Sign in to follow this  
NINETY EIGHT REGENCY

Will Chevrolet Cruze reverse GM's string of small car flops?

14 posts in this topic

Will Chevrolet Cruze reverse GM's string of small car flops?

11:47 AM

"General Motors thinks it can finally sell a good small car."

So starts a story by Tom Krisher of the Associated Press which points out how much is at stake for General Motors with its new Chevrolet Cruze compact.

Frankly, GM has flopped every time its Chevrolet division has tried to succeed with small cars -- whether it was the unsafe-at-any-speed Corvair, problem-plagued Vega or forgettable Chevrolet Cobalt.

This time, "they can't afford to get it wrong," Krisher quotes Michael Robinet, an automotive analyst with CSM Worldwide in Michigan, as saying.

And David Champion of Consumer Reports points out there is a good reason why the cars haven't succeeded:

GM hasn't really tried. Small cars mean small profits, the old Detroit dictum goes.

Cruze's prospects are supposed to be brighter because GM thinks it has worked out the kinks. No more clanky tranmissions or noisy tires. And it gets 40 miles per gallon now. And now that it has drastically lowered its costs, achieving profitability on a small car may be easier to come by. It can pour a little more value in the car instead of trying to get away on the cheap.

A good small car from GM? We're still waiting.

link:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/06/will-chevrolet-cruze-reverse-gms-string-of-small-cars-flops/1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Clanky transmissions!?' Did the people making these comments ever actually drive a Cobalt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why cannot press for once give unqualified, un-historically related GM comment?

Do they say anything about Issetta when they talk about the turd known as X6 or 5GT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is fully incomplete. Read the other thread next to this one as it puts this in better context.

The comment was based on Mark Ruesse's comment on the Cruze last fall as it was and why it was delayed till later this year. He came to his newe job and felt it need more work. This is something many before him either would not do or could not do as they did not have enough power to make this kind of decision. To Marks credit he was brave enough to make this right before he set it on the market. In the past GM would have put it out and spent the next 3 years fixing it.

Here is Marks statment.

Mark Reuss, GM's North American president and former head of engineering, said the six-speed automatic transmission constantly shifted. The tires were noisy, and there was a troubling lag between when the driver stepped on the gas and when the 1.4-liter engine's turbocharger kicked in.

I think this thread should be combined with the other thread. It is a lot more complete. It still leaves a little debate but not like this cliff notes version.

As for the Cruze we should not expect a home run here. It is a very competitive area for a automakers and few claim the lead on one car. GM needs to build strenght with this car and market share. It also need to make money. If they can improve in both of these areas the Cruze will be what GM needs it to be.

Market share gain and profit=a win for the Cruze. The next version we then work to being a segment leader.

Overal I expect the Cruze to be a very reliable, well built quiet and good value car. The issues will be with Public trust and styling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hopefully the extra time to retune the powertrain will help but then there is the issue of the OPTIONAL engine not even cracking 150hp.......and the base engine being a wheezer......

at least if you're gonna take 3 years and dick around, at least get one mill under the hood that match a damn Kia Forte....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hopefully the extra time to retune the powertrain will help but then there is the issue of the OPTIONAL engine not even cracking 150hp.......and the base engine being a wheezer......

at least if you're gonna take 3 years and dick around, at least get one mill under the hood that match a damn Kia Forte....

Truth be told I'm tempted to buy one and just throw a cold air intake on it... I can sacrifice a few MPG for performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth be told I'm tempted to buy one and just throw a cold air intake on it... I can sacrifice a few MPG for performance.

well maybe it would have been nice if they would have given you another 200 or 400 CC's of displacement too......

cruiser bikes have more displacement......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt think the Cobalt was a flop. It was a huge improvment over the Cavalier it replaced. Very huge improvment. The Cavalier wasnt too bad in 1995 but it should have been replaced about 2000 or so instead of waiting until 2005. Plus it seemed like as the years went by they cheapened it. The 1982-94 may not have been great but compared to a lot of the other small cars at the time(especially at the beginning) is was very nice. again the problem was it got old and GM waited way too long to replace it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this