Jookycola wrote: Of course it's meant to be an ECONOMY car, in that respect the Cruze is built well, but is gutless to a fault. And that gutless lack of horsepower doesn't make it more efficient than the Focus or the Elantra. If the mpg saving were much more than either of those 2 cars, then you could make the case that "so what, if the Cruze gutless...it gets X amount MORE mpg's than the the Focus and Elantra". But since it's fuel savings are marginal at best to it's competition, it's really laughably slow for no reason.
And remeber you have to buy the "special" xfe model Cruze to get that 40mpg's they brag about. You can buy ANY model and trim level Hyundai Elantra from the stripped version all way to the top of the line and get 40mpgs. No "special" model that cost more and gives you less. The Cruze is total and utter fail. the magazines that praised it at launch are now raking it over the coals for being so slow with no benefit in performance, safety, or MPG's sake. and they also think it's stupid to offer 2 engines that basically do the same thing, and do it badly.
Rob wrote:Jookycola wrote: Of course it's meant to be an ECONOMY car, in that respect the Cruze is built well, but is gutless to a fault. And that gutless lack of horsepower doesn't make it more efficient than the Focus or the Elantra. If the mpg saving were much more than either of those 2 cars, then you could make the case that "so what, if the Cruze gutless...it gets X amount MORE mpg's than the the Focus and Elantra". But since it's fuel savings are marginal at best to it's competition, it's really laughably slow for no reason.
And remeber you have to buy the "special" xfe model Cruze to get that 40mpg's they brag about. You can buy ANY model and trim level Hyundai Elantra from the stripped version all way to the top of the line and get 40mpgs. No "special" model that cost more and gives you less. The Cruze is total and utter fail. the magazines that praised it at launch are now raking it over the coals for being so slow with no benefit in performance, safety, or MPG's sake. and they also think it's stupid to offer 2 engines that basically do the same thing, and do it badly.
CAR and DRIVER:
"Aiding the Eco’s case is the fact that it is the quickest Cruze we’ve tested. Chevy acknowledges the fact that the manual’s first- and second-gear ratios are “aggressive,” which helps this miserly compact hit 60 mph in 7.8 seconds. The quarter-mile is gone in 16.1 at 87 mph"
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/11q2/2011_chevrolet_cruze_eco_manual-short_take_road_test
That is as fast/faster than the a lot of class competition. It is funny you guys piss and moan about the cruze eco being a dog and too slow. Over on the MPG forums, they are saying the car could have came with a 1.0 and they would have been even happier. It is plenty fast for them and it could have gotten even better mpgs. Cruze eco is faster than my Civic hatchback, and is bigger with more room and safety features.
Actually I will put it in an even better perspective since we are on a cavalier forum; It is pretty much on par with a Z24 or an eco cavalier or cobalt. So everyone who thinks it is gutless/slow as piss who is driving a stock cavalier/cobalt on the j-body forum (excluding ss), take a look in the mirror your car is slow as well.
Road & Track wrote:Highs: Quiet and smooth ride, well-to-do interior, less heft.
Lows: Boomy suspension at times, reluctant to be hustled], tire wail at low speeds.
Car & Driver wrote:By 35 mph, it wants the car to be in fifth or sixth, the latter of which is a very tall, Eco-specific cruising ratio that offers almost zero power for acceleration.
Jookycola wrote: The 1.8l motor is a total waste.
Skilz10179 wrote:What falls on deaf ears is the fact that GM took a proven mechanical platform and ditched it for something that has no performance heritage whatsoever with GM. YES, we realize it's an economy car, and in it's "class", it may be competitive. But there is no reason they could not have used a naturally aspirated or turbo DI 2.0 real ecotec, get the same if not better mileage, likely better performance, and still be competitive in price. As a benefit for a community like this, we would have a great aftermarket waiting for the car...The diesel is the only one i would consider; it has a real mpg advantage over the competition, and the numbers say it should still scoot. Also, Jooky had a good point about the "eco" model being the higher mpg variant. It's bases at what, like 21000, while the base elantra is like 16500 and gets 40mpg...
I brought this up before but it seemed to fall on deaf ears...
But unlike a Cavalier, a simple mail order tune, a intake and a downpipe will gain you about 50whp, 50wtq and 50mpg!
I own a Cruze Eco (1.4 Turbo & 6 speed manual) and i have so complaints...
Quote:
the fact that GM took a proven mechanical platform and ditched it for something that has no performance heritage whatsoever with GM.
oldskool wrote:
Rob you seem to be angry that we don't suck the cruze's dick like you...we admit it's an economy car, and acknowledge GM's intentions with the car. I can't get any clearer with my gripes above.
Rob wrote:I don't see derogatory, i see you finding all you can to like about the car and defending it, which is having an opinion and is ok. I see my self and others having a different opinion, which is ok too.oldskool wrote:
Rob you seem to be angry that we don't suck the cruze's dick like you...we admit it's an economy car, and acknowledge GM's intentions with the car. I can't get any clearer with my gripes above.
I was not angry in my above post. I was trying to point out some facts. Then you come on here pissed off, calling me out specifically, and making derogatory remarks about me personally? It is people like you who ruin forums. You don't even know me and you just make offensive remarks toward me because I think the cruze is a decent little car? I don't need this car to be a "performance platform" much like the many who buy it. I have a performance car. I want good mpg in a comfortable car.
I do not own a cruze, probably won't own one, but I see it funny how everyone bashes it when it is a very competitive car in its class. The dealer said I could get an eco model for $18,500 when I was asking about them the other day. I am sure the price would change 3 different times by the time it was purchased.
oldskool wrote:
Rob you seem to be angry that we don't suck the cruze's dick like you...we admit it's an economy car, and acknowledge GM's intentions with the car. I can't get any clearer with my gripes above.
oldskool wrote: I don't see derogatory, i see you finding all you can to like about the car and defending it, which is having an opinion and is ok. I see my self and others having a different opinion, which is ok too.
Rob wrote:Jookycola wrote: The 1.8l motor is a total waste.
Seeing its lack of power and mpg in comparison to 1.4, I will agree with that. I think they could have done 1.4t, 2.0 LNF, and a diesel.
Skilz,
How do you like your eco? A guy on my local forum was averaging about 43mpg in his with careful driving. How has your mpg been? My VX has averaged 44-45mpg the last 2 years but has almost 300k miles on it. It can't last forever.