Topic: 2011 Chevrolet Cruze: More Compact Car for the Money

[rrocket]

Seriously.  I first realized the error of my ways when Shnak posted 14 posts about why he preferred a Sonata in my Civic Si show-and-shine thread.  I've been doubting myself ever since, and now I'll never forgive myself for not buying a Forte.

See what happens when you don't think things through....   

[libraman]

Uh oh, more Hyundai SPAM from fanboy.

How is it spam when I'm providing an informed opinion piece that contradicts what he said? Do you know what spam is?

Calling the Cruze a guzzler is just, well, ignorant.

Ok, sure, using the word guzzler was an exageration... but in relation to the Elantra, it kind of is...

Fuel economy with automatic transmission:
Elantra 1.8L:      6.9  4.9
Cruze Eco 1.4L:  7.8  5.1  
Corolla 1.8L:       7.8  5.7
Civic 1.8L:         8.2  5.7
Cruze 1.4L:        8.5  5.5
Cruze 1.8L:        9.2  5.6

Quite a difference between the Elantra and Cruze, even the Cruze Eco.

Do you actually rely on government fuel erffciancy numbers? Give me sime real world numbers and you may ahave an argument.  Remind me to do so when they have all been tested by CR.

Sure, here are the numbers taken from many Day-to-Day reviews from wing.

Corolla S - 7.0L/100km
Cruze Turbo - 8.4L/100km
Forte 2.0L - 9.3L/100km
Cobalt XFE - 7.8L/100km
Civic Si - 8.6L/100km
Corolla XRS - 8.0L/100km

Are you going to contest these numbers too?

Those numbers are bogus for comparison purposes.. Differerent temperatures, different days, different routes, different driving consditions. Completely unreliable for comparison purposes. Temperature alone has a significant effect on fuel economy.

[dkaz]

Ease up on the engine speeds and you guys might have decent real world mileage. I get the best mileage when I upshift at 2,500 RPM, but at 3,000 RPM I can meet city figures easily. 4,000 RPM, fuel mileage suffers. Same with the highway, if you can keep your speeds under 105km/h you will beat hwy figures.

And those numbers prove that the Corolla may still be the most fuel efficient in the real world for real lead footers, Wing looking your way.  Still I had an 08 Corolla before rated 7.1/5.5 and I never exceeded 7.1, sure I pushed the acceleration at times but made up for it with conservative shifts the other times, and I got 4.7L/100km Edmonton to Kamloops.

[Shnak]

Because you said the Cruze is "certainly quite far behind the Civic and Corolla," so comparing those three cars seemed the best way to refute what you said.

Also, what rrocket said.

So, by your own admission, you've turned into a troll? 

I'd be a troll if the primary purpose of my post was to get a rise out of you.  As it was, the primary purpose of my post was to supply Cruze v. Civic v. Corolla numbers because your own post compared those three cars.

Getting you to hyperventilate was just a pleasant side-effect.

So, by your own admission, you've turned into a troll? 

You too will bow at the altar of Hyundai/Kia Mitlov!  Resistance is futile!

Seriously.  I first realized the error of my ways when Shnak posted 14 posts about why he preferred a Sonata in my Civic Si show-and-shine thread.  I've been doubting myself ever since, and now I'll never forgive myself for not buying a Forte.

That whole thing was one big job.

[Shnak]

Uh oh, more Hyundai SPAM from fanboy.

How is it spam when I'm providing an informed opinion piece that contradicts what he said? Do you know what spam is?

Calling the Cruze a guzzler is just, well, ignorant.

Ok, sure, using the word guzzler was an exageration... but in relation to the Elantra, it kind of is...

Fuel economy with automatic transmission:
Elantra 1.8L:      6.9  4.9
Cruze Eco 1.4L:  7.8  5.1  
Corolla 1.8L:       7.8  5.7
Civic 1.8L:         8.2  5.7
Cruze 1.4L:        8.5  5.5
Cruze 1.8L:        9.2  5.6

Quite a difference between the Elantra and Cruze, even the Cruze Eco.

Do you actually rely on government fuel erffciancy numbers? Give me sime real world numbers and you may ahave an argument.  Remind me to do so when they have all been tested by CR.

Sure, here are the numbers taken from many Day-to-Day reviews from wing.

Corolla S - 7.0L/100km
Cruze Turbo - 8.4L/100km
Forte 2.0L - 9.3L/100km
Cobalt XFE - 7.8L/100km
Civic Si - 8.6L/100km
Corolla XRS - 8.0L/100km

Are you going to contest these numbers too?

Those numbers are bogus for comparison purposes.. Differerent temperatures, different days, different routes, different driving consditions. Completely unreliable for comparison purposes. Temperature alone has a significant effect on fuel economy.

So... you don't accept EPA numbers, but you don't accept real-world numbers either. So... according to you, it's absolutely impossible to compare the fuel economy of two vehicles at all, ever.

[libraman]

Uh oh, more Hyundai SPAM from fanboy.

How is it spam when I'm providing an informed opinion piece that contradicts what he said? Do you know what spam is?

Calling the Cruze a guzzler is just, well, ignorant.

Ok, sure, using the word guzzler was an exageration... but in relation to the Elantra, it kind of is...

Fuel economy with automatic transmission:
Elantra 1.8L:      6.9  4.9
Cruze Eco 1.4L:  7.8  5.1  
Corolla 1.8L:       7.8  5.7
Civic 1.8L:         8.2  5.7
Cruze 1.4L:        8.5  5.5
Cruze 1.8L:        9.2  5.6

Quite a difference between the Elantra and Cruze, even the Cruze Eco.

Do you actually rely on government fuel erffciancy numbers? Give me sime real world numbers and you may ahave an argument.  Remind me to do so when they have all been tested by CR.

Sure, here are the numbers taken from many Day-to-Day reviews from wing.

Corolla S - 7.0L/100km
Cruze Turbo - 8.4L/100km
Forte 2.0L - 9.3L/100km
Cobalt XFE - 7.8L/100km
Civic Si - 8.6L/100km
Corolla XRS - 8.0L/100km

Are you going to contest these numbers too?

Those numbers are bogus for comparison purposes.. Differerent temperatures, different days, different routes, different driving consditions. Completely unreliable for comparison purposes. Temperature alone has a significant effect on fuel economy.

So... you don't accept EPA numbers, but you don't accept real-world numbers either. So... according to you, it's absolutely impossible to compare the fuel economy of two vehicles at all, ever.

I don't accept those real world sumber. AS smentioned in my previous post, I will supply some valid real world numbers as they become available.  And according to me the numbers you are attempting to use would not hold up under close scrutiny. Please do not claim to speak for me with your rediculous arguments.

[Shnak]

Those numbers are bogus for comparison purposes.. Differerent temperatures, different days, different routes, different driving consditions. Completely unreliable for comparison purposes. Temperature alone has a significant effect on fuel economy.

So... you don't accept EPA numbers, but you don't accept real-world numbers either. So... according to you, it's absolutely impossible to compare the fuel economy of two vehicles at all, ever.

I don't accept those real world sumber. AS smentioned in my previous post, I will supply some valid real world numbers as they become available.  And according to me the numbers you are attempting to use would not hold up under close scrutiny. Please do not claim to speak for me with your rediculous arguments.

But, as you said, conditions are never identical from one test to the other, so that means you can't ever compare fuel economy test results. It's impossible. You said so yourself. Too many variables that affect fuel economy. Might as well tell EPA, NRCan and all the other agencies that monitor fuel economy of vehicles... they're useless and are wasting their time even attempting to compare the cars.

I'm curious to see what you deem acceptable numbers to compare. Real curious.

[Mitlov]

That whole thing was one big job.

.  You said the Cruze was "certainly quite far behind the Civic and Corolla" in fuel economy.  I compared THOSE THREE CARS.

Do you want me to assume that you're implicitly ending every single frakking post with "and Hyundai rocks, Amen."?  Because I can start doing that.  That's the only reason I would have posted fuel economy numbers for a car that wasn't mentioned in the post I was responding to.

[Shnak]

.  You said the Cruze was "certainly quite far behind the Civic and Corolla" in fuel economy.  I compared THOSE THREE CARS.

In James's real-world testing, the Cruze 1.4T consumed 20% more than the Corolla, and while he hasn't tested a regular Civic, the Civic Si got him pretty much the same thing as the Cruze 1.4T, it's easy to extrapolate that the regular Civic would be much better. And before someone else jumps on me to say James's test conditions were different, He tested the Corolla in June with an unspecified mix of city and highway, the Civic Si in November with 80% highway driving, and the Cruze 1.4T also in November with mostly highway driving.

Whatever. The Cruze isn't as good on fuel as everyone is making it out to be. No big deal. Being wrong or exagerating happens. Again, no big deal. Everyone does it, me certainly included.

Do you want me to assume that you're implicitly ending every single frakking post with "and Hyundai rocks, Amen."?  Because I can start doing that.  That's the only reason I would have posted fuel economy numbers for a car that wasn't mentioned in the post I was responding to.

That's fine. I've moved on from that one... you should do the same. 

[Dante]

A well designed and well executed back-to-back test could provide "real-world" fuel economy numbers. James observations are not and he stated it in more than one occasions; so are magazine observations (they call their numbers "observed" for a reason.
Your mileage will still vary once you change the testing conditions in the real, real world.

@ Mitlov
You missed the fun in the record-breaking post count in several Regal threads (some got locked after a while) and even in the Fiesta v Mazda2 .
Expect Elantra to pop-up in every compact car thread going forward before post #10. The same goes for Sonata in every mid-size thread (mainstream, premium, luxury, you name it).

[vdk]

That whole thing was one big job.

.  You said the Cruze was "certainly quite far behind the Civic and Corolla" in fuel economy.  I compared THOSE THREE CARS.

Do you want me to assume that you're implicitly ending every single frakking post with "and Hyundai rocks, Amen."?  Because I can start doing that.  That's the only reason I would have posted fuel economy numbers for a car that wasn't mentioned in the post I was responding to.

Dear Mitlov --

Resistance is futile.


-- The Borg

[CatsEye68]

Seriously.  I first realized the error of my ways when Shnak posted 14 posts about why he preferred a Sonata in my Civic Si show-and-shine thread.  I've been doubting myself ever since, and now I'll never forgive myself for not buying a Forte.

That goes on in Honda threads too? I didn't know.

I thought it only occurred in threads about new GM models.

Ah well, at least we can give points for consistency if nothing else.

[dkaz]

Except the Civic Si needs premium gas, but it is has 8,200 RPM of redline sex.

[Bubba]

Except the Civic Si needs premium gas, but it is has 8,200 RPM of redline sex.

honda.ca says 8,000 rpm redline but, yeah, premium gas for that redline seems like a fair trade.


 

[Jaeger]

Interesting articles on Cruze sales:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/12/is-the-cruze-in-trouble/#comment-1693113

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101210/BUSINESS01/12100375/1318/GM-running-out-of-time-to-kick-Cruze-sales-into-high-gear&template=fullarticle

"Three months after launching, the Chevrolet Cruze is on the shopping lists of fewer than 5% of compact-car consumers, General Motors says....

Chevy needs consumers to associate the Cruze -- which replaced the Cobalt -- with value-priced safety and creature comforts before ads for Focuses and Civics again crowd the airwaves.

"I would say that's pretty important," Chevrolet marketing chief Chris Perry told the Free Press.

Chevy needs a small-car winner in case gas prices increase and as a way to win younger buyers. But it's a competitive field. GM sold about 8,000 Cruzes in November, placing it fifth among compact cars. The No. 1 Civic and No. 2 Toyota Corolla each sold more than 16,000 cars."

Jaeger

[rrocket]

Here's the chart in case people don't want to clicky.  And FWIW, I think the Cruze is being outsold by the OLD Elantra, since I don't think the new one was available en mass in November.

[Dante]

^^^

Not worth much IMO. Focus outsold by a large margin - thousands of units, both the Cruze and Elantra - apart by few hundred units.
It is common for old models, heavily discounted, to outsell new models which usually don't have too many incentives on them at launch. Wait a year and see what happens.

Do you have any doubts that for the following few months the OLD Focus will outsell the spanking new Elantra? Do you have any doubts that the inferior Civic and Corolla will continue to outsell (at least for a while) everything else in the class?

BTW: Your forgot Jetta @ 11.000 units in November.

[dougjp]

And I wish numbers would never be released unless they include the split between fleet/rental and retail.

[Dante]

And I wish numbers would never be released unless they include the split between fleet/rental and retail.

For sure the old Focus and Elantra are rental darlings everywhere you go in NA.

[Erik]

Gonna be a long, hard slog for anyone to believe that GM can build a viable, competitive compact car. Not a lot of people who knew the Cobalt are gonna go racing into the Chevy dealer for another small car. If GM can get into the top 3 in sales, it is a HUGE victory for them. Then they can hope for the Cruze replacement, whatever it may be, to take them to the top. Sadly, this car is likely 2 years late to the marketplace, but I guess GM had a couple of things going on in the past two years.

They really should shoot for a 3 year run with this one. Then a serious upgrade if they want to play in this group. With a lot of minor stuff along the way. That is, not what they are doing with the Camaro, for instance.