Chevy Cruze to become the compact of the future

[southerncannuck]

I got these numbers from Safercars.gov. The weight didn't go up as much as I thought, but the impact numbers for the older car are scary.

1993 Civic 4 door, curb weight 2337 lbs

Front impact
Head Injury Criterion 480 329
Chest deceleration (g's) 46 45
Femur load l/r1 (lb) 979 / 813 536 / 576
Side impact
Head Injury Criterion (HIC) 538 1142
Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI) 83 81
Pelvis Deceleration (g's) 107 131


2010 Civic 4 door, curb weight, 2749

Front impact
Head Injury Criterion 290 298
Chest deceleration (g's) 44 41
Femur load l/r1 (lb) 548 / 63 372 / 433
Side impact
Head Injury Criterion (HIC) 237 751
Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI) 58 50
Pelvis Deceleration (g's) 80 53

[MaxxMPG]

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?

The eco version of the Cruze has a few significant upgrades over the LT version it's based upon. It has the lightweight forged aluminum wheels and FuelMax tires from the Volt, underbody panels for smoother aero, and some sound insulation and other 'dead weight' omitted. The real secret is in the revised transmission gearing. The 6MT in the Cruze is being described as "a regular five speed overdrive manual with a second taller overdrive above fifth".

The wheel/tire combo and transmission together would offer 2/3 of the FE gain the eco offers. But those forged wheels aren't cheap, and offering the manual transmission transmission in other versions of the Cruze would kill off the eco since people would get the LS/LT version to gain back the sound damping and save a few bucks. Since MTs don't sell much, I think they are wise to offer a stick in the "base" 1.8 LS version, and then the tall-geared version for the eco, and leave the rest as automatics. What that does is force anyone who wants a 6MT into the eco version if they want the 1.4T engine. The eco is equipped about the same as an LT (in the dealer printbook, the eco is listed in the LT column), and priced about the same as an LT.

* * *

Regarding the 40mpg EPA vs the 39mpg EPA on the 14 year old car. That is a common comparison, but not valid. There is tremendous progress in powertrain technology with each passing decade, and then the government steps in with the new rules. A MY1997 anything would be illegal to sell as new in all 50 states. The HX with lean burn can't get anywhere near meeting NOx emission limits. It it were legal and there were some demand for it, Honda would still offer it. Toward the bitter end (about five years ago), lean burn got very expensive, with dedicated sensors and catalyst to squeak by the Fed. A better comparison would be 2010 Honda Civic DX vs 2011 Cruze eco - both with MT. Honda has the next Civic on hold for now while it revises the strategy for the Civic to boost FE in light of the Cruze eco, the Fiesta and next year's Focus, next year's Hyundai Elantra/Veloster/Accent, and so on.

New cars are required to have all the electronannies - side airbags, stablility control, tire pressure monitoring, and $1000 worth of other mandated equipment to help us survive as we drive blindfolded with no hands on the wheel. And market forces require it to do well in side impact and roof crust tests performed by the Insurance Prostitute for Highway Safety (revised naming deliberate in light of the fact that they themselves admit to being "fully funded by the insurance industry"). Even with (expensive) high strength steel in the body shell, these "Top Safety Pick" designations don't come free. There's a price to pay. In weight. All cars are overweight relative to the numbers seen 15 years ago, and can be roughly 50% heavier than they were 30 years ago. The 2011 Buick Lacrosse, for example, is exactly the same size (within an inch) as a 1975 Chevy Nova, which was a "compact" at the time. But the AWD version of the 2011 Lacrosse weighs only 120 pounds less than a 1975 Chevy Impala, and couple of hundred pounds more than a 1965 Chevy Impala. That '75 Nova cast the same shadow as the '11 Lacrosse, but weighed 3200-3300 pounds - about what today's compacts weigh (or will weigh in the next redesign).

For those with the HX Civics or Geo/Suzuki Metro/Swift or other FE champions - you own a piece of automotive history that is gone forever. They are anomalies that pushed the limits of the laws of the time and have since been outlawed. Because 2011 versions of them would be illegal, all FE comparisons are off the table. The proof is on fueleconomy.gov, where the automotive giants who gave us the FE champions of the past are now right there in the mix of 26-40mpg, struggling to find a way to offer the highest mileage number along with a higher safety rating and/or lower price.

[PaleMelanesian]

Originally Posted by southerncannuck

I got these numbers from Safercars.gov. The weight didn't go up as much as I thought, but the impact numbers for the older car are scary.

I looked, but couldn't find where the stats are on that site. What are the numbers for a 1997 Civic, I'd like to know. The 1996 was a new model, not the same as the 1993.

[southerncannuck]

Sometimes I'm amazed by the knowledge that can be gotten on this web site.

Andrew, try this link http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/...002fd17898RCRD

[PaleMelanesian]

Thanks! cookies required, but I'll do it for useful sites like that. Bookmarked, too.

The 1997 numbers are identical to the 1993. Surprising. The 1999 revision mainly has worse numbers than the 97. Both have a rear seat side impact warning. not cool, that's where my kids sit.

[WriConsult]

Originally Posted by MaxxMPG

For those with the HX Civics or Geo/Suzuki Metro/Swift or other FE champions - you own a piece of automotive history that is gone forever. They are anomalies that pushed the limits of the laws of the time and have since been outlawed. Because 2011 versions of them would be illegal, all FE comparisons are off the table. The proof is on fueleconomy.gov, where the automotive giants who gave us the FE champions of the past are now right there in the mix of 26-40mpg, struggling to find a way to offer the highest mileage number along with a higher safety rating and/or lower price.

I'm afraid you're right. Safety and emissions concerns have made FE targets harder and harder to hit. And necessarily so, I suppose.

That said, there's one other major unnecessary change in vehicles that has hindered their FE ratings: today's cars are also much faster than those of 10 or 20 years ago. I personally have been more than content for many years with cars that would do 0-60 in 10-11sec. That used to be what your average car could do, but cars with that level of acceleration are pretty much the exception now.

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Originally Posted by WriConsult

That said, there's one other major unnecessary change in vehicles that has hindered their FE ratings: today's cars are also much faster than those of 10 or 20 years ago. I personally have been more than content for many years with cars that would do 0-60 in 10-11sec. That used to be what your average car could do, but cars with that level of acceleration are pretty much the exception now.

What I've read about the failure to become more efficient is that besides the increased size and weight manufacturers used the improvements in engine technology to smooth the power profile of cars. Not only can they accelerate faster they do so more easily.

[xcel]

Hi All:

Getting back to the Cruze, I really trust Scott's judgment on being the best compact in the industry and I have no doubt that it is. The problem lyes in the fact the pricing with anything coming close to the featurs we deem basic in a car today are pricey add-ons with the Cruze. WHen you start talking $23K stickers w/out the bells and whistles being added, the Cruze's pricing gets out of hand right quick.

With brand new Prius' being driven away at $22K, could you justify the purchase of a smaller and less efficient Cruze for similar $'s?

A lot of Cobalt's have been sold over the years with the $5K under, over and above the table being given to its purchasers in the past, I am just not sure how GM is going to sell this one for the prices they are asking no matter how good it is. That Hyundai Sonata keeps sticking its nose in and laughing at the Cruze as a true Full-size and for less cost and better equipped.

That said, I cannot wait to drive one but $17 for the base on up to $23K for the loaded without adding options is really asking a lot of a GM car in the middle of a recession.

Good Luck

Wayne