2010 Cobalt/Cruze; Official Photos

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joey D
  • 197 comments
  • 13,483 views
I actually like the Chevrolet Cruze. That's ever since seeing the Cruze racing the WTCC. The Cruze is a nice-looking car to me. Maybe not late-model Malibu lovely (at least to me), but it looks very stylish no matter what the trim.
 
I like the cruze after seeing it but the lack of a ss model kept me from buying one when I went on my search (a search that ended in a civic si). Any news on the ss trim coming out soon?
 
PLEASE BRING THE HATCH TO 'MURIKA

scoop-chevrolet-cruze-hatchback%5B3%5D.jpg
 
I like the front as well. However, I can't see myself liking the interior or expecting it to be a quality product. Having rented a 2010 impala and an equinox within the last year, I doubt the quality took a big enough jump to be good. The impala had 1200 miles on it when we got it and had rattles, electrical issues(the kind that happened after you turned the car off so the battery drained). While the equinox felt better than the nissan rogue or the new hyundai tuscan(it weighed 600lbs more while being in the same class/tons more sound and heat deadening), its MPG figures were outright silly.
Same goes for their marketing. The commercials they were running last year were comparing a $18,000 cruze to a $16,000 corolla and I think a $15,000 elantra, last years models as well.
I like the idea of the new spark/aveo whatever it's called, but I need to be sure it's not just another daewoo re-badge job.
 
New Spark/Aveo? Only car I can immediately think of is the Chevrolet Sonic, which sort of has Lancer-like styling up front. This is at least supposed to replace the Aveo.
 
eSZee
I like the front as well. However, I can't see myself liking the interior or expecting it to be a quality product. Having rented a 2010 impala and an equinox within the last year, I doubt the quality took a big enough jump to be good. The impala had 1200 miles on it when we got it and had rattles, electrical issues(the kind that happened after you turned the car off so the battery drained).
Click to expand...

That's because GM hasn't put any money into the Impala since... well the Lumina. :indiff:
 
eSZee
I like the idea of the new spark/aveo whatever it's called, but I need to be sure it's not just another daewoo re-badge job.
Click to expand...

The Sonic was developed mostly by GM Europe and GM Korea, with very small amounts of input from GM North America. Long story short, the Americans have generally proved that we are incapable of developing a relevant, capable small car. In all honesty, it isn't that big of a deal. We're still going to build the Sonic in Michigan, and that is a good thing. I was very impressed with the car in Chicago, and am really looking forward to driving it when they go on sale. I don't know if I am willing to say that it is outright better than the Ford Fiesta, but given that they have stuck to more traditional styles of small cardom, I can't fault them.
 
IMG_0184.JPG


The Chevrolet Cruze compact sedan just launched in the North America market a few short months ago and represents Chevrolet’s first truly global vehicle. The Cruze is sold is over 60 countries worldwide and utilizes both gasoline and diesel powered engines in the global markets. In North America, however, the Cruze sports only gasoline power. According to multiple sources, at least one diesel option is coming for the North American Cruze.

GMI’s sources at the Lordstown, Ohio assembly plant that produces the Cruze state that management informed them this week that they will start building a Cruze diesel model for the 2013 model year. Management stated that production of the new engine option would begin sometime next year.

Sources familiar with GM engineering were able to confirm to GMI that the diesel option is currently slated for the 2013 Cruze. The engineering sources also confirmed that the engine is a 2.0-liter with the RPO code of ‘LUZ.’ Power output or fuel economy figures are unclear at this time, however test mules of the Cruze diesel are operating now in metro Detroit.

In Australia the Holden Cruze CDX has a 2.0-liter diesel engine. In that application the car produces approximately 147 horsepower and 235 feet-pounds of torque. Converting from the Australian fuel economy figures, the Cruze CDX is rated at 34 miles per-gallon in combined driving. It is unclear if the same 2.0-liter diesel will be in the North American Cruze, but one is compelled to assume that will be the case.
Click to expand...
 
I've seen a few myself, a Fiesta or two, too. Seems they're at least worth trading the Cobalt in on...
 
How about this then...

2013 Chevrolet Cruze To Offer 2.0-Liter Clean-Diesel Option - GreenCarReports

Seems the Cruze really will be a global vehicle since you'll get a diesel powerplant too. Could be a shrewd move, since it'll presumably be one of (if not the) cheapest diesel on the US market.

A few quick figures from the story: 148 horsepower, 236 pounds feet of torque, 42mpg (US). No word on price yet.
 
Wait, what's the point in that? Doesn't the Cruze Eco or whatever get 40mpg?

I'm only seeing these in base model trim on the roads, Though I am seeing them more often than I am the Fiesta or Mazda2 (Mazda2 more often than Fiestas).
 
Last edited:
Eric.
Wait, what's the point in that? Doesn't the Cruze Eco or whatever get 40mpg?

I'm only seeing these in base model trim on the roads, Though I am seeing them more often than I am the Fiesta or Mazda2 (Mazda2 more often than Fiestas).
Click to expand...


The Cruze Eco only get's 40mpg on highway, but this should have higher avg figures.

Also the Cruze diesel thing was posted on the previous page. :sly:
 
Eric.
Wait, what's the point in that? Doesn't the Cruze Eco or whatever get 40mpg?
Click to expand...
Technically, yes. That's one of those "Lol, you actually think you can replicate those numbers?" ratings, though, based on the specs. It also comes with those awful low-resistance tires.
 
homeforsummer
How about this then...

2013 Chevrolet Cruze To Offer 2.0-Liter Clean-Diesel Option - GreenCarReports

Seems the Cruze really will be a global vehicle since you'll get a diesel powerplant too. Could be a shrewd move, since it'll presumably be one of (if not the) cheapest diesel on the US market.

A few quick figures from the story: 148 horsepower, 236 pounds feet of torque, 42mpg (US). No word on price yet.
Click to expand...

If this is true, it is probably the most legitimate competitor that the Jetta TDI has had in... Well, ever... At least in the US, anyway. I've heard that the diesel version is apparently the best of the Cruzes, offering excellent fuel economy and the typical snappy handling characteristics that the car seems to have.

If GM is willing to sell a diesel Cruze LT1 for right around $20K, I would seriously consider buying one. Seriously.
 
Part of the problem with attempting to compete with diesel VWs is that they aren't constantly in high demand (or, rather, sold as fast as VW can build them) because they are diesels. They are constantly in high demand because they are VW diesels.
If Chevy is expecting a repeat of that standard of success just by virtue of existing as a competitor, they are going to be in for a shock.

Cale
Well autoblog repeated the 42mpg highway rating driving normally.
Click to expand...
My dad once got 40 out of his Neon driving normally. Once. No, I'm not sure of the relevance.

And it still has those awful tires on it.
 
Many decent 1.8 to 2.0 gasoline compacts can get 40 mpg driven like a granny on the highway... the difference is, a good diesel compact will be able to get 40 mpg at a much higher cruising speed... and some ungodly great number when cruising at the same puny speed that nets you 40 mpg on a gasser.

And the overtaking torque is... entertaining, to say the least.

They've announced the diesel here, too... but no word on when it'll be available.
 
I guess, in my mind, it shows that GM is listening to people complaining that there aren't enough diesel options in the US, particularly when they offer known products that perform so well. My guess is that, if GM does a diesel Cruze, the likelihood of Ford doing the same with the Focus in the US goes up exponentially.
 
Aren't the MPG gains from diesel cars offset by the higher fuel price? Add the premium that the diesel car will likely fetch and you're not really gaining anything but an engine note that sounds slightly broken to the average american.
I've wanted a diesel for the past few years as the diesel power band fits my newly acquired, old man driving style, however, the lack of vehicles and the 10-30% fuel price increase just doesn't make it worth it.
 
The gains depend on how many miles you do, really. Diesel cars are completely not worth the extra price if you're a low mileage or town driver, but very useful if you do high mileages mostly on freeways.

Though with diesels, it's not always just the economy savings that it's worth buying for. If well serviced they're capable of higher mileages pretty easily, and they're also much quicker and more relaxing than the equivalent gas car. Modern diesels are pretty quiet as a rule and as Niky says, have loads of torque which makes driving them an absolute breeze.

You could say they don't sound as good of course, but then the vast majority of regular four-cylinder economy cars sound crap anyway. At least diesels have a bit of a nice rumble from inside the car.
 
niky
Many decent 1.8 to 2.0 gasoline compacts can get 40 mpg driven like a granny on the highway... the difference is, a good diesel compact will be able to get 40 mpg at a much higher cruising speed... and some ungodly great number when cruising at the same puny speed that nets you 40 mpg on a gasser.

And the overtaking torque is... entertaining, to say the least.

They've announced the diesel here, too... but no word on when it'll be available.
Click to expand...

Hey, I've gotten 37mpg in my Si on a roadtrip by staying off interstates and just using normal highways!
 
Eric.
Hey, I've gotten 37mpg in my Si on a roadtrip by staying off interstates and just using normal highways!
Click to expand...

That makes sense. You're likely to be travelling slower on normal highways than you would on an interstate but still in higher gears unless it gets twisty. Low revs at high speed = better economy. The sweet spot to keep below is supposed to be about 2000-2500rpm in a petrol car, above that engine friction increases massively.

Some cars just aren't geared for it though (such as my Panda, 3.5k+ rpm at 70mph, and that's in 6th...). Petrol, at least. Most diesels will sit at 70mph barely ticking over. I expect the gasoline Eco Cruze has long gearing making for poor acceleration but decent highway economy.
 
homeforsummer
That makes sense. You're likely to be travelling slower on normal highways than you would on an interstate but still in higher gears unless it gets twisty. Low revs at high speed = better economy. The sweet spot to keep below is supposed to be about 2000-2500rpm in a petrol car, above that engine friction increases massively.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. It's different for each engine. I'm sure his Honda is probably most economical at ~3-3.5K RPM on the highway. It all depends on the throttle input.

I think the Cruze Evo has the same gears in the transmission but a dif final drive ratio. Add that to improved aero, lower weight, and low resistance tires and you get the increased economy. (It might have a re-tuned ECU or an ECO mode also)
 
Cale
Not entirely true. It's different for each engine. I'm sure his Honda is probably most economical at ~3-3.5K RPM on the highway. It all depends on the throttle input.
Click to expand...

No, it's largely similar for all engines. Below about 2.5k the friction is significantly lower than above, whatever the vehicle.

That's not to say going around everywhere below those revs will result in better fuel efficiency, because ideally you want to be moving about at revs that won't necessitate constant downchanging to give you more acceleration. And you're right, in his Civic you probably need more revs to make decent progress, but below the 2.5k-ish engine friction will be lower and if your cruising speed happens to be around this or lower, you're in luck.

Throttle input is a factor too, obviously. If you need to have the throttle wide open to get anywhere then you're not using fuel very efficiently.

As a general rule, the lower revs you're doing at cruising speed the less fuel you're going to be using. Around 2-2.5k in a petrol car should usually be enough to avoid labouring the engine but few enough for benefitting from lower friction.
 
My car get's better MPGs at 65-70mph than at 55mph. Granted it's only a difference of a few hundred RPM.
 
HFS, they're right. The K20 is more efficient around 3000-3200rpm. Depends a lot on head flow and dozens of other things that are over my head.
 
Cale
I think the Cruze Evo has the same gears in the transmission but a dif final drive ratio. Add that to improved aero, lower weight, and low resistance tires and you get the increased economy. (It might have a re-tuned ECU or an ECO mode also)
Click to expand...

The ECU tune is identical to the standard 1.4T Cruze, and there is no "Eco Mode" for the car to go into. Give or take, it is all mechanical wizardry that gets the car the high fuel economy rating. The losses in the weight department are one of the big helpers, cutting nearly 225 lbs out of the vehicle. The Cruze also gets a Z-link rear suspension, which combined with the low-resistance tires, might have a bit of an effect on the ride/handling of the car.

Assuming it still drives like a Cruze, and knowing that it gets a decent amount of kit from the LT versions, it would probably be the best of the Cruzes to buy. Well, until the diesel version shows up.
 

Latest Posts

Back