cp-the-nerd

This sport sedan is so close to perfection. Should have had the 3.0T and 350+ horsepower and torque. It will undoubtedly be a better driver's car than a Fusion Sport or MKZ 3.0T, but those cars have significantly more thrust and probably have broader consumer appeal as a result.

19 minutes ago, Frisky Dingo said:

Well, I didn't have a dog, but I am sorry about your inability to see past a badge and buy something other than a GM.

And yet I haven't put forth a single brand-biased argument in this thread, starting with my comment recommending the Civic, Mazda 3, or Cruze hatchbacks. You can't put forth an objective reason I'm wrong, so you fall back on the "fanboy" label.

17 minutes ago, Frisky Dingo said:

It's engine is absolutely not competitive in it's class, and lags in many areas much, much, much further than it excels at one thing- comfortable driving. 

That's entirely your subjective and highly debatable opinion. If you want to believe an engine that provides statistically, provably competitive acceleration and fuel economy is "absolutely not competitive in its class," that's your prerogative. Sorry about your dog.

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.

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

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.

Lots of beautiful cars in that post!

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.

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.

I should add that the ExtremeContact DWS 06 has a 50,000 mile treadwear warranty if your tires aren't staggered sizes and can be rotated front to back. Warranty is halved for staggered sets, I got my 35,000 mile prediction from other SS owners.

The other primary competitor is the Michelin Pilot Sport A/S 3, which is an excellent tire as well for about $50 more per tire. The A/S 3 is known for even better performance limits at the cost of harsher ride quality and slightly shorter tread warranty (45k mi).

I just had my break-in oil change completed at a little over 1700 miles and finally swapped on the all-season Continental ExtremeContact DWS 06 tires that have been sitting in my guest shower for a month (no garage). The factory equipment Bridgestone Potenza RE050A summer tires were sufficiently sporty and handled wet conditions well enough, but were loud with poor ride quality. Living in Maryland, all season tires are essential for daily driver duty because of fairly harsh winters.

Price:

I don't know how Continental sells some of the best tires on the market for the prices they offer, when other brands easily go for $50-100 more per tire. I got my whole set shipped to my house off TireRack.com for around $850 (Fronts: 245/40R19, Rears: 275/35R19, Y-rated). That price is so good, it makes you second guess the quality, but the online reviews are exceptional. A set of the factory Bridgestones run nearly $1400.

Tread life is expected to be around 35k miles, which is pretty great when you consider dollar-per-mile vs the stockers and other summer tires.

Performance:

I haven't really pushed these tires to the limit, but my initial impressions with some moderately aggressive driving would suggest I haven't lost an appreciable amount of acceleration and handling grip to the stock summer tires. This falls in line with the reviews I read. A short blast from 10-55 mph turning a corner ahead of traffic yielded no break in traction whatsoever. Wet performance is at least as secure as the factory tires, with which I never had issues anyway (because I'm not an idiot pushing a muscle car in the rain). I'll update the thread when I have more time with the new rubber.

Ride quality:

This is probably the greatest appeal of the tires IMO. Immediately after leaving the shop with the new tires on, I noticed a major improvement in comfort and road noise. I'll stop short of calling the SS a luxury sedan, because it lacks GM's acoustic laminated glass that gives many of their cars that vault-like quiet tuning on the highway, but the car has achieved boulevard cruiser status.

Conclusion:

Even with my limited experience so far, I highly recommend these tires as a 4-season alternative for any daily-driven performance car. They seem to give fantastic ride quality and noise control without significant sacrifice to performance, and the expected 35k mile treadwear with exceptionally low price is the cherry on top.

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.

You can get a regular cab/box LT Z71 5.3L 4x4 for $40k. That's a cool truck for the money.

21 hours ago, Stew said:

For me?  it is the Hellcat.  You can see out of it, it has room aplenty, 5 seats, a big trunk, and looks menacing as hell.  The point is, get what your heart wants whatever it is. 

The highlighted part is the only thing I find issue with. Nobody, I mean NOBODY, who complains about Camaro visibility is going to recommend you check out the Challenger instead. They are both bunkers with narrow windows and massive blind spots.

2 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Depends on the Track.

Camaro is part of a full line up, Challenger is part of a brand that hasn't had a full lineup of competent competitive vehicles since Nixon was president and Love American Style was a regular TV show.

Standard ZL1 would crush any Challenger on a track. It's not even a fair comparison, Dodge is doing pretty great things with a car on an ancient chassis, the Alpha Camaro is state of the art.

The 5th gen (2012-15) ZL1 will out track a standard Hellcat on 9/10 courses, the new ZL1 is so much more than a wide-body enhancement can accomplish, and the new 1LE is in a completely different league.

10 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Yeah, I agree to a degree- but it's the same thing the other makes are doing. I prefer visual differentiation, ALA the ATC/ CTS/ CT6 (which I have no problem ID'ing in a split second on the street)... and I haven't looked the the new XTS vs. the CT6 to judge this as of yet... but across the street Mercedes is putting the same nose that's going to be on the $27K A-class on the $122K S-class coupe! I don't like that kind of price spread on the same rubber stamp.

I don't see this in the same light as the examples you posted because the XTS is an outlier in the Cadillac lineup. It represents a stop-gap, cost-cutting FWD-based large sedan. They took this refresh straight off the front of the CT6, another large sedan occupying much of the same price range, but if you ask GM, they want you to judge Cadillac based on the state-of-the-art CT6.

I'm not aware of a similar situation anywhere else among luxury brands. Even Lexus keeps the ES better updated so as not to drag down the brand's higher tier luxury cars.

I can't wrap my head around this strategy.

They've put a near carbon-copy of the CT6's face onto their least impressive, oldest sedan. I can easily see this leading to confusion on the sales floor and out in the world where casual observers will judge this XTS inside and out as representative of *new* Cadillac.

6 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The mechanical changes are done already. The Lacrosse is getting the 9-speed and already had an 8-speed. 

Lacrosse is a ground-up new car with a new platform. It probably has more in common mechanically with the XT5 crossover than the XTS.

I am really, really excited about this news. I'm trying to be cautiously optimistic, but I'm just itching for an escala-based design refresh on this car. It's the ONLY THING holding the model back, IMO.

Not only do they have more yet to recall, but I read they were still installing *new* Takata airbags with defect knowing they'd be a future recall after 5-10 years when they degrade.

I'm not even sure where this situation is headed for automakers with affected cars.

Glad to see more activity in this thread! I like seeing the results of more constrained dream garages.

Our cars would be an ATS coupe 2.0T/6MT and a Buick Encore.

The ATS coupe has grown on me exponentially since it came out. My fuel economy would undoubtedly be 10 mpg higher than the SS while being similarly fun to drive, with more nimble handling. I also like the statement the sheetmetal and LEDs make. It's recognizably cool without being pretentious.

On the downside, the ATS coupe (or sedan) is barely practical enough to handle my life as is and would almost certainly warrant trading in when I start a family. It's also not highway friendly for road trips (which I love taking), and I couldn't get mag-ride on my budget.

There's definitely appeal to the ATS's usable performance, character, and great fuel economy, but I don't think the grass is greener.

For my wife, I think as much as she'd love the quiet comfort of the Encore, she'd feel like she was driving someone else's car every day. The more she drives her Cruze hatchback, the more it fits her like a glove, the mpg loss of the Encore's taller shape would hurt as well. I certainly wouldn't mind the serenity of the Encore for road trips if I owned the ATS though...

After my two recent experiences with car buying, I got to thinking: both myself and my wife could have ended up with very different cars because it was a tough back-and-forth decision. Maybe it could be fun talking about what we're driving in an alternate universe where the final choice went the other way!

What's your realistic alternate universe garage? You can go by real life buying experience or just conjecture based on your budget.

What are the pros and cons of this alternate universe? Is the grass greener on the other side?

(No, your alternate universe self can't be a millionaire celebrity. Realistic entries only!)

That moron must be mistaking the specialness of the car for the Type R. The term "high performance" doesn't come to mind at all.

I mean, I wholeheartedly have an open mind toward the Si, but even if we're being generous, the car isn't expected to crack high 13s or pull sports car Gs on the skidpad. It's a sport compact in the mid $20k range.

Wife loves her new Cruze hatch. Your Premier rental actually lacks a major luxury option group that includes larger touch screen, upgraded gauge cluster display, 9-speaker audio, and sunroof. Really takes the interior up a notch further.

The engineering in this car is really exceptional. The new SIDI 1.4T and 6A are a great pairing in this lighter chassis, though the hatchback is really begging for a 2.0T!