Afterthoughts: What's the Right Size Vehicle?

[William Maley]

For the past month, I have been doing a bit of window shopping for a possible replacement for my current vehicle - a 2006 Ford Fusion with almost 270,000 miles on the odometer. Usually, whenever I go look at vehicles, I tend to have automotive ADD; tending to look at all kinds of vehicles with no set price or type. But this recent excursion caused me to notice that I had unknowingly set my sights on a certain group. All of the vehicles I was looking at were all compact cars and none were crossovers. Why is that?

To get to the bottom of this, I began to look at my driving habits when I am not driving a new car for review. For the most part, I tend to drive in a small radius from where I live - about a 20 to 25 Miles. I don’t really carry passengers in my car and the back seat is primarily used for transporting groceries or other items. Plus, I only get about 22 to 24 mpg in mostly city driving. Looking at this information, it makes some sense as to why I happen to be looking at small cars. I don’t take advantage of all the space on offer for cargo and passengers, and it would be nice to get to some higher fuel economy numbers.

You might be wondering why am I not considering a compact/subcompact crossover? There are two reasons for this. One is that I find crossovers to be a little too big for my needs and wants. Second is that I can get a better deal on a car than a crossover. For example, I have been looking at various Chevrolet Cruzes and have been surprised how much dealers are marking them down. I have seen price cuts ranging from about $2,000 to $5,000. That means I could get into a decently equipped Cruze for around $20,000 to $22,000. Can’t really do the same when talking about the Equinox.

There have been a couple pieces flowing around within the past few months talking about how a number of us tend to buy the largest vehicle we can afford because we tend to think about the extremes that will happen rarely during the ownership of the vehicle. Having a big vehicle for when you decide to move or pick up some large items is a nice thing to have, but how often will that happen for most of us? Twice? Three times? We may think that we are using rational reasoning to try and justify buying something bigger, but the irrational parts of our brains ultimately color the final decision.

All of us should buy a vehicle that fits our needs and wants. But that doesn’t always work out. Some of us enjoy driving a bigger vehicle such as a full-size sedan or pickup truck. If you get a sense of joy every time you get in, despite the faults and issues that will come up, then I don’t see any problem. For me, I would enjoy having a full-size sedan such as a Chevrolet Impala because of its comfortable ride and looks. But at the moment, it doesn’t make sense for me.

I guess what I am trying to say is the next time you’re deciding on your next vehicle, try your best to keep the needs and wants in check. Don’t fall into those traps of thinking about the extremes. Who knows, you might be like me and find yourself surprised at what you are looking at.

Pic Credit: William Maley for Cheers & Gears

View full article

[G. David Felt]

Very cool write up. Sounds like you could benefit from going with a BOLT Lease. Those deals are killer at least here on the west coast. With your average driving range, the spacious interior of the BOLT and low cost to power would go really well for you.

I get the message you are saying, most people could so easily get along fine in a much smaller efficient packaged auto. 

Then again, freedom of choice and those of us like me that are Shrek size does make down sizing an impossible thing.

Good think we live in a free country at least for now and can drive what we want, spend what we want and enjoy the option of Choice!

[Frisky Dingo]

This car was the perfect size- 

[riviera74]

^^^^ Which BMW is that one? Looks like a 5 series, but I may be wrong.

 

As for the original post, it dawns on me that William has a point.  The 2008 Lucerne I currently have is all well and good, but it may be a little too long for me these days.  While an Impala/XTS sized car would be great (and a CT6 would be near ideal), I am looking at the midsized crossovers because there are times where improved maneuverability (such as in tight spaces) makes the Lucerne feel like a 1980s land yacht.  (And historically, I really like large cars.)  While it makes sense for you to downsize to a Cruze if you can fit in it, that is not the case for me, at least not at my current size.  It is certainly true that the big savings are in smaller cars because of the demand for crossovers that now exists.  It reminds me of the SUV craze of the 1990s, only more so.  Buying a car for need rather than for extreme is great advice.   Now all of us need to execute.

[daves87rs]

Funny this comes up....I've been thinking about that as well. Though I have taken it one step further...

Small cars are getting cheap, but the prices are even better on slightly used cruzes-I have already seen some 16 Limited (old style) floating in the low teens....not too bad for nearly new! Been shopping these and could pull the trigger on one, as my fleeting is aging (11, 13, 14 years) and a nice cheap ride makes it easier to get a new one next year .

Now granted that thought could change, as FCA is having a tougher time inloading their CUVs right now, and leftover Compasses or Patriots might come as a nice deal as well.....

[Frisky Dingo]

48 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

^^^^ Which BMW is that one? Looks like a 5 series, but I may be wrong.

 

As for the original post, it dawns on me that William has a point.  The 2008 Lucerne I currently have is all well and good, but it may be a little too long for me these days.  While an Impala/XTS sized car would be great (and a CT6 would be near ideal), I am looking at the midsized crossovers because there are times where improved maneuverability (such as in tight spaces) makes the Lucerne feel like a 1980s land yacht.  (And historically, I really like large cars.)  While it makes sense for you to downsize to a Cruze if you can fit in it, that is not the case for me, at least not at my current size.  It is certainly true that the big savings are in smaller cars because of the demand for crossovers that now exists.  It reminds me of the SUV craze of the 1990s, only more so.  Buying a car for need rather than for extreme is great advice.   Now all of us need to execute.

E90 3 Series.

[A Horse With No Name]

1 hour ago, riviera74 said:

^^^^ Which BMW is that one? Looks like a 5 series, but I may be wrong.

 

As for the original post, it dawns on me that William has a point.  The 2008 Lucerne I currently have is all well and good, but it may be a little too long for me these days.  While an Impala/XTS sized car would be great (and a CT6 would be near ideal), I am looking at the midsized crossovers because there are times where improved maneuverability (such as in tight spaces) makes the Lucerne feel like a 1980s land yacht.  (And historically, I really like large cars.)  While it makes sense for you to downsize to a Cruze if you can fit in it, that is not the case for me, at least not at my current size.  It is certainly true that the big savings are in smaller cars because of the demand for crossovers that now exists.  It reminds me of the SUV craze of the 1990s, only more so.  Buying a car for need rather than for extreme is great advice.   Now all of us need to execute.

Glad someone else finds smaller cars easier to drive and park..living in a large city...the difference is stark.

1 hour ago, daves87rs said:

Funny this comes up....I've been thinking about that as well. Though I have taken it one step further...

Small cars are getting cheap, but the prices are even better on slightly used cruzes-I have already seen some 16 Limited (old style) floating in the low teens....not too bad for nearly new! Been shopping these and could pull the trigger on one, as my fleeting is aging (11, 13, 14 years) and a nice cheap ride makes it easier to get a new one next year .

Now granted that thought could change, as FCA is having a tougher time inloading their CUVs right now, and leftover Compasses or Patriots might come as a nice deal as well.....

With a family like you have a compass or patriot would make a lot of sense.  But yes, Cruze as a used car is the deal of the century IMHO.

[cp-the-nerd]

I think the absolute best packaged cars on the market right now are compact hatchbacks. Whether your preference is the sporty Mazda 3, the well rounded Civic, or the expert commuter Cruze, you won't find a more practical car on the market. I'm sure some excellent deals can be found for the aging Focus as well, if value is a deciding factor. These cars have looks that won't embarrass you and flexible cargo space that shames a midsize sedan.

I have been endlessly impressed by my wife's Cruze hatchback. She consistently gets 40+ mpg highway going 75 mph. None of these cars are slow anymore, either. Most of them zip to 60 mph in 8 seconds or less, with higher trims of the Mazda and Civic sneaking in under 7 seconds and they offer slick manual transmissions if that's your thing.

As dealerships look to unload straggling '17 models, some great bargains could be found. Keep an eye on local listings and email dealers about final pricing.

[A Horse With No Name]

I once sued a 71 Chevelle SS as a daily driver for my family with 5 children...I am not real oriented towards the practical.

I find myself moving in the opposite direction...a BRZ is impractical but might well be my next car...but I find myself asking how much of a ticking time bomb a 30K 911 is...

[smk4565]

I think it makes more sense to have a car that suits your needs but isn't larger than you need.  Large cars/SUVs are hard to park, if you drive in urban areas or parking garages they can be a pain.  If you don't need a 3rd row or a cargo area, there is no point in buying it.  

I have a mid-size car and hardly ever use the back seat, maybe 5 days a year, the other 360 it is empty.   I could drive a 2 seater with no real impact.

I think you have to look more at performance, fuel economy and features that you want at your price point.   And small cars especially the used ones are fairly cheap, people overpay for crossovers, and dealers usually price cut those small cars.

[Robert Hall]

After 17 years in them, I find the 2 row mid size 4x4/AWD SUV-- specifically Grand Cherokees--are the ideal size of me...not too big, not too small, comfortable for 2, room for hauling dogs and content.  They have all the creature comforts and gadgets I need, and the winter traction. 

[A Horse With No Name]

1 hour ago, cp-the-nerd said:

I think the absolute best packaged cars on the market right now are compact hatchbacks. Whether your preference is the sporty Mazda 3, the well rounded Civic, or the expert commuter Cruze, you won't find a more practical car on the market. I'm sure some excellent deals can be found for the aging Focus as well, if value is a deciding factor. These cars have looks that won't embarrass you and flexible cargo space that shames a midsize sedan.

I have been endlessly impressed by my wife's Cruze hatchback. She consistently gets 40+ mpg highway going 75 mph. None of these cars are slow anymore, either. Most of them zip to 60 mph in 8 seconds or less, with higher trims of the Mazda and Civic sneaking in under 7 seconds and they offer slick manual transmissions if that's your thing.

As dealerships look to unload straggling '17 models, some great bargains could be found. Keep an eye on local listings and email dealers about final pricing.

My daughter is 21 and drives an aging Mazda 3....it has held up rather well. Very impressed with the Cruze and liking the Civic...

Now where were the keys to that 911....?

In all reality I have no idea what I am going to do when I finally get rid of the Cooper S.

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

I think it makes more sense to have a car that suits your needs but isn't larger than you need.  Large cars/SUVs are hard to park, if you drive in urban areas or parking garages they can be a pain.  If you don't need a 3rd row or a cargo area, there is no point in buying it.  

I have a mid-size car and hardly ever use the back seat, maybe 5 days a year, the other 360 it is empty.   I could drive a 2 seater with no real impact.

I think you have to look more at performance, fuel economy and features that you want at your price point.   And small cars especially the used ones are fairly cheap, people overpay for crossovers, and dealers usually price cut those small cars.

The fairly cheap thing cuts both ways...my daughter is an automobile insurance claims adjuster, and she tells me that depreciation is so bad on the Focus that they rarely repair them because the value drops so rapidly, even on the ST model.

And yes, five grand more for a Crosstek over an Imprezza without much if any more real world function...is overpaying..

[G. David Felt]

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

 Large cars/SUVs are hard to park, if you drive in urban areas or parking garages they can be a pain.

I am going to DISAGREE with you. Most drivers have gotten very lazy lately about driving their auto's. They do not take the time to know where their corners are, they cannot even on a Jelly Bean shaped auto envision where their corners are. 

Large cars or full size SUV's especially today drive just not much different than a small or compact auto.

People who complain about driving, driving large auto's are usually ones that also have a banged up compact or small size auto. They are more interested in their facebook time line and what is going on in their smart phone than in actually driving.

I cannot tell you how many people I have talked with that have seen me drive and be it parallel park or back into a parking spot all on the first time, square and straight in the parking spot and they are in awe how easy I park and it always comes down to they do not want to learn or bother being in a parking spot square, not hit anyone, etc.

Lazy drivers = damaged auto's, complaints about large auto's, etc. This has nothing to do with them being a pain to drive or park even in a parking garage. Very easy all the time as long as you pay attention to your ONLY JOB! Driving.

[A Horse With No Name]

47 minutes ago, dfelt said:

I am going to DISAGREE with you. Most drivers have gotten very lazy lately about driving their auto's. They do not take the time to know where their corners are, they cannot even on a Jelly Bean shaped auto envision where their corners are. 

Large cars or full size SUV's especially today drive just not much different than a small or compact auto.

People who complain about driving, driving large auto's are usually ones that also have a banged up compact or small size auto. They are more interested in their facebook time line and what is going on in their smart phone than in actually driving.

I cannot tell you how many people I have talked with that have seen me drive and be it parallel park or back into a parking spot all on the first time, square and straight in the parking spot and they are in awe how easy I park and it always comes down to they do not want to learn or bother being in a parking spot square, not hit anyone, etc.

Lazy drivers = damaged auto's, complaints about large auto's, etc. This has nothing to do with them being a pain to drive or park even in a parking garage. Very easy all the time as long as you pay attention to your ONLY JOB! Driving.

You are also not trying to text and drive or put on makeup....

[balthazar]

9 hours ago, dfelt said:

I am going to DISAGREE with you. Most drivers have gotten very lazy lately about driving their auto's. They do not take the time to know where their corners are, they cannot even on a Jelly Bean shaped auto envision where their corners are. Large cars or full size SUV's especially today drive just not much different than a small or compact auto.

I agree with this, DF, and I believe I pilot the largest daily driver on this board: wheelbase 153", overall length 240".

Today I parallel parked in downtown Princeton NJ, and I've had this truck in an inner city parking deck more than once (antenna scraping the overhead concrete 'beams'). I also have frequently slipped in between obstacles I've waited & waited & waited for a smaller CUV to decide if it could fit thru. Some folk blame the size of the vehicle rather than their lack of dedication to improving their skills.

[daves87rs]

11 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Glad someone else finds smaller cars easier to drive and park..living in a large city...the difference is stark.

With a family like you have a compass or patriot would make a lot of sense.  But yes, Cruze as a used car is the deal of the century IMHO.

 

Very true....though the good news it whether this year or next, something bigger will show up the the family I am figuring. Losing my auto suppiler job limited my choices this year to more of a budget than I wanted. And between that and the economy, not sure I want anything near 30k right now. Kinda why a used Cruze makes a good choice. (and focus would have too, if not for the dual clutch) Though I do have a soft spot for the Patroit (love boxy jeeps)-the fact the FCA is struggling to sell them makes them a nice choice as I figure the rebates are going to go higher the the 4500 on them now...

[smk4565]

Patriots have to be selling a 50% off at this point.  

[Stew]

9 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Patriots have to be selling a 50% off at this point.  

Not so, they are a very popular model so they built a lot out before they quit building them. 

I used to prefer big fullsize cars.  Whether when I was 18 driving a 91 then 93 T-Bird, or 22 driving my Roadmonster or 24 in my Caprice.  I have been downsizing since and find the bug basically perfect in size, mostly thanks to it's hatchback configuration and massive amount of front seat room.  I rarely have even a second passenger and there is enough cargo room for the weekly 52 bag of dog food and groceries.  At 168 inches long, it is also so maneuverable and great for zipping through traffic.  If the quality was there I would be keeping this car for a long time. 

[Frisky Dingo]

This car is also the perfect size-

this is the perfect size truck-

[ykX]

I think the needs can be very individual, a single guy or a woman, young couple, a family with three of four kids have all very different needs and wants.

Also, people here criticize size of the vehicle but then would choose biggest and the most power engine while half of the power would be more then sufficient

I guess that's why we are car enthusiasts.

However, I agree that it is better to try to go for the lower range of your particular wants and needs.

[daves87rs]

13 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Patriots have to be selling a 50% off at this point.  

Not yet, but unless people come in looking for it, everyone id getting the new Compass anyways. Doubt they will go that high, but 35% off could be quite possible......

[G. David Felt]

3 hours ago, ykX said:

However, I agree that it is better to try to go for the lower range of your particular wants and needs.

I have to disagree with you on this statement as dreams and desires is what should push us to perform better, work harder and achieve what is for most people unachievable. If we always settle for the low end, then why bother having nicer things as we can all settle for government housing, minimal quality of food, etc.

I challenge you and everyone here to always push for the best for themselves and their family. Only through Drive of one's own dreams and desires do we make this place a better world.

[frogger]

I think for my family lifestyle and location the Golf Sportwagen/Alltrack is probably the perfect size for our needs.

 

 

 

[G. David Felt]

14 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Patriots have to be selling a 50% off at this point.  

You got my curiosity going and so I checked, 63 new Jeep Patriots in washington state that I could find and all are priced between 32K to 22K. Discounts are not that big but financing is. Maybe they are not hurting that much to move them yet.

[ykX]

27 minutes ago, dfelt said:

I have to disagree with you on this statement as dreams and desires is what should push us to perform better, work harder and achieve what is for most people unachievable. If we always settle for the low end, then why bother having nicer things as we can all settle for government housing, minimal quality of food, etc.

I challenge you and everyone here to always push for the best for themselves and their family. Only through Drive of one's own dreams and desires do we make this place a better world.

While, I absolutely agree with you, I think you misunderstood me or maybe I didn't present my idea very clearly.  I meant, for example, there is no reason to buy Expedition for a family of three or four unless they have some special needs that require such large vehicle. For example my family: just few times a year we need a lot of space for a trip, either camping or some beach vacation which we drive to.  Now, we could buy a large SUV to fit everything for these few trips but then we would have to drive huge vehicle all year around. I choose to have mid-size CUV, and to have a roof basket for the few times I do need extra space for cargo. 

[balthazar]

A LOT of vehicular times; "no reason" merely = 'want'.

"This is the perfect size" :

[smk4565]

2 hours ago, dfelt said:

You got my curiosity going and so I checked, 63 new Jeep Patriots in washington state that I could find and all are priced between 32K to 22K. Discounts are not that big but financing is. Maybe they are not hurting that much to move them yet.

That seems like a lot of money for a Patriot even if it is 0% for 6 years.   The Patriot has a 90s GM level interior and  it still has the stand up antenna on the hood, that everyone outside of FCA got rid of in 2001.  

I did look on Auto Trader and found that 2015 Patriot Latitude 4x4s go for $17-18k, which to still seems high to me for what it is.

[A Horse With No Name]

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

That seems like a lot of money for a Patriot even if it is 0% for 6 years.   The Patriot has a 90s GM level interior and  it still has the stand up antenna on the hood, that everyone outside of FCA got rid of in 2001.  

I did look on Auto Trader and found that 2015 Patriot Latitude 4x4s go for $17-18k, which to still seems high to me for what it is.

Used and older around here car lots can't give them away.

2 hours ago, balthazar said:

A LOT of vehicular times; "no reason" merely = 'want'.

"This is the perfect size" :

Incorrect...that is the perfect automobile...size be damned.  Would not kick his larger Brother out of the garage either.

[Robert Hall]

2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

That seems like a lot of money for a Patriot even if it is 0% for 6 years.   The Patriot has a 90s GM level interior and  it still has the stand up antenna on the hood, that everyone outside of FCA got rid of in 2001.  

I did look on Auto Trader and found that 2015 Patriot Latitude 4x4s go for $17-18k, which to still seems high to me for what it is.

I did ride in a Patriot once and was shocked by how cheap and nasty the interior seemed...just gray plastic shit everywhere.....not a fan of the cheap Jeeps...even the Liberty had a decent interior by comparison, IMO.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[A Horse With No Name]

20 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

I did ride in a Patriot once and was shocked by how cheap and nasty the interior seemed...just gray plastic shit everywhere.....not a fan of the cheap Jeeps...even the Liberty had a decent interior by comparison, IMO.

After the Concorde and besides the JGC and 300...most Chryco products for eighteen years or so...

[balthazar]

2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

The Patriot... still has the stand up antenna on the hood, that everyone outside of FCA got rid of in 2001.

Trucks had exterior antennas well past the bulk of cars. My generation Silverado still had one.

But jimminy smk- the s-class still has a stand up hood ORNAMENT, that everyone outside of Daimler got rid of in 1985!

[Robert Hall]

3 minutes ago, balthazar said:

But jimminy smk- the s-class still has a stand up hood ORNAMENT, that everyone outside of Daimler got rid of in 1985!

Lincoln still had them in '11.   Stand up hood ornaments need to make a comeback..Cadillacs would look good with them.  Sadly, a lot of new Benzes have the oversized in-grille badges which once were only for the sporty models...M-B needs to put stand up hood ornaments on all of their models. 

[balthazar]

Dear God- why. Stand-ups belong with vinyl tops & wire wheels- in the 1970-80s.

[riviera74]

2 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Lincoln still had them in '11.   Stand up hood ornaments need to make a comeback..Cadillacs would look good with them.  Sadly, a lot of new Benzes have the oversized in-grille badges which once were only for the sporty models...M-B needs to put stand up hood ornaments on all of their models. 

Hood ornaments disappeared in the last several years because of European regulations concerning auto to pedestrian accidents, especially in compact European cities. 

[smk4565]

Stand up hood ornament it still Boss on a sedan.  The S-class and Rolls-Royce Phantom have stand up hood ornaments.  Only the big dogs have it now.

[regfootball]

On 7/10/2017 at 11:28 AM, cp-the-nerd said:

I think the absolute best packaged cars on the market right now are compact hatchbacks. Whether your preference is the sporty Mazda 3, the well rounded Civic, or the expert commuter Cruze, you won't find a more practical car on the market. I'm sure some excellent deals can be found for the aging Focus as well, if value is a deciding factor. These cars have looks that won't embarrass you and flexible cargo space that shames a midsize sedan.

I have been endlessly impressed by my wife's Cruze hatchback. She consistently gets 40+ mpg highway going 75 mph. None of these cars are slow anymore, either. Most of them zip to 60 mph in 8 seconds or less, with higher trims of the Mazda and Civic sneaking in under 7 seconds and they offer slick manual transmissions if that's your thing.

As dealerships look to unload straggling '17 models, some great bargains could be found. Keep an eye on local listings and email dealers about final pricing.

the 40+ at 75 is believable to me.  I can get over 40 in the right conditions on my Malibu (just a bit bigger and heavier).  My 50 mile best has been 46.7 mpg.

I think a person can make a great case for either compacts or midsize due to their FE and neither being too large for most daily driving.  I admit, at times I think the Cruze would be nice for parking and such but the extra space in the cabin to me is an ok tradeoff.

As far as compacts, the dealer chain i once sold for is advertising new Focus S manuals for under 13 grand, and the automatic SE's for around 15.  There is intense pressure to discount the compacts these days due to cheap gas but we are one price spike away from compacts selling like hot cakes again. I know the Focus isn't the best of the lot either, with the problematic auto tranny and dated 2.0 motor.  The 1.0 is a nice token but not worth any kind of money as far as i figure.  The Cruze is soooooo much better.  And so Chevy has had to offer nice discounts now on the Cruze and I hope people take notice.

My main disappointment with the Cruze hatch is that it's not a voluminous behind the rear axle as the sedan.  The sedan really has a big trunk.  The rear shape of the hatch really tapers and cuts into space compared to say, the original Ford Focus.  I think hatches need to balance the utility / rakishness factor.  Crossovers sort of give false advantages in cargo.  Crossovers have taller cargo areas but their lengths and widths are often not far apart.

[cp-the-nerd]

1 hour ago, regfootball said:

the 40+ at 75 is believable to me.  I can get over 40 in the right conditions on my Malibu (just a bit bigger and heavier).  My 50 mile best has been 46.7 mpg.

I think a person can make a great case for either compacts or midsize due to their FE and neither being too large for most daily driving.  I admit, at times I think the Cruze would be nice for parking and such but the extra space in the cabin to me is an ok tradeoff.

As far as compacts, the dealer chain i once sold for is advertising new Focus S manuals for under 13 grand, and the automatic SE's for around 15.  There is intense pressure to discount the compacts these days due to cheap gas but we are one price spike away from compacts selling like hot cakes again. I know the Focus isn't the best of the lot either, with the problematic auto tranny and dated 2.0 motor.  The 1.0 is a nice token but not worth any kind of money as far as i figure.  The Cruze is soooooo much better.  And so Chevy has had to offer nice discounts now on the Cruze and I hope people take notice.

My main disappointment with the Cruze hatch is that it's not a voluminous behind the rear axle as the sedan.  The sedan really has a big trunk.  The rear shape of the hatch really tapers and cuts into space compared to say, the original Ford Focus.  I think hatches need to balance the utility / rakishness factor.  Crossovers sort of give false advantages in cargo.  Crossovers have taller cargo areas but their lengths and widths are often not far apart.

Your problem with the Cruze hatch basically just described the difference between a hatchback and a wagon. If you add more length to the car, you kill the sporty hatch proportions and convenient size just to wind up with something like a 1st gen Toyota Matrix or Malibu Maxx. The point of the hatch is when you need cargo space, you fold those rear seats down and it can swallow a 60 inch TV box or large appliance (not a refrigerator). IMO the only downside to the hatch is that they're built in Mexico when most Cruze sedans are produced here in the states. Otherwise the sedan is just for people too afraid to step out of their comfort zone.

My wife's best 50 mile is 43.5 mpg without being broken in, and her commute is only 30 miles, so that includes a mile or two of getting off the highway and parking. She's thrilled with the car and I think it makes an ideal combo of versatility with my SS sedan.

On a related note, I think GM absolutely nailed the new Regal Sportback, I just hope the market realizes it exists.

[regfootball]

yes the new regal sportback may have cracked the code.

The cruze, they just tapered the rear end of the car a bit too dramatically and didn't preserve enough length.  I think a little longer and a little more upright back end wouldn't have killed the looks and still kept it from being a 'wagon'. 

Edited July 12, 2017 by regfootball

[cp-the-nerd]

I dunno, there's a pretty fair amount of space behind the rear seats for day to day use. We haven't had any cargo issues.

[oldshurst442]

8 hours ago, cp-the-nerd said:

I dunno, there's a pretty fair amount of space behind the rear seats for day to day use. We haven't had any cargo issues.

That seems to be voluminous indeed. I like the Cruze hatch.

 

Right size for me?

What is that definition?

Its basically a car that fits my wife and 2 kids and myself comfortably with room to spare as I WANT to drive big cars.  Medium sized muscle cars for my speed demon ways.

Circa 1960s and 1970s perfect size for a family car

and for my speed demon needs

 

And if I needed to combine the two because of the need for one car

either this

or this

or this

Circa 2000s

Perfect size for a family car for me with different levels of speed demon shenanigans and family car intentions that only require for me to buy only 1 car.

 

The 2 door would require me to buy another car as it would be a tad difficult to haul stuff in and out of the back seat...in the 1970s, those trunks were huge therefore using the back seat in a 2 door was not really necessary.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2017 by oldshurst442

[cp-the-nerd]

Lots of beautiful cars in that post!

[Frisky Dingo]

The Cruze Hatch was a phoned in participant. A band member with no real talents to offer, but rather someone to just round out an ensemble for photos.

For all of GM's impressive work in chassis development and performance in their RWD cars, they continue to show they do not understand the small car market, and are incapable of producing a compelling product.

I wouldn't recommend someone shopping for a small car to even look at a Cruze. My .02

[cp-the-nerd]

29 minutes ago, Frisky Dingo said:

The Cruze Hatch was a phoned in participant. A band member with no real talents to offer, but rather someone to just round out an ensemble for photos.

For all of GM's impressive work in chassis development and performance in their RWD cars, they continue to show they do not understand the small car market, and are incapable of producing a compelling product.

I wouldn't recommend someone shopping for a small car to even look at a Cruze. My .02

That's an oddly strong opinion about a car whose only two standout flaws in reviews are numb steering and a poorly executed manual transmission. What exactly is a "phoned in" hatchback? It's got a functional rear hatch and attractive styling.

[A Horse With No Name]

16 hours ago, balthazar said:

Dear God- why. Stand-ups belong with vinyl tops & wire wheels- in the 1970-80s.

Saw a 79 Delta 88 two door and a 76 Buick 4 door hard top, white, both over lunch when I went out for a burger....

8 minutes ago, cp-the-nerd said:

That's an oddly strong opinion about a car whose only two standout flaws in reviews are numb steering and a poorly executed manual transmission. What exactly is a "phoned in" hatchback? It's got a functional rear hatch and attractive styling.

It is a phoned in hatch Back....I phoned in for a Pizza and then a Cruze hatch with some young woman driving it delivered directly to my front door.

Could have used both more pepperoni and onion though...

Would have preferred a 64 Pontiac with a Tri Power....but I might be waiting awhile for the pizza in that case...

(Just kidding on the Cruze hatch, interested in some spirited debate!)

1 hour ago, cp-the-nerd said:

Lots of beautiful cars in that post!

Agreed!

Edited July 12, 2017 by A Horse With No Name

[Frisky Dingo]

8 minutes ago, cp-the-nerd said:

That's an oddly strong opinion about a car whose only two standout flaws in reviews are numb steering and a poorly executed manual transmission. What exactly is a "phoned in" hatchback? It's got a functional rear hatch and attractive styling.

It offers nothing as a particularly strong suit compared to anything else in the class aside from a smooth ride.

It's slow, the steering and handling are completely numb and dull, and it doesn't really offer a strong value quotient. It should have been a Buick. It's like GM tried to take their philosophy of making a large car and apply it to a small car. That's just a confusing mentality to me.

[A Horse With No Name]

On 7/11/2017 at 10:34 AM, Frisky Dingo said:

This car is also the perfect size-

this is the perfect size truck-

The Jetta is really nicely packaged...were I to be buying a new smaller sedan, it would rank near the top of the list.

40 minutes ago, Frisky Dingo said:

It offers nothing as a particularly strong suit compared to anything else in the class aside from a smooth ride.

It's slow, the steering and handling are completely numb and dull, and it doesn't really offer a strong value quotient. It should have been a Buick. It's like GM tried to take their philosophy of making a large car and apply it to a small car. That's just a confusing mentality to me.

We are both atypical car buyers...

Your critique of the Cruze is not far off of what my wife said when we test drove one though.  And the Chevrolet salesman rather sheepishly agreed with her when she handed back the keys.

[cp-the-nerd]

46 minutes ago, Frisky Dingo said:

It offers nothing as a particularly strong suit compared to anything else in the class aside from a smooth ride.

It's slow, the steering and handling are completely numb and dull, and it doesn't really offer a strong value quotient. It should have been a Buick. It's like GM tried to take their philosophy of making a large car and apply it to a small car. That's just a confusing mentality to me.

Well it's not slow, that's objectively false. The 1.4T/6A runs 0-60 in 7.7 seconds and 1/4 mile in 16 flat. That falls squarely between the Civic's two engine choices. Same with the Mazda 3's two engines. The sedan was also the fastest in a C&D comparison test of base engine compacts. The only slower tests have been with the sloppy manual car, which I already conceded as a flaw, as well as the steering. However, handling–again objectively–is fine as far as grip and body control (.87g). It also happens to be the quietest compact on the highway.

I don't know if some Cruze owner ran over your dog, but your .02 could use a bit more objectivity.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-chevrolet-cruze-hatchback-automatic-test-review

[Frisky Dingo]

5 minutes ago, cp-the-nerd said:

Well it's not slow, that's objectively false. The 1.4T/6A runs 0-60 in 7.7 seconds and 1/4 mile in 16 flat. That falls squarely between the Civic's two engine choices. Same with the Mazda 3's two engines. The sedan was also the fastest in a C&D comparison test of base engine compacts. The only slower tests have been with the sloppy manual car, which I already conceded as a flaw, as well as the steering. However, handling–again objectively–is fine as far as grip and body control (.87g). It also happens to be the quietest compact on the highway.

I don't know if some Cruze owner ran over your dog, but your .02 could use a bit more objectivity.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-chevrolet-cruze-hatchback-automatic-test-review

Lol, your very own link criticizes the car for it's lackadaisical power and engine. As does this one-

C&D Cruze Hatch Manual Test

 

Instrumented test numbers mean squat.

In real life, the engine is wheezy, and as with nearly all GM offerings, the transmission tuning leaves some to be desired. There's lag, and a lack of power up top both. There's simply no excuse for such power delivery in 2017.

 

And outright grip, again, mean nothing as far as how sharp, fun, and rewarding something is to drive. The Cruze is panned in virtually every review in this regard.

 

I'm being extremely objective in saying the car lands squarely in 'mediocre' territory while most of it's rivals jumped the fence and landed in 'good' to 'excellent' ground. I like GM as a whole and openly praise many of their offerings, the Malibu one size up being an example, but the Cruze is just a rather milquetoast offering.

[cp-the-nerd]

14 minutes ago, Frisky Dingo said:

Lol, your very own link criticizes the car for it's lackadaisical power and engine. As does this one-

C&D Cruze Hatch Manual Test

 

Instrumented test numbers mean squat.

In real life, the engine is wheezy, and as with nearly all GM offerings, the transmission tuning leaves some to be desired. There's lag, and a lack of power up top both. There's simply no excuse for such power delivery in 2017.

 

And outright grip, again, mean nothing as far as how sharp, fun, and rewarding something is to drive. The Cruze is panned in virtually every review in this regard.

 

I'm being extremely objective in saying the car lands squarely in 'mediocre' territory while most of it's rivals jumped the fence and landed in 'good' to 'excellent' ground. I like GM as a whole and openly praise many of their offerings, the Malibu one size up being an example, but the Cruze is just a rather milquetoast offering.

Don't give me that "in real life" bs. I have extensive experience with my wife's Cruze hatch. It's not slow, and it doesn't feel slow. I was in the car when some fool couldn't understand the concept of right of way and she had to floor it. Somehow the "wheezy" engine spun the wheels on acceleration and made short work of a 30-35 mph sprint. It's not a performance engine, but it's more than competitive in its segment.

Thanks for posting that hatchback manual test, to reiterate what I've already said twice about the stick shift.

You're also cherry picking everything negative, exaggerating it, and saying that's the consensus.

C&D on handling/suspension:

"The low noise level is complemented by a well-sorted and resilient suspension, which offers a smooth, compliant ride over highway expansion strips and rough in-town pavement."

"While we can’t say the steering provides much feedback, it is predictable and direct, as well as free of twitchiness on straight stretches of road and long, sweeping freeway ramps. Combined with the quiet interior, the easy centering at highway speeds contributes to lower operator fatigue over long hauls."

The Cruze isn't a driver's car, but drives securely and it's best in class on the highway as far as comfort and quiet tuning, as opposed to your assertion that it excels at nothing. Gee, nailing the commute, what a strange and tiny niche to fill.

[A Horse With No Name]

1 hour ago, cp-the-nerd said:

Well it's not slow, that's objectively false. The 1.4T/6A runs 0-60 in 7.7 seconds and 1/4 mile in 16 flat. That falls squarely between the Civic's two engine choices. Same with the Mazda 3's two engines. The sedan was also the fastest in a C&D comparison test of base engine compacts. The only slower tests have been with the sloppy manual car, which I already conceded as a flaw, as well as the steering. However, handling–again objectively–is fine as far as grip and body control (.87g). It also happens to be the quietest compact on the highway.

I don't know if some Cruze owner ran over your dog, but your .02 could use a bit more objectivity.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-chevrolet-cruze-hatchback-automatic-test-review

It does really beat the fun to drive car, the Mazda 3, in interior quietness.

The new Subaru Imprezza is a very good car in this segment also.