^Indeed.
Flipping the news on to the next page.


Update on the 2012 Cruze...
From GM...

For 2012, Chevrolet Cruze models with the 1.4L turbo and six-speed automatic transmission will get 2 mpg better fuel economy. The Cruze Eco with an automatic transmission will deliver as much as 39 mpg on the highway compared with 37 mpg for the current model.

The most popular 1.4L turbo/six-speed automatic will get 38 mpg compared with 36 mpg for the current model. A lower axle ratio for the 2012 models enables the approximately 5 percent increase in highway fuel efficiency for Cruze.

Cruze Eco with the standard six-speed manual transmission remains the most fuel-efficient gas-powered/non-hybrid vehicle in America, with an EPA-rated 42 mpg on the highway.

Also for 2012, a feature package containing Bluetooth phone connectivity, USB port, steering wheel-mounted audio controls, cruise control, leather-wrapped steering wheel and a leather-wrapped shift knob will be standard on 1LT and Eco models. These features were part of the $525 Connectivity Plus Cruise option package on 2011 models. The option was ordered by 90 percent of American customers.

"Chevrolet is committed to responding to what customers want and making it easier for them," said Rick Scheidt, vice president of Chevrolet marketing. "Adding these previously optional features streamlines the ordering process and answers the call of what our customers told us should be standard."

Cruze, which was the best-selling small car in the United States in May, is Chevrolet's best-selling nameplate around the world, with global sales of more than 250,000 in the first four months of 2011.

"Fueled by a successful launch in the United States and continued growth in China, Chevrolet Cruze is proving to be the right car at the right time," Scheidt said "Fuel economy is the top reason customers buy a compact and the Cruze¡¯s greater efficiency for 2012 makes it all the more attractive."

Additional standard equipment on the 2012 Cruze includes:
-Remote keyless entry
-Air conditioning
-Audio system with AM/FM/CD and MP3 playback
-SiriusXM Satellite Radio with three-month trial service
-Driver information center with average and instant fuel economy feedback, tire pressure readout, oil life remaining and more
-Rear defogger
-Power windows
-Fuel-saving rack mounted electric power steering.

New equipment on the 2012 Cruze includes:
-6-speed manual transmission standard on 1LT and 2LT
-Keyless entry and keyless start available on 2LT and standard on LTZ
-Touch screen navigation system with 7¡± color display available on Eco, 2LT and LTZ
-16-inch five-spoke machined-face alloy wheels are standard on 1LT
-17-inch five-spoke alloy wheels with four-wheel disc brakes are standard on 2LT
-Compact spare tire and wheel standard on all models except Eco with manual transmission and 1FL (fleet)
-Fog lamps are standard on LTZ
-Exterior colors: Blue Granite Metallic, Blue Topaz Metallic and Victory Red (with RS appearance package only)

Cruze's standard safety features include:
-Ten standard air bags ¨C the most in the segment ¨C including frontal, head curtain side air bags, front and outboard rear-seat side-impact air bags and knee air bags
StabiliTrak electronic stability control with rollover sensing, traction control and anti-lock brakes
-Collapsible pedal system, which allows the pedals to detach during a crash to reduce the risk of leg or ankle injuries
-OnStar with Automatic Crash Response.

The U.S. and Canadian versions of the Cruze are built in Lordstown, Ohio.



>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

friend bought the eco model and loves it. it's gutless but he got it for mileage anyways. I like the look but there should be a solid sport model.

***Rumors***

GM has decided to sell a diesel version of the Chevrolet Cruze compact in the United States, the Associated Press reported today, citing two people familiar with the plans.
Sources told the AP the car would get about 50 miles per gallon on the highway and help GM address stricter government fuel economy standards. The diesel-powered Cruze is at least two years from U.S. introduction, one source said. The sources did not want to be identified because the automaker has not made an announcement. GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson would not comment, the AP said.
GM has two versions of its 2.0-liter diesel available for the European-market Cruze, one with 127 horsepower and 221 lb-ft of torque and one with 163 horsepower and 266 lb-ft.




>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

So I'm noticing a lot of people complaining about the ecotec's being an iron block. First off, It is NOT a goddamn performance car. And at that liter size, the difference between aluminum with sleeves and iron is almost non-existent. The aluminum block would need to be thicker, while with the iron block, you don't need sleeves, and could make the walls thinner. It's an economy car, the block doesn't need to be built like an LS engine. And if they do, which is highly unlikely, release a performance SS version; they will likely go with the 2.5 liter they developed for the upcoming Malibu. It's even possible they are pushing for an AWD platform with it to compete in Rally. FWD is not a good performance platform due to understeer and torquesteer. Yes, there are ways to solve that, Fords RS Focus is a prime example, but the thrill isn't there in a FWD. And I do believe even with the smaller engines, higher power is attainable. The Iron block would need less reinforcement for high boost applications compared to the aluminum block. Sorry for jumping around subjects, but I write as I think. Also, you can't compare the Cruze to a Cobalt SS. The Cruze is a daily driven economy car, not a performance car. And really? You think the Cruze is ugly? The Cobalt was cheap and poorly made and had no "personality." It was extremely bland. The Cruze was designed in Europe, and is probably the car that is going to save Chevrolet, along with the Malibu which picked up good sales numbers. They're going for economy, quality, style, and a low price in one package. They're building cars off what consumers want. Not everyone wants a high performance vehicle. They want something affordable with good ride quality and comfort. IMO if GM releases an AWD Cruze pushing 300hp, it would be the car to get. Cause they wouldn't let the price get near the Camaro SS price range. That's how they do things, just like the new ZL1 Camaro. It's hits no where near the Z06 'Vette price range. Most likely, it would cost between 25-30k USD. But not much higher if it hits those numbers. And you can bet they'll tune the setup for hundreds of hours at the Ring.

Would a few paragraphs to break that up hurt so much?



"Formerly known as Jammit - JBO member since 1998" JBOM | CSS.net

just got a turbo RS in at work.... still slow as piss LOL

the turbo is.... cute?

Wow man, do you really think ppl don't realize it's an economy car? Here's a shocker - so is the jbody, and the delta body! Will wonders never cease??

The point is the direction they are going from a proven platform that's fairly easy to make power on with decent aftermarket support, ot one that is completely foreign to this market. Also, I'm gonna go so far as to say that these engines will NEVER reach the heights that the real eco has reached. That's my gripe. OF COURSE GM is not out to satisfy my performance needs with this car, that's obvious. But I/we can still gripe about it, realizing the reasons for their choices.

A diesel I would be interested in that, better MPG cheaper gas and enough power to tow my jet ski.

Again, It's not that it's not built for speed. 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.



"Formerly known as Jammit - JBO member since 1998" JBOM | CSS.net

Confirmed
From GM...
Chevrolet Confirms Diesel Variant for Cruze in 2013
2011-07-22
Chevrolet confirmed today it will add a diesel variant to the Cruze lineup in North America in calendar year 2013. Diesel versions of the Cruze are currently being sold in Europe. Additional details on the Cruze diesel for North American markets will be released at a later date.
The diesel will bolster the already fuel-efficient Cruze lineup. Cruze Eco with a standard six-speed manual transmission, is the most fuel-efficient gas-powered/non-hybrid vehicle in America, with an EPA-rated 42 mpg on the highway.
Cruze recorded a total of 24,896 sales in the United States in June, the fifth consecutive month sales have exceeded 20,000. The success of the Cruze has increased Chevrolet’s total share of the compact-car segment from 9.5 percent a year ago to 11.9 percent for the first five months of 2011, even as the segment size grew 19 percent.




>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

awesome. about time

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.

I also read the article "http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2011-07-22-diesels_n.htm" about the diesel version. I am really looking forward to it. If they make that and a SS version one day, I have no idea which I would choose. Well, probably neither since I will still be driving my vx hatchback.




2004 Cavalier. Razzi. (Sold)
1998 Corvette. Some mods.
1992 Typhoon. Lots of mods.
1994 Civic VX 44MPG

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.

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...


- 93 mph in the 1/8 mile
Member of J-Body Of Michigan.

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.

Should have offered them as a the 1.4 Eco turbo model, 2.2L Ecotec standard model, and the diesel. Scrap the slow selling Volt and offer a Diesel or gas hybrid model like Honda does with the Civic and then we'd be talking . The 1.8l motor is a total waste.




"Formerly known as Jammit - JBO member since 1998" JBOM | CSS.net

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.



2004 Cavalier. Razzi. (Sold)
1998 Corvette. Some mods.
1992 Typhoon. Lots of mods.
1994 Civic VX 44MPG

Skilz10179 wrote:

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...

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...

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.

The Cruze Eco is one of the peppier cars in its class. The auto version non Eco Cruze is meh and on on par with the rest. Granted those are the ones that carry a power sucking automatic and around 150lbs extra weight too.
Also.
In 1996 or 1997 R&T got the Z24 5-speed to 60mph 7.7 and finished the quarter 15.7@ 85mph+ (don't remember the MPH). And that model had the taller gearing of the Isuzu, 9.5CR, and weighed in a little more than the 2000+ models.
Now the Eco Js are actually slower then the Cruze ECO manual. All tests got the Eco Js to 60 in 8.2secs and 16.2@85+mph (again don't remember the MPH).

Too me the ONLY draw back on the ECO Cruze is the Watt's Linkage is removed and the rear discs from the LTZ/RS are not there.
Personally I would have made the American 2.2L Ecotec with 160HP as the standard engine. The diesel for the Eco version. And the Malibu's 2.5L (w/200HP+) as the sport model. Leave the 2.0T for the Buick Verano.

Quote:

the fact that GM took a proven mechanical platform and ditched it for something that has no performance heritage whatsoever with GM.

Well, that platform has been running around Europe for a lot longer then the American Ecotec (which is about 12 years). Also in challeging road racing too. It is just that WE IN AMERICA are not "to familiar" with this platform... yet.



>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

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.



2004 Cavalier. Razzi. (Sold)
1998 Corvette. Some mods.
1992 Typhoon. Lots of mods.
1994 Civic VX 44MPG

Bashing doesn't bother me, as I'll probably get a Cruze anyways. I really like the set up and the feel of the car while I'm driving.

Like Skilz said, doesn't take much to get these going. For those who don't, I suggest you get an education on it and do some reading.....


I get the feeling the tuners are going to like this car......

Rob wrote:

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.

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.

So, yes i ruin forums for having a different opinion than you...right on. I think you continue to read and understand the parts of my posts that you want to, ignoring the heart of what i dislike about the car. For the twentieth time, I understand it's an economy car and i understand it's competitive in it's class. Hell, it should go without saying, but i understand the world is different today than ten years ago in this segment. That doesn't mean i'm not aloud to complain about GM's choice in power plant for this car. Or is that your point? That i should just love this car and shut up?

EDIT: Forgot to reiterate that i hope the diesel sells well, encouraging other companies to follow. 50mpg and 200+ft-lbs is how this segment should perform!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Saturday, July 23, 2011 2:42 AM

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.

Whether car related or not, I find dick sucking comments toward myself a little derogatory and offensive in an automotive forum, especially from a complete stranger. If you are a female or homosexual male and you are into that kind of thing, good for you.

Finding everything I can to defend the car? What are you talking about? I post one comment about it not being as slow as everyone makes it out to be; not finding a bunch of data. It is fine you have a different opinion, that is great. I am no means in love with a cruze. Having a different opinion has no affect on ruining forums, but trash talking other members does.



2004 Cavalier. Razzi. (Sold)
1998 Corvette. Some mods.
1992 Typhoon. Lots of mods.
1994 Civic VX 44MPG

Ok, well i apologize if i hurt your feelings. Sorry. I do find it very annoying when people think i "have" to like a car just because it gets 40mpg or because it's turbocharged, or even because its in the top of it's class. IDGAF about that, i think gm made some mistakes with the car. I'd take an elantra over any current gas powered cruze. However, the diesel will atone for those mistakes

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.

I also agree the 1.8 is pointless.

I love my Eco, no complaints. For the last 1500 miles I've averaged 33.7 mpg, 100% city driving.


- 93 mph in the 1/8 mile
Member of J-Body Of Michigan.

i drove the eco and i thought it had a little bit of pep, better than the old z24

^^You probably "felt" it faster because of this:
1.4T 148 ft-lbs@1850
vs
2.4L 155ft-lbs@2400-4400

Cruze Eco M32's gearing
1: 4.27
2: 2.16
3: 1.30
4: 0.96
5: 0.74
6: 0.61
FD: 3.83
vs.
Cavalier Z24 M94's geraing
1: 3.58
2: 2.02
3: 1.35
4: 0.98
5: 0.69
FD 3.94





>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----