Jump to content
Create New...

LLN Reviews Cruze 2LT


NOS2006

Recommended Posts

Source: Left Lane News (LINK.. Pictures after the jump)

As post-bankruptcy General Motors reinvents itself, the automaker formerly known as the world’s largest is finding that it cannot ignore historically less-profitable segments like compact and subcompact cars.

Share1retweet00diggsdiggBut to compete with rivals like Toyota and Honda, GM knows the facsimile game won’t work. Luring buyers back into Detroit products requires something new. In this case, it is a trip into uncharted waters: A move upscale with the globally-developed Chevrolet Cruze.

To find out if GM’s Korean and German divisions are up to the task, we put nearly 3,000 miles on a nicely-equipped 2011 Cruze LT.

What is it?

Don’t call it a Cobalt or a Cavalier. Although its name might sound Gen X-inspired to us, the Cruze is a vastly more refined four-door than any of its compact predecessors. GM hopes that buyers will take home Cruzes because they want them, not because they were forced to settle on a Cobalt or a Cavalier that was cheaper than its rivals.

Cruze rides on the same Delta II architecture as the Opel Astra and the Chevrolet Volt, but most development was done in South Korea and Germany..

Although Cruzes just hit the market in the United States late in 2010, the sedan has actually been on sale in some places across the globe for about two years. That isn’t because GM wanted to keep it away from us, but rather because it was introduced in the markets where primary development took place.

Our tester featured the uplevel 2LT trim, which adds leather seats and a few other goodies, but falls just short of the range-topping LTZ. Base Cruzes check in at around $17,000 – a price that seems high but nonetheless still comes in below a similarly-optioned Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla. Cars are expensive to develop and build these days.

What’s it up against?

Chevrolet is gunning for the class-leading Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla. Of course, “class-leading” might be a misnomer if you look at anything other than the sales figures.

In terms of content, the Cruze squares off against the value-laden Hyundai Elantra and the similarly upmarket Mazda3 and 2012 Ford Focus.

Any breakthroughs?

A look at the spec sheet might leave you confused. Base Cruzes have a 1.8-liter, 138-horsepower four-cylinder, while all of the higher trim levels feature a 1.4-liter turbo four with… 138 horsepower. But the story here is torque, where the 1.8 offers a paltry 123 lb-ft. at 3,800 rpm, while the turbo delivers 148 lb-ft. in a broad band that begins at just 1,850 rpm.

For green-minded drivers, the Cruze Eco comes with a unique aerodynamic body kit with an innovative air shutter that makes things even more wind-cheating at speed, as well as its own gearing. The Cruze Eco is the only turbo with a stick, making it sort of an odd default “sporty” choice. We’ll be behind the wheel of a Cruze Eco soon.

How does it look?

The Cruze doesn’t look all that fresh if you’ve been following the auto industry for the last few years – or if you’ve been to Eastern Europe, where it is proving to be a genuine sales success.

But if it’s new to you, you’ll probably like its conservatively creased and toned body, which starts with a bold tall two-section and culminates in a short and high rear deck lid. The look isn’t as daring and trendy as the upcoming Ford Focus, but it strikes us as the kind of style that will wear extremely well.

Most models don’t brag outwardly about being positioned upmarket of a competitive Corolla, but there are enough small touches that all add up to an upscale appearance. Chrome detailing around the front grille, on the belt line and on the rear deck lid help out, as do particularly classy tail lamps. Our tester featured optional 17-inch alloy wheels but not the availble RS appearance package that adds a body kit and fog lamps. LTZs add 18-inchers for more bling.

And on the inside?

The Cruze’s interior elicited strong emotions the first time we plunked ourselves down into its seats, but its pluses quickly outweighed its negatives. Cruze’s basic design is well executed, with a simple, easy-to-use center stack flanked by the dual-cowl dashboard design GM’s design studios favor.

For the most part, the interior picks from GM’s best parts bin features, including a blue-on-black high-mounted display for audio and temperature information, a button-heavy but easily mastered audio system and a simple climate control setup. The center console features a pair of cupholders and a small center box with a sliding armrest. Interior storage is limited to door pockets, a small map pocket in the front passenger footwell, a glovebox and the center console box. A tiny compartment lies just ahead of the gear lever, but it’s too shallow to hold a cell phone.

Ahead of the driver lies a three-spoke steering wheel wrapped in nice leather and equipped with convenient audio, cruise and Bluetooth controls. Inset gauges flank a large display for the trip computer and handy (standard on all trim levels) turn-by-turn OnStar.

Our 2LT’s leather-covered seats proved extremely comfortable over long distances, even though they didn’t offer lumbar adjustment. But they countered with excellent support and “just right” side bolsters, not to mention a nicely-grained leather that would make several luxury brands jealous. The front passenger compartment could use a little more stretch out legroom, but the rear bench is plenty roomy for a compact sedan and it even features a fold-down armrest with integrated cupholders.

Kvetches centered around the odd gym shorts mesh trim covering the dashboard and door panels. LTZs get nicely-padded vinyl, but other trim levels make due with this weird choice. Our all-black 2LT’s inner trappings masked the mesh better than the light tan and brick red/black interior options do, at least.

But we have little reason for concern with the rest of the Cruze’s plastics, which were meticulously screwed together and composed of either the soft touch or the none-too-hollow variety. In terms of fit and finish, design, execution and usability, Cruze sets the high bar extremely high not only for its class, but for far pricier cars.

But does it go?

General Motors has never mastered four-cylinder engines in the way that its Japanese rivals have, so we approached the Cruze’s new 1.4-liter turbo unit with trepidation. Compared to most modern turbos, its power output of slightly under 100 ponies per liter seems a little weak, as does its modest torque.

But once under way, we found that the Cruze manifests its power in a solid and strong way that had us sufficiently satisfied. Only during certain mid-range passing acceleration exercises, like freeway on-ramp merging, did the Cruze feel like it had a mountain of torque available. A fast machine it is not, but the torque piles on with a comforting rush and it generally plods along without little fuss or complaint. Unlike most engines in GM’s Ecotec family, this 1.4-liter is a paragon of smoothness at idle and throughout the rev band.

Cruzes like ours tip the scales at a portly 3,102 lbs., about 250 lbs. ahead of most rivals, which helps explain the relative lack of grunt. Further compounding things is a six-speed automatic transmission that offers balky shifts. We had to double-check the spec sheet to make sure that this GM-developed unit didn’t feature a clutch. At low speeds when the Cruze has just been awakened for its morning jaunt into the office, the transmission produces head-lunging upshifts for the first mile or so. We questioned the shift quality of our tester, but follow-up rides in two other Cruzes produced similar results. We hope the culprit is software tuning that will be rectified in future Cruzes.

Otherwise, the Cruze did little to have us doubting Chevrolet’s assertion that it is a premium machine. Nicely-boosted electric power steering offered predictable handling that bordered on genuinely sporty, while the ride quality with the Continental-wrapped 17s was nearly perfect. Over even the worst pavement we could find, the Cruze’s body felt as tight and solid as cars costing thousands more and its suspension smoothly swallowed up bumps and ruts with nary a clunk nor a misstep. In the twisties, the Cruze was neutral and predictable with good grip and enough communication through the wheel to bring a smile to our faces.

We were even more impressed with its highway characteristics, where GM’s extensive sound deadening paid off with one of the quietest interiors we have ever sampled – let alone in a compact sedan.

In nearly every way, the Cruze felt like a genuine “class up” vehicle – even its fuel economy. At highway speeds, we never managed to crest 30 mpg, despite the EPA’s ambitious 36 mpg rating. We generally bested the window sticker’s 24 mpg in town rating, but we were very dismayed with its highway economy. Our best guess is that 3,000 rpm needed to keep the little 1.4-liter at 75 mph eradicates the advantages of its small displacement design.

We talked with several Cruze owners after our evaluation ended and found they had reached a similar concolusion: 36 mpg is tough to attain.

Why you would buy it:

You want a four-door sedan that makes you feel like you paid more than you did.

Why you wouldn’t:

Fuel economy is your number one priority, or you liked the general crapiness of your old Cavalier.

Leftlane’s bottom line

Fuel economy aside, the Cruze is the most complete compact car we have ever tested. It may not offer quite the sporty feel of a Mazda3, but it counters with a wholly refined feel that belies any lingering negativity we had toward the bowtie badge’s last compact offerings. Cruze blows the Corolla and even the Civic out of the water and its style is more mature than the Focus.

But if you’re a high-speed cruiser, beware of the Cruze’s real-world fuel economy.

Words and photos by Andrew Ganz.

2011 Chevrolet Cruze 2LT base price, $20,675. As tested, $21,890.

17-inch wheels, $395; Compact spare tire, $100; Destination, $720.

I'm very surprised by their review. They love this car, and call it "better than its class" and "best compact we've tested" more than once. Very nice job, Chevrolet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm the pay offs must have arrived.

Just kidding. They are looking at this car for what it is. It is a well built small sedan that is quiet and rides like a more expensive car. That is what Chevy set out to do. It's MPG may not be as high as some but then again they are noisy tin cans that bounce down the road.

Chevy never made any claims of hyper mile sedan outside the Eco edition. They never made claims to be the cheapest. Chevy said they wanted to make a car that felt like it was more than you paid. Well that is what they have done. Judged in that contect it is best in class. At least till the Buick arrives.

Only the market will tell if this is the kind of car they want in this size. Few have really ever tried to do this and we need to give GM credit for trying not to be Honda or Toyota on this one.

This also answers the question on why this was not called a Cobalt. Well it is not a Cobalt that is why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The review is pretty much spot on with my experiences. The fuel economy is quizzical, indeed. As I told Drew, my Cobalt would hit 38 mpg on the drive to Detroit while we were only able to manage 29 mpg in the Cruze. The lower speeds of the return route due to snowy conditions did let us manage around 34 mpg. Still, at only 70 mph, cruise control set, 29 mpg is fairly poor for such a car. It's really the only drawback this car has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This car is a step backward in fuel economy... right at the moment when everybody's crying for higher numbers.

It is a step backs vs the Cobalt. But then again GM did not have a good Aveo to catch the MPG people under it. The Cruze now has a Much better car in the Sonic to take the MPG edge.

GM could take out all that makes the Cruze quiet and comfortable and it would be just another tin can the others are.

I think it is plain to see the Cruze is not targeting the entry level car for the kid that is going to high school or collage. This is a small car for adults. I think they are looking to get owners of larger cars that are not getting anywhere close to 30 MPG into a car that will get better MPG. This is not a hyper mile car and makes no claims to be. It is a well built comfortable small car. One that would appeal to those who hate entry level.

I think if GM would define the car better to the public it would be better understood. To many try to compare it to the Cobalt and Focus when it really is a different car. I see the Sonic eating up the entry level and those who more MPG. It is not really that much smaller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think "those who more MPG" might also be disappointed in the Sonic... the weight difference will be negligible. So unless there is some sort of tall, fun-sapping gearing in the Sonic, I don't see it getting but maybe 1... 2 TOPS, better MPG than Cruze.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

poor mileage and no power ... said it before my ION does much better on both for much less money.

2007 ION-3

Advanced performance pkg

2.4L VVT

175 hp

165 ftlbs

made passes at 15.8 in the 1/4 mile something this Cruze will not get close to doing. Kinda like my wifes new car .. the Suzuki Kizashi Sport SLS AWD. While both cars are nice, but I'd not buy one for myself any day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having spent time behind the wheel, I can tell you it drives like no other compact I have been in.

As stated in other posts, a friend of mine just took one home and she was a hard core foreign car fan. It took a fair amount of effort to get her to look at the Cruze, but the minute she sat in it the comments about how much better it is over the civic, 3, corolla and Focus (2010 version) came out. She wanted good gas mileage, which it has, but more importantly wanted a small car that didn't feel like a cheap car.

Face it, the corolla and civic have not been the mileage champs (besides hybrid versions) for a few years now but they still sell in bulk. A great product with better than average fit and finish and an upscale feel, as compared to others, will move many to choose the Cruze over anything else. Don't get me wrong, I do think GM has some work to do on the gas mileage of the vehicle and only hope the 2012 model year has some adjustments just like the Cobalt did later in its life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that review was fair and also detailed.

As far as the mpg aspect, my Eco test drive last week (see reviews), the Eco turns about 2100 rpm at 70 mph and the stick + turbo is sweet. It's matched well, unlike the automatic. The Eco IS the one to get. I have no doubts the Eco will see 40 mpg on highway trips. The Eco is lighter and no less quiet.

The cruze = modern day grand am or alero. Sonic = cobalt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a step backs vs the Cobalt. But then again GM did not have a good Aveo to catch the MPG people under it. The Cruze now has a Much better car in the Sonic to take the MPG edge.

GM could take out all that makes the Cruze quiet and comfortable and it would be just another tin can the others are.

I think it is plain to see the Cruze is not targeting the entry level car for the kid that is going to high school or collage. This is a small car for adults. I think they are looking to get owners of larger cars that are not getting anywhere close to 30 MPG into a car that will get better MPG. This is not a hyper mile car and makes no claims to be. It is a well built comfortable small car. One that would appeal to those who hate entry level.

I think if GM would define the car better to the public it would be better understood. To many try to compare it to the Cobalt and Focus when it really is a different car. I see the Sonic eating up the entry level and those who more MPG. It is not really that much smaller.

The key to the sonic's success is going to be price...it'\ needs to be solid, cheap, and fun, or go home...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The review is pretty much spot on with my experiences. The fuel economy is quizzical, indeed. As I told Drew, my Cobalt would hit 38 mpg on the drive to Detroit while we were only able to manage 29 mpg in the Cruze. The lower speeds of the return route due to snowy conditions did let us manage around 34 mpg. Still, at only 70 mph, cruise control set, 29 mpg is fairly poor for such a car. It's really the only drawback this car has.

A 5mph difference doesn't create a 5mpg difference. Something else was afoot on the trip up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that review was fair and also detailed.

As far as the mpg aspect, my Eco test drive last week (see reviews), the Eco turns about 2100 rpm at 70 mph and the stick + turbo is sweet. It's matched well, unlike the automatic. The Eco IS the one to get. I have no doubts the Eco will see 40 mpg on highway trips. The Eco is lighter and no less quiet.

The cruze = modern day grand am or alero. Sonic = cobalt.

The 4-cylinder 4-speed auto Alero was able to manage 34-35 mpg also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This just underscores the epic fail of mating the small engine to the automatic. A 2.0 gas DI with the auto would be a better match as would the 2.4. Now you also know why GM has admitted they will look at CVT for ths car. The cvt can drop that engine speed lower than what they have the 6 speed auto set at now. EPA tests can mislead. I don't think they test the cars at 75mph like people actually drive

my cobalt sees a huge mpg drop from 55 to 65 and an even bigger drop from 65 to 75, small engines that work too hard burn more gas.

In fairness to the cruze auto if it still turns close to 30 in city real world use, that is all one can expect. Few cars get over 30 real world city. Also the cruze gets about the same EPA Numbers as the cobalt. My Balt was rated 24/35 or 25/35. My combined is almost spot on bs EPA combined. I would expect the cruze combined EPA to be spot on as well. Note, the ECO is 28/42 and 33 combined. I have no doubts the 33 combined can be achieved. That is progress for such a solid car that is also fun.

Look at the jettas ratings. Not great.

Two cars I am aware of that have put up eye popping real world highway figures That are bigger thanthe cruze....the Subarus (legacy and outback) and the sonata. High thirties and sometimes touching 40. Both those cars are

light and have bigger motors than the cruze. The Subaru with CVT runs just a tish above 2k rpm at 70+ mph. It's all about getting that engine speed down for real world highway mpg at speeds people actually travel.

Gm really needs a better powertrain solution for the automatic equipped cruze if they want to have a more competitive car in that arena. It would probably drive better too. What they have is ok, but if the mpg is not benefitting then it's not the solution they envisioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key to the sonic's success is going to be price...it'\ needs to be solid, cheap, and fun, or go home...

This is the car taking the place of the Cobalt. We know it will be cheaper than the Cruze and that would smack it right dead on the old Cobalt price.

The Spark or what ever mini class car GM chooses will take the place of the Aveo as the Fit fighter.

The 4-cylinder 4-speed auto Alero was able to manage 34-35 mpg also.

But the Alero was never this quiet nor would it pass todays crash strandards. If it could it would cost it 4 MPG min.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the car taking the place of the Cobalt. We know it will be cheaper than the Cruze and that would smack it right dead on the old Cobalt price.

The Spark or what ever mini class car GM chooses will take the place of the Aveo as the Fit fighter.

But the Alero was never this quiet nor would it pass todays crash strandards. If it could it would cost it 4 MPG min.

Get that back by running a 6-speed or CVT instead of a 4-speed....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 5mph difference doesn't create a 5mpg difference. Something else was afoot on the trip up.

I really don't think your charger made that big of a difference, either. I had my Jetta loaded to the gills with an Ex's life and still managed my best fuel economy through Ohio. To also see another review post similar numbers to what we saw... Well, just sayin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one other thing to consider before getting too brutal on the Cruze as far as mpg.

the Fiesta doesn't get as good as mpg as the Eco Cruze.

If you adjust the best fiesta numbers to the larger 012 focus, as far as weight and power, i am not sure the Focus will get within 3-4 mpg if that, I am doubtful that the Focus will achieve much better mpg with the automatic than the Cruze does.

I tend to think the LS automatic Cruze probably gets decent mpg.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get that back by running a 6-speed or CVT instead of a 4-speed....

The Six auto would help but I don't think it would pick up that much as there is just much more mass to get moving. It would also take one of the newer engines too. VVT and the other additions will really help.

I am still do not have a lot of faith in CVT yet. I just don't see the MFG putting much faith in them but for the smaller lighter cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness to the cruze auto if it still turns close to 30 in city real world use, that is all one can expect. Few cars get over 30 real world city. Also the cruze gets about the same EPA Numbers as the cobalt. My Balt was rated 24/35 or 25/35. My combined is almost spot on bs EPA combined. I would expect the cruze combined EPA to be spot on as well. Note, the ECO is 28/42 and 33 combined. I have no doubts the 33 combined can be achieved. That is progress for such a solid car that is also fun.

Strange how that works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never been a fan of downsizing displacement as the primary means of attain fuel economy goals... primarily because it doesn't really work and other solutions are more effective.

They could have simply taken the LNF DI Turbo engine, switch to Miller Cycle* cams, and a smaller turbo. This would have produced an engine with equal economy to the 1.4T and more power -- probably around 170 bhp / 170 lb-ft. Now that would be more appealing as an "upgrade" engine over the 1.8. Not only will it have better MPG numbers, it'll also be more powerful and will put the Cruze ahead of the pack in performance as well as fuel economy.

* Miller Cycle is basically Atkinson Cycle with forced induction added. The intake valves close very late into the compression stroke reducing the effective displacement of the engine (by 20~30%). This also creates a virtual asymmetric compression and power stroke -- the later being effectively longer -- which promotes superior energy conversion efficiency.

Edited by dwightlooi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but would they have been able to keep the cost down that way?

The 1.4 is not cheaper than a 2.0, the turbos cost about the same. The only difference would be DI. That's a maybe $200~300.

Besides, the cost on the 1.8 base model would not have changed. The upscale car can probably tolerate a $500 price hike for being best in class

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks the 1.4 was developed primarily to service Europe where low displacements are envogue, all while being shared with NA and to be made able to be produced cheaply in NA. In order to produce them cheaply in NA and invest the millions required to keep those union jobs (some of which agreed to drastically lower their labor rates) and not make the engines in Mexico, it was then determined the engines would need to service more than just the Cruze (enter Sonic). In order to make the cars and engines viable to be produced by the union in NA to look impressive for getting the bailout money, they basically have an engine that is probably a bit oversized for the sonic and undersized for the cruze. It allows production to be flexible, and adjust to demand between the two models.

The other wildcard here is that the 2.4 is in high demand for other vehicle lines, they can spare a few for the Verona, Murano, whatever that Buick is, but they culd not puke out say 50,000 of the 2.4 for the Cruze. The sell price is much lower on the Cruze than the Equinox, Terrain, LaCrosse, etc......

In the past you often saw GM putting stuff in their cars not because it was the best fit, but because it was the only way they could build it and supply it to build the car, considering their typical constraints (unions, desire to invest properly in manufacturing for example).

I have a feeling by 2013 MY there will be either a 2.0 or a 2.4DI on the option sheet for the Cruze.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never been a fan of downsizing displacement as the primary means of attain fuel economy goals... primarily because it doesn't really work and other solutions are more effective.

They could have simply taken the LNF DI Turbo engine, switch to Miller Cycle* cams, and a smaller turbo. This would have produced an engine with equal economy to the 1.4T and more power -- probably around 170 bhp / 170 lb-ft. Now that would be more appealing as an "upgrade" engine over the 1.8. Not only will it have better MPG numbers, it'll also be more powerful and will put the Cruze ahead of the pack in performance as well as fuel economy.

* Miller Cycle is basically Atkinson Cycle with forced induction added. The intake valves close very late into the compression stroke reducing the effective displacement of the engine (by 20~30%). This also creates a virtual asymmetric compression and power stroke -- the later being effectively longer -- which promotes superior energy conversion efficiency.

I bet you wouldn't be a popular guy in Europe, where they seem to want tiny displacement motors at any cost and arguments of reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is just hard to get excited about this car. It is boring looking, has no power, isn't fast, and they got 30 mpg highway out of it. To me this car is like a Corolla, it may be a solid all around car, but it is boring. The Cruze is an appliance. At least the 2012 Focus, Hyundai Elantra and Volester have some style and uniqueness to them. I can see those products being much more popular with Gen Y. Cruze is more the small car for old folks in small midwestern towns, or Avis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Displacement taxes in other countries, since it is GM's "World Car".

That is the drawback of seeking one solution to all problems - compromise.

Uh... except the 1.4T is not available in Europe. The Europeans get a 1.6 and a 1.8 NA four, plus a 2.0 Turbodiesel.

The 2.0 Turbodiesel is actually the highest performance motor for the Cruze at 150hp / 240 lb-ft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the power in the Eco with manual is shockingly nice. Once they nail down the turbo with the automatic........ any stick drivers, seriously, go find an Eco and take one for a ripper..... it's an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CAR. the 6 speed gearing is well matched to the turbo torque band. a proper use for each gear. you can decide how to use the engine. it's all good.

Edited by regfootball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Source: Left Lane News (LINK.. Pictures after the jump)

In nearly every way, the Cruze felt like a genuine “class up” vehicle – even its fuel economy. At highway speeds, we never managed to crest 30 mpg, despite the EPA’s ambitious 36 mpg rating. We generally bested the window sticker’s 24 mpg in town rating, but we were very dismayed with its highway economy. Our best guess is that 3,000 rpm needed to keep the little 1.4-liter at 75 mph eradicates the advantages of its small displacement design.

There is something VERY WRONG here. If they are seeing 3,000 rpm at 75mph, I am pretty sure they are in 5th instead of 6th gear. This means that either the tranny is broken and won't shift into 6th or they put it in fifth manually and are seeing lousy mileage because of that.

Here's the gear ratio of the Cruze 1.4T with a 6T40 automatic transmission -- per GM's specs.

Final Drive: 2.89

1st : 4.584 (35mph @ 6500 rpm)

2nd : 2.964 (54mph @ 6500 rpm)

3rd : 1.912 (84mph @ 6500 rpm)

4th : 1.446 (111mph @ 6500 rpm*)

5th : 1.000 (161mph @ 6500 rpm*)

6th : 0.746 (216mph @ 6500 rpm*)

* Theoretical; the car is electronically governed to 103 mph

Here are the corresponding rpms at 75 mph

1st : N/A

2nd : N/A

3rd : 75mph @ 5804 rpm

4th : 75mph @ 4392 rpm

5th : 75mph @ 3028 rpm

6th : 75mph @ 2257 rpm

Hence, ~3000 rpm at ~75mph is most definitely in 5th.

Edited by dwightlooi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is something VERY WRONG here. If they are seeing 3,000 rpm at 75mph, I am pretty sure they are in 5th instead of 6th gear. This means that either the tranny is broken and won't shift into 6th or they put it in fifth manually and are seeing lousy mileage because of that.

Here's the gear ratio of the Cruze 1.4T with a 6T40 automatic transmission -- per GM's specs.

Final Drive: 2.89

1st : 4.584 (35mph @ 6500 rpm)

2nd : 2.964 (54mph @ 6500 rpm)

3rd : 1.912 (84mph @ 6500 rpm)

4th : 1.446 (111mph @ 6500 rpm*)

5th : 1.000 (161mph @ 6500 rpm*)

6th : 0.746 (216mph @ 6500 rpm*)

* Theoretical; the car is electronically governed to 103 mph

Here are the corresponding rpms at 75 mph

1st : N/A

2nd : N/A

3rd : 75mph @ 5804 rpm

4th : 75mph @ 4392 rpm

5th : 75mph @ 3028 rpm

6th : 75mph @ 2257 rpm

Hence, ~3000 rpm at ~75mph is most definitely in 5th.

In our Cruze, we were cruising at 70 mph @ 2800. All though Ohio with the cruise control set.

To add, Drew verified that ours had the transmission reflash done. Would that affect anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Source: Left Lane News (LINK.. Pictures after the jump)

Kvetches centered around the odd gym shorts mesh trim covering the dashboard and door panels. LTZs get nicely-padded vinyl, but other trim levels make due with this weird choice. Our all-black 2LT’s inner trappings masked the mesh better than the light tan and brick red/black interior options do, at least.

I'm confused by this... yesterday I was in an LS and the dash/door panels were covered with the "nicely-padded vinyl".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in my test drive too, it was up around 2700-2800 rpm on the automatic. the stick was at least 500 rpm lower. that to me explains part of the difference between 36 mpg highway and 42 mpg.

I'm confused by this... yesterday I was in an LS and the dash/door panels were covered with the "nicely-padded vinyl".

what did you think of the LS? it's actually ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in my test drive too, it was up around 2700-2800 rpm on the automatic. the stick was at least 500 rpm lower. that to me explains part of the difference between 36 mpg highway and 42 mpg.

what did you think of the LS? it's actually ok.

The LS SHOCKED me... I'm serious, it shocked me. I would have sworn it was a higher trim until I saw the wheelcovers and then looked at the sticker. That car, even the base, is a SOLID car and quiet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LS SHOCKED me... I'm serious, it shocked me. I would have sworn it was a higher trim until I saw the wheelcovers and then looked at the sticker. That car, even the base, is a SOLID car and quiet!

Your reaction is really why GM needs to get butts brhind the wheel that have been in Honda's and Toyotas. If a GM fan is suprised imagine what a Import fan will find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in my test drive too, it was up around 2700-2800 rpm on the automatic. the stick was at least 500 rpm lower. that to me explains part of the difference between 36 mpg highway and 42 mpg.

what did you think of the LS? it's actually ok.

Final Drive: 2.89

1st : 4.584 (35mph @ 6500 rpm)

2nd : 2.964 (54mph @ 6500 rpm)

3rd : 1.912 (84mph @ 6500 rpm)

4th : 1.446 (111mph @ 6500 rpm*)

5th : 1.000 (161mph @ 6500 rpm*)

6th : 0.746 (216mph @ 6500 rpm*)

* Theoretical; the car is electronically governed to 103 mph

Here are the corresponding rpms at 75 mph

1st : N/A

2nd : N/A

3rd : 75mph @ 5804 rpm

4th : 75mph @ 4392 rpm

5th : 75mph @ 3028 rpm

6th : 75mph @ 2257 rpm

No, these ratios and final drive numbers are for the Cruze with the 6T40 Automatic. If all the Cruzes are NOT shifting into 6th... I think GM has a BIG problem.

http://archives.media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2010/gmna/Spec%20Sheet/Transmissions/2010%20Automatics/10_6T40_MH8_n.xls

Edited by dwightlooi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your reaction is really why GM needs to get butts brhind the wheel that have been in Honda's and Toyotas. If a GM fan is suprised imagine what a Import fan will find.

I was telling Oldsmoboi, I just kept thinking, "I can't believe this. I can't believe this is a Chevy, much less their base trim?!" Even the way the door shut suggested high quality. And it was SILENT in there. I was just in awe. If the Verano improves on this, they've gotta get people in trying them because they'll sell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, these ratios and final drive numbers are for the Cruze with the 6T40 Automatic. If all the Cruzes are NOT shifting into 6th... I think GM has a BIG problem.

http://archives.medi..._6T40_MH8_n.xls

This makes me curious enough to get another one and actually count the gear shifts. Yes, this could be a very big problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Final Drive: 2.89

1st : 4.584 (35mph @ 6500 rpm)

2nd : 2.964 (54mph @ 6500 rpm)

3rd : 1.912 (84mph @ 6500 rpm)

4th : 1.446 (111mph @ 6500 rpm*)

5th : 1.000 (161mph @ 6500 rpm*)

6th : 0.746 (216mph @ 6500 rpm*)

* Theoretical; the car is electronically governed to 103 mph

Here are the corresponding rpms at 75 mph

1st : N/A

2nd : N/A

3rd : 75mph @ 5804 rpm

4th : 75mph @ 4392 rpm

5th : 75mph @ 3028 rpm

6th : 75mph @ 2257 rpm

No, these ratios and final drive numbers are for the Cruze with the 6T40 Automatic. If all the Cruzes are NOT shifting into 6th... I think GM has a BIG problem.

http://archives.media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2010/gmna/Spec%20Sheet/Transmissions/2010%20Automatics/10_6T40_MH8_n.xls

who knows, maybe they can't keep it from hunting or some other drivability problem if its locked up in 6th.

All I know is that Eco is a contented little kitty in 6th, super quiet, just a hair over 2100-2200 rpm, still has some pull when you step on the gas. 5th isn't much more rpm. The automatic has seemed so much more busy to me. Wouldn't that be bizarre if it were programmed to not be in 6th? THing is doesn't it have a gear indicator? I know when I used the manumatic that one time I was able to get it in 6th......I am pretty sure of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LS SHOCKED me... I'm serious, it shocked me. I would have sworn it was a higher trim until I saw the wheelcovers and then looked at the sticker. That car, even the base, is a SOLID car and quiet!

Yeah, it really is a nice commuter and has a lot of basic virtue. As long as you don't carry people in the back often, it's all the car anyone needs in this new normal era of time.

Its hard to get out of the Cruze and get back in a Cobalt. It's actually depressing.

Edited by regfootball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes me curious enough to get another one and actually count the gear shifts. Yes, this could be a very big problem.

Unless, this is what's happening...

Final Drive: 3.87

1st : 4.584 (26mph @ 6500 rpm)

2nd : 2.964 (40mph @ 6500 rpm)

3rd : 1.912 (63mph @ 6500 rpm)

4th : 1.446 (83mph @ 6500 rpm)

5th : 1.000 (120mph @ 6500 rpm*)

6th : 0.746 (161mph @ 6500 rpm*)

* Theoretical; the car is electronically governed to 103 mph

Here are the corresponding rpms at 75 mph

1st : N/A

2nd : N/A

3rd : N/A

4th : 75mph @ 5873 rpm

5th : 75mph @ 4063 rpm

6th : 75mph @ 3028 rpm

We can easily verify this without counting gears. All you have to do is floor it in 1st and witness it shift to 2nd at ~26 mph. That'll confirm that they put in a VERY SHORT 3.87 final drive.

If this is true, then it beckons the question as to why? Why saddle the Cruze 1.4T which is supposed to be GM's fuel economy badge of honor with such a fuel guzzling final drive ratio? It can't be that the car won't accelerate smartly with the standard 2.89 final drive ratio of the 6T40 transmission. The manual model moves along fine with a similar effective ratio in 1st, and the Cruze 1.4T has a similar power to weight ratio as a 2.4 liter Malibu and actually a slightly better torque to weight ratio. If the Malibu was OK with the 2.89 final drive, so should he Cruze. It wouldn't be a rocket ship, but the Cruze isn't going to be one anyway.

Edited by dwightlooi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it really is a nice commuter and has a lot of basic virtue. As long as you don't carry people in the back often, it's all the car anyone needs in this new normal era of time.

Its hard to get out of the Cruze and get back in a Cobalt. It's actually depressing.

With that said now you know why they changed the name. It is not the same car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji 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.



×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search

Change privacy settings