mmarshall

A Review of the 2011 Chevrolet Cruze.

http://www.chevrolet.com/cruze/

IN A NUTSHELL: Substantially better than its Cobalt predecessor, a far better interior than its Ford Focus competition, but it lacks the Focus's hatchback option.























I saw the new-to-the-United-State Chevy Cruze at the 2011 D.C. Auto Show last January, though they had had a pre-production model out on the floor (and locked up) at the previous 2010 show last year. After a reservation and quick puff on the Breathalyzer to verify soberness, I had a chance to do a quick test-drive of the Cruze, along with the Kia Optima and Buick Regal, around the show's test-drive circuit on the beat-up city streets near the show's Convention Center. But, like with the Optima and Regal, that wasn't enough for a true review, so, again, I'm catching up here.

The Cruze, of course, replaces the long-running (and not very impressive) compact-sized Chevrolet Cavalier and Cobalt series. I reviewed a bright-yellow Cobalt SS several years ago and was impressed with its pocket-rocket power, but not with much else.....Chevy, IMO, needed a real improvement. The Cavalier may have been better than walking, but not much...it was poorly-built, with ultra-cheap materials, and, IMO, was questionable even as a rental-grade car. The Cobalt, which replaced it, was a minor improvement, but not much. GM decided, with the Cruze, that it was (finally) time to get serious about the fit/finish issues, especially in the interior, and, in some of these issues, the Cruze delivers. But, not only does it have to prove itself in the U.S. (it has already beeen sold abroad under other nameplates, which I'll get to in a second) but it has also been hobbled recently by the story of a production model where the steering-wheel simply fell off when a retaining-nut assembly failed. Fortunately, only one car, so far, has been affected (and no one was hurt), but the story got some publicity.....and we had a CL discussion-thread about it.

The 2011 Cruze is relatively new to the United States, having been introduced just some months ago, but it has been sold overseas under the Daewoo and Holden nameplates for some time, and even a Suzuki-derived Cruze which has nothing to do with the present car....this web-site gives the details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Cruze

Five versions of the Cruze are offered in the American market....LS, 1LT, 2LT, LTZ, and ECO. Base versions get a normally-aspirated 1.8L in-line four with 136 HP/123 ft-lbs. of torque, and a choice of a 6-speed manual or a conventional 6-speed automatic. 1LT, 2LT, and LTZ models get a smaller turbocharged 1.4L in-line four with 138 HP and 148 ft-lbs. of torque and the 6-speed automatic only...no manual. ECO versions get the 1.4L turbo and the choice of the automatic or a special-ratio overdrive 6-speed transmission for economy. The two engines don't seem to have much difference in power ratings, but the smaller turbo (supposedly) gets better fuel mileage and makes its maximum-power at lower RPMs....that's why it is used on the ECO version. It also makes you wonder why it is not used across the board, though, of course, the base N/A engine is simpler to produce and doesn't require the usual turbo techniques like careful start/warm-ups, longer idles before shut-off, etc... The automatic has a special feature that automatically engages Neutral when the car is stopped and idling, even if the transmission is in Drive....that saves a little fuel and prevents transmission "creep" at idle, but also puts more wear on the transmission's internal-clutches shifting it in and out of neutral more often. I don't know if I like the idea or not. Only one body style is offered in the U.S, a 4-door sedan....a marketing error, IMO. The Ford Focus, its closest competior, has a sedan/hatchback choice. So do a number of other small cars now sold in the U.S.

Much of the media and public attention that would normally be going to the Cruze is, of course, being deflected to its corporate-sibling, the extended-range, plug-in hybrid Chevy Volt. The Volt, though with somewhat different body-styling, is done primarily on the Cruze platform. Its astounding gas-mileage capabilities (under ideal conditions, of course), has the country's attention fixed during a time of almost record-high gas prices. But a Volt starts at some $41,000, often carries stiff dealer mark-ups in addition to that when you can find them at all, and, even after Federal and State tax credits, can cost twice or more what lower-line Cruze models cost. A single-occupant Volt qualifies for HOV priviledges, of course, in some areas, where a single-occupant Cruze doesn't, but also consider that the difference between the as-depivered price of a typical Volt and typical Cruze will buy a LOT of gasoline for the Cruze, even at $4+ per gallon. I also think the Cruze's interior, in several areas, is better than the Volt's (and of the Ford Focus
competition).....more on that below.

For the review, I chose a white base-model automatic LS with a two-tone Black/Medium cloth interior. I chose that model for several reasons. First, the list price was quite attractive......only a little over $18,000. Second, I figured the majority of Cruze buyers were looking to keep costs down, and would probably want a base model. Third, the interior trim, IMO, was just superb for an entry-level car of this class, even in a base model. Fourth, of course, today's dense traffic conditions, and the increasing efficiency of today's automatics, make traditional manuals less-attractive. I decided to try out a local Chevy shop I hadn't been to yet, at least for some time. This place, though big and roomy, with plenty of cars in stock, and with good test-driving roads around it, did not strike me as being one of the more honest dealerships I have seen. Not only was the saleslady I ran into somewhat pushy, but she tried a number of sales-pressure techniques, and claimed that one had to buy very shortly because the prices of ALL new cars in America would shortly go up due of a shortage of emission-related parts that were only made in Japan, but would affect all cars in this country. She claimed that her story was verified on the Internet. Well, I wasn't there to argue with her...I was there to look at the Cruze. The place, like many Chevy dealerships, was asking a $3500 mark-up on the Volt parked out in front (covered with decals and ads, I might note). It also had a beautifully restored red 1964 Impala SS convertible parked in the showroom, that they were asking $85,000 for. It was a beautiful car, not certainly not worth that much, IMO. They can be bought at antique/classic-car shows for a lot less than that. So, while I can't necessarily say that the place was out-and-out dishonest, it certainly did not impress me.

So, on with the review. Details coming up.


MODEL REVIEWED: 2011 Chevrolet Cruze LS

BASE PRICE: $16,525

OPTIONS:

Automatic Transmission: $925

Connectivity Package (USB/Bluetooth): $275

DESTINATION/FREIGHT: $750 (about average)

LIST PRICE AS REVIEWED: $18,475


DRIVETRAIN: FWD, transverse-mounted, DOHC 1.8L in-line normally-aspirated four, 136 HP @ 6300 RPM, 123 ft-lbs. of torque @ 3800 RPM, 6-speed Sport-Shift automatic transmission.

EPA MILEAGE RATING: 22 City / 35 Highway

EXTERIOR COLOR: Summit White

INTERIOR: Jet Black/Medium



PLUSSES:

Bargain price on base model.

Extensive Chevrolet dealer-network for service/repairs.

Long 5/100 GM powertrain warranty.

Superb interior trim for a car of this price.

Nice, but too-sparsely-applied exterior chrome trim.

Excellent paint job.

Attractive (IMO) front-end styling.

Fairly good underhood layout.

Smooth braking action.

Flexible 6-speed transmission not the norm for this class.

Nice fore/aft transmission shifter, without the (IMO) annoying zig-zags.

ECOTEC four somewhat more refined than past GM in-line fours.

Wind noise well-controlled.

Road noise fairly well-controlled.

Decent ride comfort.

Solid, heavy-gauge steel hood.

Fairly solid body sheet metal.

Fairly solidly-closing doors.

8 fairly decent paint colors offered.....but I've seen better.

Good interior hardware.

Good front headroom.

Fairly good rear headroom.

Rear seats fold for added cargo space.

OK, but not killer stereo-sound quality.



MINUSES:

Plagued by the steering-wheel loss controversy.

Lacks the Focus hatchback-option in the U.S.

1.8L four adequate, but no powerhouse.

Noticeable transmission torque-converter lockup/unlock surging.

Fairly slow steering response.

Somewhat gummy, sticky power-steering feel.

Noticeable, but not severe, body roll with sharp steering input.

Brake pedal not well-located for big feet.

Underhood prop-rod instead of struts.

No body-side mouldings for parking-lot protection.

Cheap-looking flat-black exterior trim/mouldings.

Flimsy painted-silver plastic wheel covers.

Exterior side-mirrors a little small.

Non-locking gas filler door.

Slightly uncomfortable shoulder-height drivers'-seat-back bolster.

Awkward-feeling manual-seat levers.

Fairly complex/confusing video/buttons for stereo, even without NAV.

Smallish fuel/temperature gauges.

Hard, stiff sun-visor material.

VERY cheaply-finished trunk.

Somewhat smallish trunklid.

Fix-a-Flat compressed-air inflator instead of a spare tire.




EXTERIOR:

I liked the somewhat conservative overall styling of the Cruze, although it does have the now-popular humpback-whale-shaped roofline, which I'm not a fan of. That roof line, though, doesn't take out very much headroom (more on that later), but it does cut into the size of the trunk-lid some (also more on that later). I tend to like the way that Chevy does the horizontal split-grille bar and gold bow-tie logo on most of their models, but I know that styling is subjective, and opinions differ on that. The body sheet metal seems fairly strong and solid, and the hood is solid and quite heavy to lift and lower (with a manual prop-rod, as I'll get into below), so it seems that used some pretty solid-gauge sheet metal for a car of this class.The paint job, overall, was quite good, with GM, as I've stated in other reviews, having made astounding progress in paint-quality in recent years. Eight different paint colors are offered....not as bright or classy shades as I'd like to see, but not the worst I've seen, either. There are no body-side mouldings for parking-lot protection....as is usual with many newer cars. Some readers have remarked that this is being done because of styling-trends, and that people don't want them any more because they tend to break up a car's clean lines, and there's no use complaining about it. I disagree.....I see it as cheapness, a simple way to penny-pinch on each new car, and simple lack of concern for the looks of the body and paint over the years. True, mouldings don't prevent ALL dings (it depends on door-shape-vs.-moulding-height), but they are certainly better then nothing. Fortunately, inexpensive aftermarket ones can often be purchased in auto parts stores that stick-on fairly easily.....I've used them myself.

My base-model LS did not have alloy wheels (I didn't expect them at this price), and the standard bolt-on, silver-painted plastic wheel covers looked and felt cheap and flimsy....though not as flimsy as on some of its competitors. It did not appear to have a locking gas-cap or gas-fller door....another widespread cost-cutting practice by domestic-badged automakers that saves a few pennies a car, but does little to discourage gas-siphoning in these days of $4+ gas. The exterior chrome trim looked and felt nice where it was actually used (mostly on the four window-sills), but much more of the outside trim (too much, IMO), was cheap-looking, flat-black mouldings, including the smallish, triangular-shaped side-mirror housings. The small mirror housings, though, didn't impede vision as much as those on some other GM products, and I didn't list it as a specific complaint.


UNDERHOOD:

Open the HEAVY, solid-steel hood, and you must hold up this weight (with my healing breast-bone after the surgery) and fumble with a manual prop-rod instead of struts or springs. Yes, I know this is a cheap car by today's standards, but, again, struts could probably have easily been used without breaking the car's production-budget. Aged or weak persons are going to have a tough time with this hood. Under the hood lies a nice insulation-pad, which does seem to do its job (more on that later). The basic underhood layout is pretty good, and the transvesely-mounted 1.8L in-line four fits in without much fuss, leaving some room around the sides of the block to reach components. But the plastic engine cover (something not usually found on entry-level cars) does hamper top-engine access. The battery, off to the right, is also has a cover which prevents easy access. But the dipsticks, filler-caps, and fluid-reservoirs are all within easy reach.



INTERIOR:

Well, now we get to what is probably the car's best feature....the superb interior trim for a car in this class. Some of the bean-counting sins outside and under the hood can be forgiven when you climb inside, sit down, and savor the nice, well-finished interior decor that is more worthy of a Buick than an entry-level Chevy economy-car. What is remarkable is that this trim can be found even on the base-model Cruze LS like my test-car....you don't have to move up to the LT1 or LT2 versions to get it. My test-car had one of the two-tone versions, which, IMO, made it look even nicer. The inside of all the door panels had plush, nice-feeling trim materials instead of the hard-plastic used on most economy cars. The upper-dash was not soft-padded, but seemed to be covered in a durable, pleasant-looking grainy material. The ceiling headliner was a nice, soft fabric. The sun-visors were hard plastic, but were thick and substantial in their feel, and the plastic had a grainy, textured-feel. Liberal amounts of chrome, brushed-metal, and soft color-contrast padding are used all over the dash, door-panels, and parts of the console. Chevy designers are to be commended for this interior.....IMO,it is way ahead of the one in the Ford Focus, its closest competitor. GM took a lot of criticism in the past for the rental-grade Cobalt's interior, and the worse-than-rental-grade Cavalier interior.....this time, the designers were determined not to repeat it, and succeeded.

So, the trim-level is superb.....but how is the rest of the interior? OK, but not quite as good. The front seats are generally comfortable and supportive, but, for a person of my size/height, I could feel the hard-padded top of the seat-back pressing into my upper-back, even when I had the seat and headrest-assemblies adjusted where I wanted them. The plastic seat-adjustment levers had a somewhat awkward feel/action to them. Headroom was generally good in the front seat, but the droop-down rear roofline impacted a little on the headroom in back (my test-car, of course, did not have a headroom-robbing sunroof housing). Legroom in back, for a person my size, was a little tight, but I've seen worse. The pull-up parking brake handle felt not-well-attached and a little loose in its action, but I didn't list it as a complaint. The buttons/***** on the center-dash, in conjunction with the video-screen for the stereo, were a little complex and awkward to use, even without the typical added-complexity that often comes with a NAV-system integration. Some of the ***** had nice chrome rings. The stereo-sound itself was OK for a car in this class, but substantially below what I would call a killer. The steering wheel was well-shaped and comfortable to hold, but looked rather plain, and lacked trim on its spokes...perhaps the only trim slip-up in the whole interior. The two primary-gauges (speedometer and tach), set in large chrome-ringed tunnels, are simple, clear, and easy-to-read, but the smaller fuel and engine-temperature gauges between them, IMO, are a little too small.




CARGO AREA/TRUNK:

The rear roof-line, as it does with many sedans nowadays, cuts into the physical size of the trunk-lid, but the bumper-height design of most of today's trunk-lids allows you to get around that some and still allow reasonably bulky items to be loaded in and out of the trunk. The cargo room itself, inside, is not bad for a car of this size, but the trunk's finish inside, in contrast to the superb interior trim, is cheap-looking and seems like something out of a Third-World car. There is no real trunk floor panel....just a semi-hard piece of what feels like paperboard covered with a black ultra-cheap fabric, and an even cheaper-feeling covering on the trunk walls. Underneath this lightweight floor-board, there is a Fix-a-Flat bottle of compressed air, not even a temporary or donut spare. Or, you can just say screw it and call Chevy Roadside Assistance.....they cover you for 5 years. Fortunately, the rear seatbacks fold down for added cargo space, and the hardware/latches for the seat-folding mechanism feels quite solid.



ON THE ROAD:

Start up the ubiquitous Ecotec 1.8L four with a conventional side-column ignition switch and a VW-style, pop-out metal key in a plastic fob. I didn't see a START/STOP button listed on the upmarket Cruze specs like on the Ford Focus and Fiesta. The little engine comes to life with a relatively smooth, quiet purr that is much less raucous than the Ecotec four-bangers of old. On the road, the added refinement also shows in reasonably quiet operation of both engine and exhaust...but, with only 123 ft-lbs. of torque, this is no powerhouse. If a Mustang GT or Camaro SS jock challenges you at a stoplight, quietly turn him down. The power level, though, is adequate for normal, sedate driving on level surfaces and light loads...if you don't try and show off.

The optional 6-speed Sportshift automatic (at $925, a bargain for the price) was generally smooth and quiet in its operation, except for some noticeable surging and/or hesitation when the torque-converter lock-up mechanisms engaged and disengaged. The shift-lever had a nice, smooth, fore-aft operation, without those (IMO) annoying zig-zags. As with most Sport-shift units, a separate slot on the left allows the Sport-mode manual-shifting.

The chassis-engineering was economy-car-OK, but nothing to write home about. Steering response was a little on the slow side, and, with sharp inputs, was accompanied by significant body roll.....classic FWD understeer. The electric power-steering system was reasonably firm (I don't like feathery, over-assisted units), but that firmness seemed to have a sticky, gummy feel to it, and the steering wheel didn't want to self-center very well....you had to coax it back. Ride comfort, from the rather compliant suspension and higher-profile tires, was reasonably comfortable.....a fair trade, in my book, for the slow steering response and body roll. Wind noise was well-damped, and road/tire noise fairly-well damped....again, not bad for a car in this class. The brake pedal was generally nice and firm in its operation and didn't feel spongy, but was not ideally-located for big clod-hopper size-15 shoes like mine...I had to be careful not to get those shoes hung-up on the side of the pedal when going from the gas-pedal to the brake.



THE VERDICT:

With this car, you can forget about the unimpressive Cobalt (even the Cobalt SS had its problems, too), and the even-more-forgettable Cavalier that preceeded it. While the Cruze is not perfect by any means, it is an enormous improvement over its predecessors, especially when you open the door and sit inside. The interior trim is worthy of a small luxury-car. The paint job is well-done....which wasn't the case with GM products for many years. The Ecotec four-cylinder doesn't sound and run like a washing-machine any more. The transmission is a modern, flexible, Sport-shift 6-speed....though the lock-up mechanisms could use a little more fine-tuning. Long-term reliability, of course, in the American market, remains to be proved, but the basic car has already seen service overseas under other nameplates. Hopefully, any teething-problems have already been addressed.....and the long 5/100 GM powertrain warranty is reassuring. Best of all, the price on the base-model Cruze, IMO, is a bargain.

But, of course, as always, some things could use improvement or need to be addressed. GM needs to seriously consider a hatchback or wagon version of this car for the American market.....body styles which other competing compacts like the Ford Focus, Hyundai Elantra, Mazda3, Dodge Caliber, and Toyota Matrix have already provided. A little less penny-pitching, please, on things like hood struts, body-side mouldings, and a spare tire. And an AWD version for bad weather (with a little more power under the hood to compensate for the added weight/drag) wouldn't be a bad idea either.

And, of course, make sure that the steering-wheel stays on..........


Finally, as always, Happy Car Shopping.

MM

caddyowner

Nice review. One of my wife's caregivers has an 82 year-old boarder and he just sold his 3 yr. old Civic and bought a fully loaded LTZ Cruze. He felt it was roomier than the new Focus and he preferred the exterior styling of the Cruze. One of my neighbors is a GM manager and he arranged for friends-and-family pricing.

I like the conservative styling of the Cruze. However, I still wonder about the reliability of GM passenger cars.

mmarshall

Thanks.


Tell him congragulations on his purchase. But, if he's concerned with reliability, it's hard to beat a Civic......given proper care and service, they run forever. The Civic's interior, though, despite its Swiss-Watch build quality, IMO cannot compare with that of the Cruze.


According to Consumer Reports (the reliability-source I trust the most) GM reliability has been all over the place. Some of their vehicles have been quite good, others average, and some down in the pits.

Kostamojen

I'm surprised you didn't test the 1.4 turbo version. I haven't seen too many of the base 1.8l's on lots, I figure most of the models that are being sold are the turbos.

Totally agree about the interior, its such a huge improvement over the horrible Cobalt interior. I also agree about how well the previous Cobalt SS drove despite its interior (drove one on a Chevy setup auto-x type test track, it was fantastic). I hope they bring out a SS version of the Cruze!

Side note: The turbo motor apparently is responding quite well to tuning, even when stock, so thats something to think about if someone is interested in performance and needs a cheap compact car right now.

LexusMan77

Great review. The Cruze is a huge improvement over the Cobalt. It definitely all of the modern improvements like 6 speed, mpg, interior, but I feel it is not class leading yet. It is a greatly improved car that has finally caught up with the competition. The Focus has two body styles like you mentioned and the Elantra has its unique styling which make it tough for the Cruze to be a real winner. By the way could you do your next review on the 2012 Honda Civic? Thanks.

caddyowner

Folks tried to convince him to stay with the Civic, but he wanted a car with lots of goodies. He had bought a bunch of aftermarket upgrades for the Civic, but it wasn't enough. Our caregiver's mother ended up buying the Civic for a fair price as she was also looking for a car.

mmarshall

Like I mentioned in the review, I chose an El Cheapo automatic for a number of reasons. I figured that most people buying this class of car, especially from a domestic manufacturer, are usually looking to keep costs down. Turbos often (but not always) require premium gas, and need careful warm-ups/shutdowns. The turbo often, even with proper care, does not not last the life of the engine.....although the latest modern synthetic oils have helped to extend turbo life over what it used to be. The Cruze's turbo, due partially to lower displacement, doesn't produce much more power than the larger, base engine. And today's traffic, in and around major cities, prety much necessitates the use of an automatic transmission.

You mean the Cruze? The old Cobalt did have an SS model.....I reviewed a bright-yellow one.

The old Cobalt SS was generally fun to drive, but I distinctly remember an awkward, hard-to-use clutch that was very difficult to get smooth starts from....especially starting uphill, were it would tend to spin the front tires.

OK.....thanks for the heads-up. While some tuners may want higher-zoot versions, I still think that the base model will do quite well.

Kostamojen

Typo. Fixed!

mmarshall

Thanks.

Styling, of course, is subjective....and I respect your opinion on the new Elantra's styling. But I am not a fan of the looks of any of Hyundai's latest vehicles.....including the Elantra.


Sure.....I'll put it on my list. A few new 2012 models seem to be just starting to trickle into the D.C. area now.

Which version do you want? Coupe or sedan? Automatic or manual? Which trim level? There are a lot of different Civic models. (see the web site)

http://automobiles.honda.com/civic/

LexusMan77

True, styling is subjective. I was referring to the daringness of the Elantra's body style and how that makes it stand out in the segment compared to the Cruze, but whether or not it is successful in the long run remains to be seen. Personally, I'm not a fan either, I find the styling a bit busy.

Preferably the Civic sedan automatic LX trim. However, any one of the normal gasoline sedan trims would be fine. My sister has an 09 Civic LX-S and I'm curious to see how Honda has done with this new generation compared to the last.

spwolf

Here in Eastern Europe, Cruze is dirt cheap... around 30% cheaper than base Corolla (in general Chevy/Daewoo is one of the cheapest brands on the market) so it is pretty popular... I have read in local forums how people complain about it being too underpowered and dangerous with its 1.6l base engine, which was kind of funny read because here we have a lot slower cars but then again few months ago news article appeared how customers in some other european country are suing them for making car dangerous when overtaking, so it seems there might be some technical issue there, because as I said, we do have a lot slower cars.

mmarshall

OK.....I'll review a 2012 LX automatic sedan.

Danimal

Good to see a review of this car. Depending on how well they hold up, I may want to pick up one (of course a turbo, M/T ) as a commuter car in a year or two. It looks like a good little car from Chevy.

mmarshall

Thanks.

There are lots of reviews of the new Cruze, of course, in magazines, newspapers, Internet, etc.....but I try and give you a personalized touch, and a complete description of the car from stem to stern.


The turbo, being smaller-displacement, doesn't have much more power than the base engine in the LS model.....yet, of course, costs more, and uses higher-grade fuel. That is one of several reasons why I chose the base car for review. You can, of course, get the M/T with the base engine, and save even more money. Of course, this is not an expensive car to start with, even in the top-line models....so you probably won't blow your bank account, even with an LT2 Turbo.

Elvis@Vossen

I gotta say that these cars look awesome in person. I saw a top of the line model rolling on the highway the other day in Cherry Red and it was stunning.