Chevy Cruze to become the compact of the future

[atlaw4u]

Scott Burgess - DETNEWS - August 19, 2010

Detroit's history will cruise down Woodward Avenue on Saturday (though this rolling party has been revving up for weeks). Detroit's future, however, arrives in October with Chevrolet's big-little compact, the 2011 Chevrolet Cruze. Make no bones about it, this car carries General Motors Co.'s future in its 15 cubic-foot trunk.

Sure, the extended-range electric Chevy Volt has had 1,500 days of publicity without actually being up for sale yet, but the Cruze is where the low-rolling resistant rubber meets the pavement. (The Volt's tires debut on the Eco Cruze this fall, before the Volt.)

The Cruze will do more to help the environment, do more for consumers and do more for GM's bottom line than the Volt will for a generation (note: car generations are kind of short).

More importantly, for the first time since, well, since GM tried selling small cars, the Cruze is the best compact car available. Don't take my word for it, go drive one... [Read More]

[Butterfly Mage]

I think the Cruze will be a real breadwinner for GM. I've actually driven a Cobalt and it wasn't a bad car at all. If the Cruze is a quantum leap better, then I predict that sales will be quite brisk.

[brucepick]

"Unfortunately, the 40 mpg Eco Cruze was not available for testing."

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100...#ixzz0x6KY3xbv

Huh? So the more common versions will get less than 40 mpg, I assume.

40 mpg from an eco version of a domestic car is nice, but I wouldn't call it a game changer. My '97 Civic is rated 39 highway, and it's admittedly an eco version, being the tall-geared, lean-burning HX.

45 or 50 mpg would be impressive. In a "nice" car that is driver- and passenger-friendly, of course.

[Butterfly Mage]

The "Eco" version has some tech that the regular version doesn't have. Also, there's the 1.8L vs the 1.4L for engine configuration.

Of course, if GM created an Eco/BAS-II version, you'd have a car that might compete with the Insight-II (providing that GM abandons the foolish notion of charging $3k for BAS).

[herm]

Bruce, your '97 Civic would fold up like a wad of tissue in an accident.. put about 1000lbs of sand in your Civic and see if the economy will stay good.

[RobertSmalls]

Originally Posted by herm

Bruce, your '97 Civic would fold up like a wad of tissue in an accident.. put about 1000lbs of sand in your Civic and see if the economy will stay good.

Only the crumple zones would do that. A 14 year old car is engineered to older safety standards, but they're still quite good in single-car collisions, the most common type. Due to the low center of mass, rollovers are also rare enough in a '97 Civic.

You're in trouble if you're hit in the side by an FSP running a red light, though. Ditto if you hit a ped.

With 15 years of extra research and innovation, 2011's compact cars ought to deliver better fuel economy than 1997's despite the extra safety and emissions equipment, but too few compacts focus on efficiency. The Cruze Eco is a step in the right direction. I hope it sells.

Furthermore, it's 300lbs of sand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Civic#Safety

[MaxxMPG]

I looked on fueleconomy.gov for actual EPA numbers on the Cruze. Not listed yet.

Projections I've seen put city in the high 20s and highway in the high 30s, with the eco at 40.

They do have the 2011 Aveo listed on the site, though. And its EPA is unchanged at 27/35 with MT and 25/34 with AT. Other than a possible wheelbarrow load of cash on the hood, why would any Chevy shopper consider this last model year of the Aveo when the Cruze parked next to it will obliterate it in EPA numbers (not to mention safety scores)?

The next Aveo/Viva, or Avivaveiaviavieveieao for short, will hopefully rectify that problem when it (being a domestically-built Opel Corsa) arrives in Chevy showrooms. Unless they decide to offer it only in BoyRacer editions, it should reach into the 40s on the EPA highway cycle.

On the dealer ordering databases, I did notice that they moved the 2011 Malibu "upmarket", adding to content and sticker on the base version. This would be necessary to keep shoppers from laughing at the $19k sticker on a three-model-year-old car with a turn-of-the-century port-injected 2.4L four-banger and a four speed Powerglide when the same money gets you a Cruze 1.4T with power everything and more airbags than the Senate floor. For 2011, the Malibu LS gets the 6AT as standard, correcting the issue of the old 4AT, and its price is very close to that of the LT. For 2011, the only differences between the Malibu LS and LT are the color of the outside mirrors, whether or not the floor mats and steering wheel audio buttons are standard or optional, and 62 cents worth of exterior chrome trim bits.

So with a few shovelfuls of goodies heaped into the Malibu LS along with a bump to its sticker, and the Cobalt sailing off into the sunset, there is plenty of room for the Cruze to land in the heart of the compact sedan market with minimal price or content overlap.

[PaleMelanesian]

True, the weakness of our civics is side impact. I believe it was the 99 model they added side-impact beams in the doors to help that.

How much of the ECO-ness of the eco version could be bolted to the regular one if they wanted? Why do they not? Why build two sets of parts, one less efficient, when you could just use the efficient one everywhere?

[ksstathead]

"...more airbags than the Senate floor."

[ksstathead]

Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian

True, the weakness of our civics is side impact. I believe it was the 99 model they added side-impact beams in the doors to help that.

How much of the ECO-ness of the eco version could be bolted to the regular one if they wanted? Why do they not? Why build two sets of parts, one less efficient, when you could just use the efficient one everywhere?

Because of the genius of marketing?