seat.
I can feel his relief when he finally found something he could complain about: the fender did not have a 4 mm gap, instead the markings on the unibody (do those exist) showed it was fitted 4 mm from where it should have been located. Did I miss his saying that the gap was 4 mm off? I don't think I did.
Perhaps this was a preproduction model and the unibody is off and the prep folks fitted the fender to the proper gap so that the WSJ folks wouldn't be offended by being asked to drive a lesser example beneath their status!!! :P :shades:
Somehow, his arrogance gushes all through his article. Note that a different engine will be in place in 2013 models with more power. But it ain't ready. If they had not produced the vehicle, the author would probably be whining that Buick doesn't have a smaller luxury offering. Can't please some of the haters.
As for 0-60 in 8 seconds. I doubt I've done 0-60 in 12 seconds in the last 2 years. Only someone from C&D, R&T, WSJ would be abusing a vehicle thusly and then whine with the results. For most, if not all, buyers of the Verano the acceleration will be suitable.
I don't know of any newspaper based reviews that are too great. I could see GM releasing a not 100% car though, remember who we are talking about.
I don't think the engine in that car sounds too great - sounds like the same unit in the Regal I rented, which also could sound unrefined. Maybe I'd take more from a second opinion.
The car should get the turbo engine. The test car appears same engine which was in the Regal I rented last fall - also sounded coarse when cold and wasn't the most responsive. I also think that car is too heavy. My now 10 year old E-class is only about 400lbs heavier - but larger, and has twice the hp and more than twice the torque. Carmakers really need to work on weight.
Sorry I missed the 4mm comment. Dan Neil also writes for the LA Times and he is kind of a critical reviewer on most everything. My point on the Buick wasn't really dissin' the car, rather disappointment that all that money invested and a car comes off the all new line that isn't built totally correct, and then GM management lets it out to the press that way. I don't think that would happen with some of the Asian competitors. It's just something that shouldn't have happened as GM works to improve its reputation in the marketplace. Image can trump performance in the marketplace and management needs to be aware and careful given the highly competitive auto market.
One must truly wonder if the same writer would have had the micrometer out for a Japanese or Korean brand. The old saw, 'well, they're known for better quality' doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. Would he have ever looked? I have serious doubts about that, but of course we'd never know. Being a human, he comes into things with biases, of course.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
If you read through his LA Times articles, he's pretty critical on things he notices. I don't think he was picking on GM. Honestly, I think GM management is to blame here for letting it occur in the first place. I really think Toyota, Honda, et. al. are more careful in that area. Notice, I said careful. The Asians seem to be more aware of little things like that which can affect perception. I think Ford understands and Marchionne is getting his people to wake up too. GM needs to follow.
Isn't 4mm roughly 1/6th of an inch? Seems to me that with today's tighter tolerances and smaller gaps, something like that might actually stick out. Now it wouldn't matter on something like my '76 LeMans, which has some gaps so wide you can stick your finger in there.
but I think that's one downside to today's tighter tolerances...if something's slightly out of alignment, it shows up more. Especially at certain angles and lights.
I just had the body shop fix my T-boned Camry and there are no gaps or improper fits that I can see. Everything I can see at least looks like the factory. If a body shop can do that, a UAW worker on the line should be able to also. I think people want to jump on the press (and there are some biases there sometimes, but more often I don't think there are) when they should be jumping on the car company management and assembly line worker. GM screwed up here on a critical new car release. No excuses, GM needs to make sure it gets fixed and I think they probably will because future reviews like that will start to hurt its product perception. You can't live with the old "well its not that bad" any more because competition has raised the bar - and I believe that GM is perfectly capable of meeting or exceeding the new bar if it puts its mind to it.
Comments
And somehow GM misses street expectations of a 19% Y/Y increase in March sales, posting an 11% increase to 231,052 total GM vehicles. Total GM sales in February were 209,306. In other words, net of the 46K cars "stuffed", GM would have posted a sequential decline in sales?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/latest-parabolic-chart-gm-channel-stuffing
OK. Glad to oblige. Here is the link:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=54&seriesid=287
Test results apply to: 95-2004 Chevy Blazer, 98-2001 GMC Envoy, 95-2001 GMC Jimmy, 96-2001 Olds Bravada
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=45&seriesid=294
Notice that overall rating given to Cavalier was Poor, the lowest of 4 ratings. In contrast, a competitor of the Cavalier, Honda Civic, got the highest of 4 ratings, good.
2001-2005 Honda Civic
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=34&seriesid=300
I never buy primarily on crashworthiness. I do like accident avoidance, which is why every GM back then, even the cheapest, had standard ABS which other carmakers didn't bother to do. I had two Cavaliers and got cheap, dependable service out of both, with well over 100K miles. The last one looked nearly new. And as a coupe, I think they looked a lot better than other cheap coupes.
And the others were based on the S-10, for gosh sakes! Talk about the mists of prehistory being dredged up!
Hard to swallow for GM, it appears. GM is repeating this bad trend ad-nauseum.
Regards,
OW
As cars continue to improve and get safer and safer, I wonder if these crash test results are starting to look more and more like Consumer Reports' reliability ratings, where the difference between the best and a marginal performer really isn't that huge?
For instance, yeah, the Cavalier failed their test. But it's not cut and dry like, buy a Civic and you'll walk away unscathed, buy a Cavalier and you're guaranteed to die. Looking at the results, I see it as more like if you wreck in the Civic, you'll probably get bruised up a bit in the chest and left leg, while a similar wreck in the Cavalier might hurt your neck, and give you a broken left leg.
Even the Chevy Astro, which is one of the most disturbing IIHS crash tests I've seen, scored well for driver's chest, head/neck, and right leg/foot.
But check this out, and suddenly even the worst domestics of the past 15 years or so don't look so bad!
Wasn't the answer to competition in small cars for GM during the 24-tear time span!
One significant factor to consider when deciding whether a Cavalier is right for you is safety. Throughout its life cycle, the Cavalier has received poor to lukewarm crash test scores. Another is overall quality. Cavaliers have suffered from build quality issues; subpar materials quality and outdated design were also problems, particularly with later models.
Cavalier was a pure value option and had many shortcomings. To each his own and here is a balance review from Edmunds.
Chevrolet Cavalier Review
Regards,
OW
Civic and Cavalier competed in the same market segment. The Cavalier was inferior to the Civic in many regards and the tests/data show Honda, and Toyota, had much better engineering than GM.
Here is the link:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=66&seriesid=282
Might think twice before buying one of these used.
Never seen a crash test head-on of a Chevy Corvette. Wonder what that would look like. Why don't they do one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=kzlg3oQMze4
Not for me, personally. Assembling the Cavalier employed people in my old and new hometowns, not to mention local suppliers. I liked the styling of the coupe better (OK, the sedan resembled an egg). I had wonderful service in a dealer one mile from my driveway...many miles to the nearest Honda dealer at that time. And when I was visiting my mother in her nursing home in my hometown of 7,000 people then, I locked myself out of my Cavalier and it cost a whopping five bucks to make a key at the Chevy dealer that was there. Nearest Honda dealer? Twenty-five miles away.
When I traded it in on my Cobalt, at 112K miles, the salesman could not believe it had that many miles, it looked that sharp (that new-for-'02 deep, deep metallic green, 15" aluminum wheels, ABS, and very subtle spoiler). In fact, it's a better-looking car than my current Cobalt I think. And in six years I never had so much as a bumper-kiss to or from another car. The car sat outside every day of its life with me, in snowy and salty NE Ohio.
I might add as a 'catch all' comment, that conventional wisdom by the car rags does not make those who follow without trying 'lesser' cars, more enlightened. It only makes those types think they are more enlightened. Check things out yourself...at length. Don't quote as fact, a rag's opinion when you've never tried the 'lesser' car.
My brother-in-law is 18 years younger than me. He had to borrow the Cavalier once, when it had 105K miles. He returned and said, "I thought it'd be a P.O.S.--not at all". Typical open-minded comment!
Matter-of-fact, I enjoy thumbing my nose at convention...probably one reason I buy GM new and Studebakers, old.
Not quite.
High is bad, but it means incentives are coming and that could mean big rebates if you're a buyer. It is bad for GM, however...
Low is also bad, it means you don't have cars to sell. A popular model will have demand exceed supply, but dealers get the markups, not GM.
Ideal is about 55-60 days' supply, just the right balance. Much higher or much lower are both bad.
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=710
So does the Sonic:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=737
So no longer a concern, really.
Fiat 500 was the one big surprise, with a Marginal rating as recently as July 2011. They revised production after August 2011 and improved their score:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=732
If the Spark is tested and does poorly like the 500 did at its launch, then that's news.
For now Chevy seems to be doing OK, and improved a lot recently.
Crash avoidance .vs. crash worthiness ???
I'll take crash worthiness, simply because there's no such thing of crash avoidance if you're sitting still at a light and get t-boned or rear-ended.
Seems like I remember MB using both in their advertising a while back, touting the best crash worthiness of a car (a MB, of course) was crash avoidance. And, of course, if you DO have a choice, it's the better choice. Unfortunately, few drivers/passengers have that choice.
Most folks would decide to be somewhere else than being involved in a crash.
As for ABS, BMW's Performance Center states that less than 1/4 of the drivers going through a driving course there TODAY understand the correct way to utilize ABS braking systems properly, so even crash avoidance measures fall short if the operator doesn't understand how to use them.
Right down my alley. I religiously chose GM (the lesser car) and finally decided to see what all the import fuss was about. Now I know.
The Cavalier was GM's answer to small car. Not until they imported the Cruze design did they have a real winner.
The Cobalt is another value car from Chevy. Does what it's supposed to do but at lesser rates. That's why it goes the path of the Cavalier.
Regards,
OW
Which reminds me of a question I asked here a week or so ago but got no answer, but it sounds like you know the answer.
Is the Cruze a Daewoo? That's not my impression. Was it engineered and designed here but built there before being sold here? Every Cruze ever sold in the U.S. was built in the U.S.
Announced as the Chevrolet YGM1 concept car at the Tokyo Motor Show in 1999, the original Cruze was derived from the subcompact Suzuki Ignis (known as the Suzuki Swift in Japan). The development of the Cruze departed from the original five-door hatchback Suzuki as a sport utility vehicle (SUV), using either the front- or all-wheel drive layout. Despite the Chevrolet branding, the YGM1, like the production car, was the work of GM's Australian arm, Holden. Along with the styling, Holden also executed most of the engineering work and were responsible for devising the "Cruze" nameplate.
GM revealed the production Chevrolet Cruze in October 2001, with Japanese sales commencing the following month. Manufactured by Suzuki in Japan, the Cruze was also sold in Australasia from 2002 through to 2006 as the Holden Cruze. From 2003, Suzuki of Europe began manufacturing the Cruze as the Suzuki Ignis—representing a facelift of the original Ignis.
The Cruze and it's Hybrid will compete well and here's a little exercise that calculates the savings of the Hybrid vs. ICE version. The Cruze is a winner for GM, IMHO.
Regards,
OW
The data previously posted applies to the previous generation of the Cruze.
Here is the current generation info:
Underpinned by the front-wheel drive GM Delta II platform, GM has confirmed the Cruze development program occurred under a global design and engineering team. Most of the design work was conducted by GM Daewoo (now GM Korea), with GM's Opel division responsible for most of the engineering. This development program spanned over 27 months at a cost of US$4 billion. A total of 221 prototypes were tested in Australia, Canada, China, South Korea, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.
GM in 2008 introduced the Cruze compact car, carrying the "J300" internal designation.This J300 iteration serves as a replacement for the Chevrolet Cobalt and Daewoo Lacetti—both unrelated cars. The first renderings of the Cruze were revealed by GM at a press conference on July 15, 2008, with the first official images released on August 21, 2008.
Cruze production sites include Gunsan, Jeonbuk, South Korea;, Saint Petersburg, Russia; Shenyang, China; and Halol, India; Hanoi, Vietnam since April 2010 in complete knock-down (CKD) form, Ust-Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan from May 2010; Rayong, Thailand after December 2010,, Valencia, Venezuela, and São Caetano do Sul, Brazil from 2011. Holden's localized hatchback version of the Cruze to be built at the Elizabeth, South Australia factory from late 2011 will join the Cruze sedan manufactured there since March 2011.
GM in the United States has upgraded the existing plant in Lordstown, Ohio to manufacture the Cruze, investing more than US$350 million. At the ceremony of the start of production of Cruze at Ohio, Mark Reuss, the president of GM’s North American operations said, "This is everything for us". It is described as GM’s most significant new vehicle introduction into North America since the Chapter 11 reorganization in 2009, and is GM's latest attempt to build a small size car that North American consumers would "buy because they like it — not simply because it is cheap".
Regards,
OW
Problem is that for the majority of drivers still on the road, they were taught to "pump" the brakes instead of standing on them, because ABS wasn't widely available, if at all, when they learned to drive.
I, for one, have bought many cars since ABS came out, but not a single dealership representative bothered to mention the correct way to drive with ABS brakes (except the driving classes at the BMW performance center).
Again, safety features don't mean squat if the driver fails to understand how and when to utilize the safety feature.
Isn't it funny that we consider 180 hp and 0-60 in a little more than eight seconds, not good anymore? I could live with it. I'd deal with that and enjoy the uber-quiet all the reviews are saying about it, and saving a few thousand.
I dislike the chrome taillight eyebrows though!
Good for you and I truly hope every additional purchase serves your expectations just as well as your past experience.
Happy Easter!
Regards,
OW
Agree completely. I've read many a review that stated issues that were apparent on the initial review vehicle which were fixed for good and never heard from again.
The CR-V tranny re-flash is an example. I never experienced a problem but the software was changed just as well.
Particularly when it comes to shifting programs/infotainment systems upgrades and the like, those areas are becoming more prevalent. The more technology advances, the more QA needs to cover and they are the most likely area to be front and center with any issues where new launches are concerned, IMHO.
Regards,
OW
I think I'd try painting the chrome strip or try putting a type of masking tape of a color I liked over it to see how that changes the "personality" of the rear end of the vehicle. I suspect just a dull silver color would blend it in so it doesn't have as much of a foreign flavor to the taillights.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
For the rear end, maybe someone can make a kit to cover the weirdness, like some have done for the ghastly beak on the 09+ Acura TL.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
So far, however, GM appears to be bucking that trend."
GM Enjoys Record First-Quarter Sales in China (Inside Line)
You too, thank you.
Among all our 'point/counterpoint', I've meant to ask, are you a Willys fan? the 'circlew' makes me think so. Just wonderin'.
Never followed the auto models but Jeep continues on from the venerable Willys brand. Without Jeep (GP for the General Purpose designation for the US Army), Chrysler would not exist today, IMHO.
Willys and Ford were the first pioneers of 4WD but Willys won a patent battle after the war and Willys won the rights to the Jeep name.
Regards,
OW
That may well be, but I would have thought they would have included laser alignment with all that money spent on upgrading Orion which should have precluded it from happening (well, I guess you can't stop some lousy employee from screwing it up if they don't really car about their workmanship).
I'm not sure we know any of this is fact. Outside of the editorial page, the WSJ is usually pretty factual and unbiased. Seems to me that it was the car Buick provided and if it was a pre production vehicle (which doesn't really make a lot of sense at this point in time for Buick to do after its already been released to the public IMO) then it is up to Buick to tell them so. Usually when I've read reviews on new vehicles wherever, they state when the review is based on a pre production vehicle and the guy who did the review has been doing them for various newspapers for a long time. Actually, I don't recall anything in the article and review about the fender being stated as 4mm off either, just that it was noticeably misaligned when the hood was opened.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303299604577324013358373878.html
Frankly, I'm not sure how many thousands of dollars 4mm is worth to me.
To me, this article has 'pre-conceived notion' written all over it. Zzzzzzzzz.
This bothers me the most. My Dad's '69 Skylark (350 CI/230hp) was what Buick used to be about. It was refined compared to Chevy and could get out of it's own way quite nicely.
The Verano's sole engine option is GM's 2.4-liter direct-injection in-line four-cylinder producing 180 horsepower and 171 pound-feet of torque, bolted to a six-speed automatic transmission and pitted against a vehicle curb weight of around 3,300 pounds. This powertrain is every bit as thrilling as it sounds, which is to say, it isn't. Zero to 60 mph takes more than eight seconds and, with the throttle matted as you attempt to merge on the interstate, the Verano bleats so tragically a veterinarian would likely want to put it down.
That is ridiculous in a Buick so-called "Premium" car.
Regards,
OW
I guess Buick should raise prices $5,000 and get that 0-60 time down another one second.
I can feel his relief when he finally found something he could complain about: the fender did not have a 4 mm gap, instead the markings on the unibody (do those exist) showed it was fitted 4 mm from where it should have been located. Did I miss his saying that the gap was 4 mm off? I don't think I did.
Perhaps this was a preproduction model and the unibody is off and the prep folks fitted the fender to the proper gap so that the WSJ folks wouldn't be offended by being asked to drive a lesser example beneath their status!!! :P :shades:
Somehow, his arrogance gushes all through his article. Note that a different engine will be in place in 2013 models with more power. But it ain't ready. If they had not produced the vehicle, the author would probably be whining that Buick doesn't have a smaller luxury offering. Can't please some of the haters.
As for 0-60 in 8 seconds. I doubt I've done 0-60 in 12 seconds in the last 2 years. Only someone from C&D, R&T, WSJ would be abusing a vehicle thusly and then whine with the results. For most, if not all, buyers of the Verano the acceleration will be suitable.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I don't think the engine in that car sounds too great - sounds like the same unit in the Regal I rented, which also could sound unrefined. Maybe I'd take more from a second opinion.
but I think that's one downside to today's tighter tolerances...if something's slightly out of alignment, it shows up more. Especially at certain angles and lights.