mmarshall

Sounds to me like what you need to do is forget the (admitted) Chevy junk from the past and see what they have been doing since the buyout/reorganization. Same with Chrysler, which also produced mostly junk until their buyout. With the new 2014 Impala, especially, I think one simple trip around the block, if nothing else, will help change your mind.

FrankReynoldsCPA

For the most part I'm going to agree with you on this one. A lot of the domestic's sedans lacked severely in the styling department in the 90's and early 2000's. The only cars from GM that I've ever been drawn strongly to are the Firebird and Camaro muscle cars, since my old man has a 67 Firebird 400. Other than that, nothing has appealed to much to me. I did think the 2000-2005 Impala looked alright though, and almost bought one last year.

SteVTEC

Well you ask the question, but then mention the Civic which has been universally panned by just about everybody in the auto press including Consumer Reports, who didn't even recommend the car because it scored so low in their tests. I can flip that around and say that only the most diehard loyal Honda fans would keep on buying the Civic. Chevy is the only other small car manufacturer to offer a turbodiesel in the U.S. now also, which is big news. More interesting styling vs. Civic, more interesting range of engines, etc. I wouldn't buy one either, but especially if you compare it to the latest Civic........ ew. Just about everything is more appealing to me than the Honda Civic is. They really went backwards with the latest design. Previous one was way better.

fastdak25

I was given a 12 or 13 malibu as a rental last year while my car was in the shop and it still just had a cheap feel and look to it. Nothing about the car at all caught my eye.

doge

How does that cool aid taste?

Mind going into specifics? What in particular gave off a cheap feel?

Gville350

iTrader: (10)

My wife has an auto'11 turbo 1.4L Cruze. Wish back in early '11, they had the diesel version then.

Anyways, the interior IS pretty nice for an econo-box (we have leather) and the exterior styling is good.

Problems I have/had with the car -

1) Though it has a SMALL turbo, we have horrible turbo lag up until 3k.
2) Not but 2k miles into it, the trans controlling ecu had to swapped out. Covered under warranty.
3) After the first washing of the car, I noticed that the lower rear quarters had paint "over-spray". So much so that is gloobed up onto a ball the size of a pencil eraser. THAT pissed me off!
4) Though my wife has never hit anything with the car, the rear bumper now slightly sags on passenger rear.

My thoughts on the new '15 Cruze; well, I don't care because I'll never let anyone in my family buy a Chevy again!

corradoMR2

Agreed. Compact cars were a hot market. Let's not forget the cookie cutter Chrysler K-cars Reliant and Aries which is what saved Chrysler (alongside the minivan) from bankruptcy in the 80s.

I'm with you though admittedly the latest Malibu and Impalas are a noticeable improvement in materials, fit/finish, ride, and NVH. Styling is not for me, but at least content-wise, they are competitive. In the hotly contested compact segment where the Japanese and Koreans dominate, GM must re-invest/re-design from ground-up every 5-6 years max to keep up with the competition, and not extend an already 6-year old car.

Vh_Supra26

iTrader: (1)

http://www.carscoops.com/2014/04/chi...ruze-gets.html

chikoo

and then they also switched to the Z link suspension, only for the US. GM bean counters are back at it again.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

^ good catch. Boo

mmarshall

It's true that CR did not recommend the 2012 Civic, but that is a rarity for anything in the Honda line (In fact, even before I read the CR article, I panned it myself in my own review). A number of the 2012's gross faults in interior and cheap materials were corrected the next year, for 2013, and it went back on CR's recommended lists.

Toys4RJill

That sounds like typical GM quality. I learned the hard way once and I will purchase a GM again. I will not even consider one.

Toys4RJill

Regardless if it is z-link or torsion beam, the Cruze is a bargain basement car, its on par with a Corolla. The Verano also uses the z-link rear which is the essentially same car as a Cruze. I believe the Cobalt had the z-link rear.

A torsion beam or z-link is not brilliant engineering, it is simply an el cheapo way of doing a suspension for a bargain basement car. Both are good enough.

mmarshall

While a twist-beam rear axle usually is less-expensive and easier to manufacture than a full-IRS, more is involved than simple cost-cutting. Beam rear axles usually prevent the need for periodic rear-wheel alignments (unless there is damage or bending from a sharp impact or accident). It's easier and less expensive to repair after an accident. And it also usually prevents tracking/steering problems from out-of-spec rear wheel toe/camber settings.

Toys4RJill

mmarshall, the cost cutting is the number one reason why a automaker puts a beam or a z-link rear. The z-link in the Cruze/Verano is vastly inferior and thus cheaper to what the IS250 uses for its IRS