# Consumer Reports Cruze reliability (from Dec '11 issue)



## doc03 (May 18, 2011)

I am familiar with Consumer Reports and I think they are automatically biased against any American product. I can't read your attachment but did look at the article in the book store the other day. What I found strange is in their Cruze chart every category rating was either (better than average) or (much better than average) then they rated the Cruze as having a reliability rating (much worse than average). Then I looked a couple of the imported competitors and they had (worse than average) in some categories but yet they rate those cars as (much better than average) for their reliability. 
On edit: I figured out how to increase the size of the chart. Look at the 1.4 Cruze every category is better or much better than average except the one on power equipment was average. Then their overall score comes out as much worse than average for reliability doesn't seem logical to me.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

doc03 said:


> I am familiar with Consumer Reports and I think they are automatically biased against any American product.


Sorry, I disagree w/your claims, at least when it comes to reliability results. They're just reporting the stats when it comes to reliability w/surveys distributed to their subscribers. The sample size needs to be >100 for a given make and model year. 

Even if you feel their reviews are worthless, I trust their reliability stats, based on my experiences and that of my parents.

What's wrong w/the attachment? They load up fine for my in Firefox and Chrome.


----------



## Camcruse (Oct 4, 2011)

I'm confused. CR gives it a poor overall rating, but yet on indivduals areas they get good ratings.


----------



## doc03 (May 18, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> Sorry, I disagree w/your claims, at least when it comes to reliability results. They're just reporting the stats when it comes to reliability w/surveys distributed to their subscribers. The sample size needs to be >100 for a given make and model year.
> 
> Even if you feel their reviews are worthless, I trust their reliability stats, based on my experiences and that of my parents.
> 
> ...


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

Camcruse said:


> I'm confused. CR gives it a poor overall rating, but yet on indivduals areas they get good ratings.





doc03 said:


> How do you explain every single category but one in their chart for the 1.4 Cruze having a better than average or much better than average rating and only one rated as just average is power equipment? But yet they rate the Cruze as much worse than average?


It's because overall, the Cruze did worse than average. Car Reliability History | Detailed Ratings - Consumer Reports might be insightful along with Consumer Reports Car Reliability FAQ | Answers to Reliability Questions - Consumer Reports.

I think you guys are misreading the individual trouble spot reliability dots. For each area/system, I don't think having the empty circle means average and the two red ones don't mean above average. I suspect if a 2011 model year car got ALL empty circles (middle rating), it would have far below average overall reliability.

Here are some charts of ones that were average, and one above average, for comparison.


----------



## doc03 (May 18, 2011)

cwerdna: The charts you posted and the one in their magazine show the opposite look at the 1.4 Cruse one category is average and all the others are either (better) or (much better) than average


----------



## doc03 (May 18, 2011)

Camcruse said:


> I'm confused. CR gives it a poor overall rating, but yet on indivduals areas they get good ratings.



I agree how can all the categories have better than average and they come out with a much worse than average rating?


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

doc03 said:


> cwerdna: The charts you posted and the one in their magazine show the opposite look at the 1.4 Cruse one category is average and all the others are either (better) or (much better) than average


 You're misreading/misinterpreting the ratings for each area. See my earlier post and look at some ones that only achieved average predicted reliability. 

Here's another below average, for comparison. Focus only on the '11 model.


----------



## doc03 (May 18, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> It's because overall, the Cruze did worse than average. Car Reliability History | Detailed Ratings - Consumer Reports might be insightful along with Consumer Reports Car Reliability FAQ | Answers to Reliability Questions - Consumer Reports.
> 
> I think you guys are misreading the individual trouble spot reliability dots. For each area/system, I don't think having the empty circle means average and the two red ones don't mean above average. I suspect if a 2011 model year car got ALL empty circles (middle rating), it would have far below average overall reliability.
> 
> Here are some charts of ones that were average, and one above average, for comparison.



I am very familiar with CR 
solid red means much better than average
half red is better than average
circle is average
half black is worse than average 
all black is much worse than average


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

doc03 said:


> I am very familiar with CR
> solid red means much better than average
> half red is better than average
> circle is average
> ...


Yes, that's correct when they're labeling overall car reliability. But, it's apparently not for when it comes to rating car trouble areas/systems.

Again, look at the samples I provided of other below average, average and above average (overall reliability) cars, for comparison.


----------



## doc03 (May 18, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> You're misreading/misinterpreting the ratings for each area. See my earlier post and look at some ones that only achieved average predicted reliability.
> 
> Here's another below average, for comparison. Focus only on the '11 model.


Take a good look at that chart, you have 1 catagory much worse than average, 2 worse than average and one average and they rate the car (worse) than average.

The chart on the 1.4 Cruze has only one average rating and everything else is better or much better. The Cruze is rated lower at (much worse) than average. How can the BMW be rated higher than the Cruze and have all those black circles and on top of that cost three times as much?


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

doc03 said:


> Take a good look at that chart, you have 1 catagory much worse than average, 2 worse than average and one average and they rate the car (worse) than average. The chart on the 1.4 Cruze has only one average rating and everything else is better or much better. The Cruze is rated lower at (much worse) than average. How can the BMW be rated higher than the Cruze and have all those black circles and on top of that cost three times as much?


 You keep misinterpreting the meanings of the circles for the individual systems. Apparently, for newer cars, they do NOT represent average, above average, below average, etc. for systems/trouble areas. 

Cost is unrelated to reliability ratings. The BMW 335i did in numerous area than the Cruze but also had its troublesome areas. A better comparison is to compare the overall average Honda Accord Sedan V6 to either Cruze. 

Perhaps the better explanation is at Consumer Reports Car Reliability FAQ | Answers to Reliability Questions - Consumer Reports under "4.3. How has this approach differed from the way it was done in previous years?CR has changed the way it presents reliability data, beginning with the 2005 survey.... "


> In our new approach, scores are assigned separately within each trouble spot for models of each model year. For each trouble spot, we calculate the mean problem rate of all models of the same age, and then assign scores to an individual model based on how that model compares with the mean. In this new approach, a
> 
> 
> 
> ...


(Until I reread the above, I'd mistakenly thought that the circles didn't represent average, below average, above average, etc. for any model year's systems...)


----------



## gman19 (Apr 5, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> How many times do I need to say it? You keep misinterpreting the meanings of the circles for the individual systems. They do NOT represent average, above average, below average, etc. for systems/trouble areas.


OK...then in the original post, why is the black to red circle rating key located in the upper right corner of the image.....if it does not apply when pertaining to the systems/trouble areas reliability ratings......just trying to unravel this thread....and CR's reviews.


----------



## doc03 (May 18, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> How many times do I need to say it? You keep misinterpreting the meanings of the circles for the individual systems. They do NOT represent average, above average, below average, etc. for systems/trouble areas.
> 
> Cost is unrelated to reliability ratings. The BMW 335i did in numerous area than the Cruze but also had its troublesome areas. A better comparison is to compare the overall average Honda Accord Sedan V6 to either Cruze.


I know the meaning of the circles, I think you better read the explanation for them in the magazine. Look at the chart on the 1.4 Cruze that you posted yourself there is not one trouble spot rating below average. And I know the cost has nothing to do with it. It is obvious you have your mind set and this message board is so slow its a pain in the neck to keep trying to make a point with you. Have a nice evening.


----------



## gman19 (Apr 5, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> (Until I reread the above, I'd mistakenly thought that the circles didn't represent average, below average, above average, etc. for any model year's systems...)


Kudos for clarification....


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

doc03 said:


> I know the meaning of the circles, I think you better read the explanation for them in the magazine. Look at the chart on the 1.4 Cruze that you posted yourself there is not one trouble spot rating below average. And I know the cost has nothing to do with it. It is obvious you have your mind set and this message board is so slow its a pain in the neck to keep trying to make a point with you. Have a nice evening.


 See post #13 and look at what it takes to just achieve average overall reliability. 

Here's another example of a car that's right at about average.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

CR's reliability reports suffer from a number of statistical flaws. They don't report sample size, they don't report response rate for each model, and they rely exclusively on self-report. Also, folks report different things for different reasons. A Honda owner whose car has been back to the dealer 3-4 times might rate everything as great because the dealer fixed it, while a Chevy owner who went to the dealer once will report an area as poor because it failed in the first place. Also, they might have a gazillion Honda owners reporting everything's fine because they've read CR reporting Honda being uber-reliable for the past 20 some odd years, while they might be getting a few hundred Chevy owners reporting things are horrible, again based on CR's reporting of domestic cars as inferior to "import" nameplates. Confirmation bias sucks! 

They tell us nothing about their methodology, make no effort to control the results, and expect us to believe it.


----------



## gman19 (Apr 5, 2011)

sciphi said:


> They tell us nothing about their methodology, make no effort to control the results, and expect us to believe it.


Without trying to sound cynical, I am inclined to fall in line with sciphi...


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

sciphi said:


> CR's reliability reports suffer from a number of statistical flaws. They don't report sample size, they don't report response rate for each model, and they rely exclusively on self-report. Also, folks report different things for different reasons. A Honda owner whose car has been back to the dealer 3-4 times might rate everything as great because the dealer fixed it, while a Chevy owner who went to the dealer once will report an area as poor because it failed in the first place. Also, they might have a gazillion Honda owners reporting everything's fine because they've read CR reporting Honda being uber-reliable for the past 20 some odd years, while they might be getting a few hundred Chevy owners reporting things are horrible, again based on CR's reporting of domestic cars as inferior to "import" nameplates. Confirmation bias sucks!
> 
> They tell us nothing about their methodology, make no effort to control the results, and expect us to believe it.


Yep, they rely on self-reporting. Why does the sample size matter that much as long as it's above 100? When it's below 100, they report insufficient data. The 100+ reports for a given model year of a car is a **** of a lot better than anecdotal reports here or by word of mouth. Did you go through and survey 100+ owners of any car for a given model year, asking them if they had problems in all of those systems?

You can read all about their survey at Consumer Reports Car Reliability FAQ | Answers to Reliability Questions - Consumer Reports (pointed to it earlier). 

The exact opposite could be happening w/Honda vs. Chevy owners. 

From 6.3...


> 6.3. Is the survey biased toward Japanese cars?In our survey of CR subscribers, Japanese vehicles are popular. Also, many Japanese models have had relatively low rates of problems in our survey. But the fact that we received responses on more than 300 makes and models from nearly all domestic, European, and Korean manufacturers shows that our subscribers do not exclusively favor Japanese vehicles and that they buy a wide range of vehicles of all makes and models.
> 
> Unlike some other magazines or surveys, we do not take advertisements from any outside manufacturer, so we have no vested interests in the outcome of our survey. We have no agenda other than communicate accurate results of our survey. We do not consider country of origin in our analyses leading to our reliability ratings.
> 
> ...


Sometimes (even now), some Japanese cars end up having terrible reliability (Nissan Titan, Armada, Quest and Infiniti QX56 were that way at one point Domestic models gain major ground in Consumer Reports reliability ratings). At one point, Toyota Camry V6s had below average predicted reliability (http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/16/autos/cr_reliability/index.htm). Right now, the Nissan 370Z has WAY below average reliability (118% below average) and the Honda Odyssey has below average reliability, for example.


----------



## yourdoinitwrong (Aug 7, 2011)

I'm not going to get into the previously mentioned issues with CR testing, sample size, self-reporting, etc. but my big problem with them is they automatically give ratings on new models based on results of previous models. This came to light when Toyota had a lot of their quality issues and CR stated they would no longer automatically give certain Toyota models a "recommended" rating based on the previous model of the particular vehicle. For a rating or recommendation to be valid then there shouldn't be anything "automatic" about it. I have no idea if that is taking place here but I have major problems with that and it seriously discredits them in my book. 

I'm not saying the Cruze is perfect, it's not. But neither is any other car and just handing out recommendations and ratings without using actual data on a particular model is plain wrong. As with any product, these ratings should be considered along with other sources and not looked at as the be all, end all of information. I am into photography and have some equipment that costs more than some used cars I have sold. Before I shell out $2,500 for a lens I read and consider many, many sources as well as try out the product myself. I would never rely on one source nor consider it an absolute authority.


----------



## mr_raider (Aug 13, 2011)

Camcruse said:


> I'm confused. CR gives it a poor overall rating, but yet on indivduals areas they get good ratings.


this because CR does not report the real number of failures per vehicle, or per vehicle system. The always compare to the average. Right now, all vehicles are extremely reliable so the average number of failures per car is low, and the spread is very narrow (i.e. low standard deviation). This means a car can be 1 SD below average (33% below) or 2SD below average (67% below) and still have a fractional number of more failures than a top car. My guess is the cruze has a slightly higher number of failures which is statistically significant, but not significant in real life.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, CR needs to report the the raw failure rates per car, along with a 95% confidence interval, just like any survey.

Truedelta has very good things to say about the Cruze

TrueDelta | Chevrolet Cruze Reliability Comparisons


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

mr_raider said:


> this because CR does not report the real number of failures per vehicle, or per vehicle system. The always compare to the average.
> ...
> Truedelta has very good things to say about the Cruze
> 
> TrueDelta | Chevrolet Cruze Reliability Comparisons


That's the whole point of the results, to show whether where are car lands vs. the average: much worse, worse, on par, better or much better.

Car Reliability History | Detailed Ratings - Consumer Reports does list average problem rates and goes into more explanation besides what I already quoted earlier.

As for TrueDelta, that's WAY too small a sample size. I only counted about a dozen cars and only a single one was for the 1.8L engine and almost every car there reported a problem...


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

yourdoinitwrong said:


> I'm not going to get into the previously mentioned issues with CR testing, sample size, self-reporting, etc. but my big problem with them is they automatically give ratings on new models based on results of previous models. This came to light when Toyota had a lot of their quality issues and CR stated they would no longer automatically give certain Toyota models a "recommended" rating based on the previous model of the particular vehicle. For a rating or recommendation to be valid then there shouldn't be anything "automatic" about it. I have no idea if that is taking place here but I have major problems with that and it seriously discredits them in my book.


You are correct about CR's practices relating to Toyota.

At the time, it seemed like a reasonable thing to do that given every single year that I've been monitoring CR (>10), almost every single Toyota/Lexus across every model year has average reliability or better, w/most being better than average. It's still true today. Compare that to some other automakers who I won't name...


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...uh, but sometimes _consistently_ *BAD data *(CR?) is _far better _than *NO data *at all. For example, just_ try _to get GM to publish or provide _any _data about vehicle problems (ha,ha--no dice!).

...GM only publishs what the NHSTA and EPA (ie: the government) absolutely mandates them to release.

...likewise, try asking 'Customer Assistance' a question about your own car and see exactly how "little" (if any) information you get from GM.


----------



## yourdoinitwrong (Aug 7, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> You are correct about CR's practices relating to Toyota.
> 
> At the time, it seemed like a reasonable thing to do that given every single year that I've been monitoring CR (>10), almost every single Toyota/Lexus across every model year has average reliability or better, w/most being better than average. It's still true today. Compare that to some other automakers who I won't name...


I understand what you are saying and common sense would dictate that a "recommended" rating should continue based on years and years of the same. However, to me anyway, that kind of practice doesn't really have a place in something that they are trying to show as a statistical analysis. I only brought up Toyota because I know about that one, I think that is not a good method regardless of who the company involved is.......Toyota, BMW, GM or otherwise. Throwing in subjective ratings with objective ratings should be left to car comparison tests, not something like CR rankings unless they are very explicit in stating so. Again, I don't think this makes their data irrelevant, just something to keep in mind while looking at the results. The only source I would consider just about 100% reliable would be if we could see the actual dealer stats on Cruze repairs, and we all know that ain't gonna happen!


----------



## beachbum1970 (Feb 3, 2011)

I subscribe to CR and think they're a fine publication overall, and I DO look at their car reliability data for guidance. However I take it with a grain of salt. Their reliability data has been accurate with my current Chevy HHR (a few problems), yet totally wrong about my Mazda 6 (the most trouble prone car I've ever owned, yet CR gave it a "much-better-than-average" rating). 

When I think "reliability", that to me means "has the car ever left you stranded on the side of the highway" , "has the car ever failed to start reliably" and "if you had any mechanical issues, were you able to safely drive it until you were able to bring it in for servicing". 

Just because the Cruze has a "black dot" for rattles shouldn't bring down the whole car to "much-worse-than-average" in my opinion. The most important areas, the engine, transmission, etc, are all rated excellent.

By the way, the only car that's ever left me stranded on the side of the highway was a Volkswagen... twice. All the other cars I've owned over the years have had some problems, but they always got me to work on time and I'd still say they were "reliable" despite their issues.


----------



## mr_raider (Aug 13, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> That's the whole point of the results, to show whether where are car lands vs. the average: much worse, worse, on par, better or much better.
> 
> Car Reliability History | Detailed Ratings - Consumer Reports does list average problem rates and goes into more explanation besides what I already quoted earlier.



The base concept remains. A numerical difference in average rates does not mean it is of much significance in real life. As example:

The class average for defects is 90 per 100 cars per year. The standard deviation is +/- 5.

Car A with a defect rate of 80 per 100 per years is two deviations above teh average and thus 48% more reliable. Car B with rate of 100/100 cars per year is 48% less reliable than average. However the actual difference in rates is 20 per 100 cars per year. This means car B will need 1 more repair in 5 years than car A.


Secondly, they do not give confidence intervals. Even the cheapest bargain basement hack political pollsters give confidence intervals to allow you to judge the significance of any difference.


----------



## Vetterin (Mar 27, 2011)

The thing with CR is that new cars (the current year cars) should have all items as much better than average. Therefore anything that is just better than average or average is really not good and taken into account for their overall rating. There should be NO problems with a new car so any items that are not all red means that problems that that specific item have already been encountered.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

Vetterin said:


> The thing with CR is that new cars (the current year cars) should have all items as much better than average. Therefore anything that is just better than average or average is really not good and taken into account for their overall rating. There should be NO problems with a new car so any items that are not all red means that problems that that specific item have already been encountered.


...agreed, but when I "*wished*" for that, the 'other' hand was suddenly filled-up with *dog-poop *(from: _*Wish* in one hand, *crap* in the other, see which one *fills-up first*_)...(wink,wink)

...now, for some odd reason, people just don't seem to want to shake hands with me any more!


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

Vetterin said:


> The thing with CR is that new cars (the current year cars) should have all items as much better than average. Therefore anything that is just better than average or average is really not good and taken into account for their overall rating. There should be NO problems with a new car so any items that are not all red means that problems that that specific item have already been encountered.


I semi-confused by your post. From Car Reliability History | Detailed Ratings - Consumer Reports (which I believe I posted earlier) lists the average problem rate for each area, by model year. You can see the rate (not surprisingly) generally goes up as a car gets older.


----------



## jsusanka (Jan 31, 2011)

well all the marks look excellent for the cruze.

I was looking at my tickets we had from our honda 96 civic ex sedan when we bought it new. I have the perception of that being the best car we had owned as far as trouble. 

But looking at the tickets we actually had that back to the dealer more than our cruze for problems in the same time period.


I had a 71 malibu that had a straight six and I had to get rid of that car because the shock tower in the back rusted out and would not pass inspection. I would still be driving that if it would of lasted. That engine I think would of run forever. 

Luckily the worse things I had for my cruze was wind noise on the highway with the ac on full recirc. They resealed/replaced the windshield and that took care of the problem. 

For some reason we had wind noise problems on the civic too ( I guess we are the wind noise family or something) Honda's fix was to put a sun shade visor on the sunroof. We still had the noise but not as loud. 

I saw this consumer reports magazine in the book store the other day and was happy with results in each category. The rating is based on their subscribers survey. That could be a very limited number of people. So who knows. 

But there was a consumer's digest magazine ( I think ) on the same stand and they recommended to buy the cruze. So go figure.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

jsusanka said:


> well all the marks look excellent for the cruze.
> ...
> I saw this consumer reports magazine in the book store the other day and was happy with results in each category. The rating is based on their subscribers survey. That could be a very limited number of people. So who knows.
> 
> But there was a consumer's digest magazine ( I think ) on the same stand and they recommended to buy the cruze. So go figure.


Excellent? Both Cruzes have a predicted reliability of "Much worse than average" with these respective predictions:
"Based on the latest survey, we expect reliability of new models will be 50% below average"
"Based on the latest survey, we expect reliability of new models will be 62% below average"

As such, they're in the two bottom positions for small cars. For CR, from Consumer Reports Car Reliability FAQ | Answers to Reliability Questions - Consumer Reports


> 2.2. How many samples do you have of each model?
> While we do not publish information on individual sample sizes for specific models, we require a minimum of around 100 cars to publish reliability information for a model in a given model year. Our sample sizes tend to track quite closely with market sales. Individual sample sizes vary from year to year and range from a hundred to several thousand for the more popular models. A typical model has about 200 to 400 samples for each model year and engine variant.


Consumer's Digest has _nothing _to do w/Consumer Reports. Off the to top my head, I have no idea if they take any reliability surveys.


----------



## cruzeman (Mar 13, 2011)

I pretty much trust consumer reports, my Cruze is spot on with their ratings! I've had way to many issues in the last six months for a new car. I just hope the worst is behind me now.


----------



## kylake (Jul 31, 2011)

I have over 10K on a 2012 RS that was bought in July. My consumer report is I really like the car the only problem, I noted on the J.D Powers survey, was a little tranny lag when advancing from a rolling almost complete stop. Nothing really that much just a little lag. GM has offered a flash for that and the only thing I have done to the car is change oil and add air to tires and of course fuel


----------



## scaredpoet (Nov 29, 2010)

Same here. Other than the recalls (which have been taken care of), and that time someone hit my car while parked and left without leaving a note, there have been no issues. And the recalls were handled during regular maintenance visits (which have been only tire rotations and oil changes).

It's been a good 1st year for my Cruze, and it would seem that at least in my case, CR's "predicted reliability" was off the mark.


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

My 2011 had:

The Transmission reflashed and updated for Jerky shifting
Wind noise
Suspension noise

It was taken care of, my next visit will be my car veering slightly at high speeds (60-75). And that is it... No other complaints (except the hard seats). Love my Cruze.


----------



## cyper2002 (Dec 12, 2010)

Sad to say it, but consumer reports is right on the money with my Cruze. It's a love hate relationship with this car. I've had several minor issues over the 14 months I've owned mine. Now I've broke down twice within the last month, transmission issues. I love this car so much but I have a feeling I'm going to have to get rid of it within the next year, because if it keeps going the way it has, it's going to be a money pit. Every couple months something new is breaking. I'm hoping for the best because I really do think it's the best car in it's class, but the reliability has been horrible!


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

FWIW, judging by the amount and types of problems reported by people here vs. what I see of people w/3rd gen (model year 2010+) Priuses on Priuschat, I can safely say that the Cruze is significantly less reliable than the Prius. This is inline w/what CR predicts.


----------



## jakkaroo (Feb 12, 2011)

how can you put a reliability mark on a car that has been in america for 1 year,and every new chassis is going to have its bug in the beginning stage but by 2013 the cruze should have all its bugs fixed,and how can you even compar a prius with a cruze the early prius 2007 are the biggest piles of crap and you look the newer ones still have issues,and beside reliability is about experince not from what you read on a review,i buy chevy cause my 2002 tahoe lasted 200k miles with not one problem hoping the cruze will do the same im at 15k miles and ive beaten the cruze so hard but it still starts up and drives smoother than when it was new
thanks now i have to go drive my cruze


----------



## doc03 (May 18, 2011)

I bought my Cruze in May 2011 and have 9000 miles on it and the only trip I made back to the dealer was for a tire that was ruined by a roofing nail. I picked up a CR today at the book store it had the best and worst new cars listed. The Cruze 1.8 was one of the worse and the 1.4 below that. That just doesn't make sense when the article the OP referred to showed all trouble areas but one either better than average or much better than average for the 1.4 and only one area (power equipment) was listed as average. The 1.8 had one area listed (squeakes and rattles) much worse than average and yet it was rated higher than the 1.4. CR is full of crap I bought my Tacoma in 2006 and in every issue for 6 years now they say the seating position is too low. I have been driving it for 6 years and don't see what their problem is with the seating positon. A duarf must have done the test drive. I used to subscribe to CR and I tell you they are more anti consumer than any magazine I ever read. I received an offer for a CR free issue of a publication on health care a few years ago. I sent the card in for the free issue and before I even received the free issue they sent me a bill for a subscrption to the magazine, I turned it down and yet they turned me into a collection agency for not paying for it. I had to call them twice and tell them I didn't want the magazine, didn't order it and had never received it anyway. I suppose I still have a record with the credit bureau for not paying my bills.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

jakkaroo said:


> how can you put a reliability mark on a car that has been in america for 1 year,and every new chassis is going to have its bug in the beginning stage...
> 
> how can you even compar a prius with a cruze the early prius 2007 are the biggest piles of crap and you look the newer ones still have issues,and beside reliability is about experince not from what you read on a review,


"the early prius 2007 are the biggest piles of crap and you look the newer ones still have issues"? What a bunch of baloney! 

Gee, I happen to have had my 06 Prius since January 06 w/almost 60K miles. It's not perfect and had a few problems but nothing major and very little out of pocket for repairs or diagnosis. 

I'm comparing 2010+ Priuses since the 2010 model year (which began shipping in the US in ~May 09) since that's the first model year of Gen 3 and I've been following the types and severity of problems reported on Priuschat from Gen 3's beginning. Also, current reliability data is still available on those vs. ones that have been "aged" off CR's tables.

It's a totally valid comparison. Cars come on the market all the time and after a year's time (or in some cases, a bit less), are assigned predicted reliability. Some actually do pretty well, despite it being their first year of a brand new model.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080103...or-2007-4-07/overview/0704_top-picks-2007.htm, http://www.autoblog.com/2006/11/10/domestic-models-gain-major-ground-in-consumer-reports/, http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2007/10/16/car-rankings.html, http://www.green.autoblog.com/2007/...p-five-reliable-family-cars-list-includes-tw/ and http://businesscenter.jdpower.com/news/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2010034 are further debunking of your wild assertion.

See my first post. Every model year of Prius listed there (from '02 to '11) has much better than average reliability. The predicted reliability of the current Prius (2011, 2012s aren't out until next month) is also far better than average. Notice how many times Prius (including the '07) shows up at http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...used-vehicles-under-20000/overview/index.htm?

When you take a look at http://prius.wikia.com/wiki/Lifespan/Operating_costs and notice the 04 and beyond Priuses at http://avt.inl.gov/hev.shtml have had no major problems, even after 160K miles. There's also a 1 million km Prius (~621K) miles and another guy that's past *451K miles on his 09 *(picture of his odometer at 431K miles). The last guy is having some oil consumption problems now but 451K miles on his vintage of car is insane, IMHO.

Prius has been shipping in the US since August 2000. The 2nd gens spanned the 04-09 model years. (There was an early version of the Prius that was sold in Japan only starting in December 1997 aka the NHW10. It wasn't very good and all its controls are in Japanese only. I'd equate to a Toyota science experiment. Externally, it looks similar to the 1st gens we got, aka NHW11 that began sale in in the US in August 2000.)


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

doc03 said:


> The Cruze 1.8 was one of the worse and the 1.4 below that. That just doesn't make sense when the article the OP referred to showed all trouble areas but one either better than average or much better than average for the 1.4 and only one area (power equipment) was listed as average. The 1.8 had one area listed (squeakes and rattles) much worse than average and yet it was rated higher than the 1.4. CR is full of crap I bought my Tacoma in 2006 and in every issue for 6 years now they say the seating position is too low. I have been driving it for 6 years and don't see what their problem is with the seating positon. A duarf must have done the test drive.


Sigh... you're yet another person who isn't properly reading the reliability charts. Please read http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...uze-reliability-dec-11-issue-2.html#post61927 again.

You can see examples of cars that scored average (for comparison) at http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...cruze-reliability-dec-11-issue.html#post61912 and below average at http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...cruze-reliability-dec-11-issue.html#post61917.

The reliability ratings are from responses from surveys of a sample size of at least 100 per model year per model. Those have _nothing_ to do with their reviews on aspects such as seating position. CR has had plenty of cars which are reliable but yet score too low to recommend (e.g. Yaris, '12 Civic, Honda Insight.).


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

It does seem kinda retarded it scored above average in almost every individual category and they gave it a turd rating. I don't care either way as I've always found CR kinda useless which is why.....crazy notion here.....I do my own research and so should everyone else instead of mindlessly following a magazine. But so far the only gripe I still have with the car is the noise in the struts. Lets also face it that taking cost out of the comparison is stupid. Cars that cost significantly more should sure as **** have better fit and finish than an econobox. Ohhh my chevy cruze scored poorly against a Mercedes SLR AMG ( I know they don't do that comparison, I am exaggerating to make a point)


----------



## cruzeman (Mar 13, 2011)

I hope the cruze scores all black circles in the upcoming april issue and give GM what they deserve. I have had so many things go wrong with this thing in the last couple months and as of today I believe my heater core is leaking plus there is a antifreeze leak somewhere in the engine compartment. Plus my steering is still notchy at highway speeds. To bad I would have to pay an additional 6-8 grand to trade in for a different car. I used to love my car but suddenly I wish it would get stolen!!! I'm glad some of you are having good luck with their Cruzes but I am just disgusted with mine.


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

So the way I am reading this thread, is we (cruze) owners should have waited for CR to deem unreliable our cars before we made a decision to buy. Well too late for me. I have a 62% unreliable 1.4 litre. To date since July 1 and 4,300 miles - no problems. The car is not perfect but it is a lower end car, it would be nice if the heat came up faster on really cold days and the acceleration were stronger, but look I only paid 16K for it. I am very happy with the mpgs which consistently exceed the EPA ratings.

I previously owned a 2002 MB C230K, by the same mileage as I currently have on my Cruze I had a failed rear shock absorber and failed front sway bar end links. I do not abuse my cars. Mercedes fixed the issues quickly, but what further disturbed me was when I took the car in for service at 30K miles, the service manager told me the front brake rotors were going to need replacement at $400. The OEM Michelins were only lasting 10K before needing replacement - worst tire wear of any car I ever owned. Needless to say when the lease was up at 39K miles, I turned the car in and I was also having issues with the heater too at that time. Not sure how the Consumers Union rated that car - but it was a Mercedes and one would not expect these issues.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

NBrehm said:


> It does seem kinda retarded it scored above average in almost every individual category and they gave it a turd rating. I don't care either way as I've always found CR kinda useless which is why.....crazy notion here.....I do my own research and so should everyone else instead of mindlessly following a magazine. But so far the only gripe I still have with the car is the noise in the struts. Lets also face it that taking cost out of the comparison is stupid. Cars that cost significantly more should sure as **** have better fit and finish than an econobox. Ohhh my chevy cruze scored poorly against a Mercedes SLR AMG ( I know they don't do that comparison, I am exaggerating to make a point)


You're another person who is not reading the reliability charts correctly. See the links in post 43 and look at examples of cars that ended up w/an average reliability score.

There are plenty of cars within the same class and price range as the Cruze that have significantly better reliability. There are very expensive cars that have great reliability and others that have terrible reliability.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

blk88verde said:


> So the way I am reading this thread, is we (cruze) owners should have waited for CR to deem unreliable our cars before we made a decision to buy. Well too late for me.
> ...
> I previously owned a 2002 MB C230K, by the same mileage as I currently have on my Cruze I had a failed rear shock absorber and failed front sway bar end links. I do not abuse my cars. Mercedes fixed the issues quickly, but what further disturbed me was when I took the car in for service at 30K miles, the service manager told me the front brake rotors were going to need replacement at $400. The OEM Michelins were only lasting 10K before needing replacement - worst tire wear of any car I ever owned. Needless to say when the lease was up at 39K miles, I turned the car in and I was also having issues with the heater too at that time. Not sure how the Consumers Union rated that car - but it was a Mercedes and one would not expect these issues.


FWIW, I generally avoid cars until reliability ratings exist. If they don't exist yet and I still want to take a risk, I look at the manufacturer's reputation in terms of reliability ratings across all their other vehicles and get a sense of what % are above, at and below average.

Sounds like another person who didn't look at reliability ratings at the time. What years did you own it? IIRC, Mercedes C-classes of that era, when they were newer, had poor reliability ratings in CR. At some points, it was very poor. CR reliability ratings only cover a 1 year window of time for each given make and model. Currently, the 02 is pegged as having average reliability.


----------



## jakkaroo (Feb 12, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> "the early prius 2007 are the biggest piles of crap and you look the newer ones still have issues"? What a bunch of baloney!
> 
> Gee, I happen to have had my 06 Prius since January 06 w/almost 60K miles. It's not perfect and had a few problems but nothing major and very little out of pocket for repairs or diagnosis.


60k miles you do realise there are some people with cruzes that are reaching 60k with no problems at all,my family has had a chevy 3500 with the old 454s and its had well over 300k miles on it before it need a simple head gasket replaced,im not a fan of toytas at all and the people who rear reviews thinking there car will last because a magazine said so,you can read all you want dude but i am one of millions who have had a great success with a cruze,and give chevy another few years dude the cruze will be just as good as your precious prius


----------



## Patman (May 7, 2011)

My unreliable 1.8 just turned over 12000 miles with no problems. Never been back to the dealer except for the recall. I guess if Chevrolet wanted to get above average scores, they should have paid CR to do so like Honda and Toyota did. I am happy with my 1.8 so far. Gas mileage is better than the Civic I had(better not tell CR that they would say something is wrong with the driver not the car). With every car there is the good and the bad(esp in the first year). CR must search out the "bad" Cruzes to evaluate since they are still new. I never really put too much stock in biased ratings anyway.


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> FWIW, I generally avoid cars until reliability ratings exist. If they don't exist yet and I still want to take a risk, I look at the manufacturer's reputation in terms of reliability ratings across all their other vehicles and get a sense of what % are above, at and below average.
> 
> Sounds like another person who didn't look at reliability ratings at the time. What years did you own it? IIRC, Mercedes C-classes of that era, when they were newer, had poor reliability ratings in CR. At some points, it was very poor. CR reliability ratings only cover a 1 year window of time for each given make and model. Currently, the 02 is pegged as having average reliability.


You are correct, I did not check CR when I leased a 2002 C230K manual 6 speed in March of 2002. I turned in the car at the end of the 39 month lease in June 2005. Never had a break down, never laid out a penny for maintenance (with the exception of tires) or repairs and when taken in for service or repairs was always tossed a set of keys to some nice new MB SUV or sedan. Mercedes customer service was excellent.


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> You're another person who is not reading the reliability charts correctly. See the links in post 43 and look at examples of cars that ended up w/an average reliability score.
> 
> There are plenty of cars within the same class and price range as the Cruze that have significantly better reliability. There are very expensive cars that have great reliability and others that have terrible reliability.


Reading it right or wrong if you take someone else's opinion over your own you will get what you deserve every time. Just my opinion, but I think CR is useless waste of paper (or bandwidth). They have 0 clue how a 2013 vehicle will be reliability or quality wise or even a current vehicle a year from now. It's a shot in the dark. Besides I have a feeling they have been bought out by certain companies just like every other magazine. Well at least they don't throw in crap like a "Gotta have it factor" in their comparisons to sway their ratings, I guess that is something. Like I said, I'll stick with actually going to look at products before I buy them, cut out the middle man.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

jakkaroo said:


> 60k miles you do realise there are some people with cruzes that are reaching 60k with no problems at all,my family has had a chevy 3500 with the old 454s and its had well over 300k miles on it before it need a simple head gasket replaced


My family and I have not had very good experiences w/3 GM products, so no more GM for my parents. I'd be very wary of them until a model I'd consider has a consistently good reliability record. Some of those exist and did in the past. 

Our last GM product (parents were against buying Japanese cars at all) had a multitude of probs even before 50K miles and at the time, it had a slightly above average predicted reliability by CR. Other than a Dodge that followed, it's been Toyotas and Nissans for us w/the Toyotas having an edge in reliability. (Nissan reliability can be very hit/miss, depending on the model and year.)

And yes, I've heard the numerous stories about GM getting better for ages (even before our last GM product) and numerous denials/claims by GM top execs claiming their products were every bit as good as the imports, etc.

60K miles on a Cruze by now w/no problems? I'd be curious to see how many posters there are here reporting that. Look at the pretty serious probs people are having even before 12K miles here. 

Even in the first year of the 2010 Prius (shipped ~May 09), I didn't see problems anywhere near as serious as I'm hearing on here (e.g. engine replacements needed, coolant leaks, coolant smell, speedometer spiking randomly, transmission replacements, etc.) Ditto if you look at those same cars from day 1 until today.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

NBrehm said:


> Reading it right or wrong if you take someone else's opinion over your own you will get what you deserve every time. Just my opinion, but I think CR is useless waste of paper (or bandwidth). They have 0 clue how a 2013 vehicle will be reliability or quality wise or even a current vehicle a year from now. It's a shot in the dark. Besides I have a feeling they have been bought out by certain companies just like every other magazine.


Because your opinion is a better judge of whether a car will be reliable than 1.3 million survey responses?

Yep. Buying any car is a crapshoot in terms of reliability. I prefer to buy models and brands where the odds are better esp. if they've been able to consistently achieve above avg reliability over many (or better yet, most) model years and models.

It's an indication of the quality of their parts, quality control, statistical process controls, commitment to quality and reliability, assembly techniques and processes, design lifetime, part lifetime, testing, design for manufacturing, etc.

Since I've never worked in manufacturing before, I found http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9hBmlWRjEc insightful. I'd seen a copy of this somewhere else, years ago.

Many years ago (possibly as many as 7-10 years), there was an article on Autoweek (unfortunately, long gone) where GM stated they changed their parts testing procedures to test to part failure instead of the previous testing until warranty mileage expiration.

I highly doubt CR has been bought out. They accept no advertising and there are domestic models w/decent to good reliability records (e.g. Chevy Volt, Ford Fusion Hybrid, Ford Fusion, Dodge Durango, Dodge Caliber, Ford Escape Hybrid).

Anyway, to each his/her own...


----------



## jakkaroo (Feb 12, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> 60K miles on a Cruze by now w/no problems? I'd be curious to see how many posters there are here reporting that. Look at the pretty serious probs people are having even before 12K miles here.
> 
> Even in the first year of the 2010 Prius (shipped ~May 09), I didn't see problems anywhere near as serious as I'm hearing on here (e.g. engine replacements needed, coolant leaks, coolant smell, speedometer spiking randomly, transmission replacements, etc.) Ditto if you look at those same cars from day 1 until today.


you also realize more than half the people or maybe all the people who have had a problem have modified there cruze,i highley doubt a 2010 prius has an intake made for them or even a performance tune,plus why are you on the forum if you dont like the cruze


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> Because your opinion is a better judge of whether a car will be reliable than 1.3 million survey responses?


 For my car? Absolutely, mine is the only opinion that matters. I don't care what the other 1.3 million think of it since they aren't me. Why would I let some strangers opinion deem what I do or buy? Especially when I don;t know how that 1.3 million treats and maintains their cars. I take care of my cars and so far, with the exception of the 1 suspension rattle, I've had 20,000 issue free miles. If the cars I work on at the shop every day are a good gauge of that 1.3 million then most of their issues are probably caused by them and not the vehicle


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

jakkaroo said:


> you also realize more than half the people or maybe all the people who have had a problem have modified there cruze,i highley doubt a 2010 prius has an intake made for them or even a performance tune,plus why are you on the forum if you dont like the cruze


So, half the people or more who reported problems with their Cruze to CR also modded theirs? Seems unlikely. Those would be to blame for trouble spots like climate system, power equipment, squeaks and rattles, and body hardware?

Re: the question, see http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/27-f...ims-grab-headlines-miss-mark-4.html#post55022.

Another item as food for thought from http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2003-10-16-toyota-cover_x.htm:


> "We have some concerns about sustaining high quality," allows Atsushi "Art" Niimi, CEO of Toyota Motor Manufacturing North America, in large measure because North American parts suppliers average 500 defects per million parts vs. 15 per million in Japan. But if it works, and Lexuses made here are equivalent to those from Japan, Toyota will have exported a major upgrade of its already respected production system.


And, from an article that's been aged off of detnews.com, but was quoted at http://www.clublexus.com/forums/ls4...d-tahara-sets-standard-for-toyota-world.html:


> Toyota, already a stickler for quality, will not accept components if defects exceed 50 per million parts shipped. In contrast, for Lexus, Tahara managers insist on fewer than 10 defects per million parts.


----------



## jakkaroo (Feb 12, 2011)

you act like consumer report is your bible or something dude,you refer to it all the time,you know aswell as everyone else knows its like using Wikipedia to write a research paper on charles darwin youll get fake info and allot of useless info

and for everyone else you guys realize your cruze is a 16k dollar car its nothing special,if this was a a prius forum were all we talked about was mpgs and how boring are lifes are,the cruze does a stand up job for what it is worth just because some idiot who writes alot doesnt mean he knows what the cruze will do in 25 years


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

jakkaroo said:


> you act like consumer report is your bible or something dude,you refer to it all the time,you know aswell as everyone else knows its like using Wikipedia to write a research paper on charles darwin youll get fake info and allot of useless info


It is not. I wouldn't bother looking at CR for reviews on smartphones, computers or computer peripherals, for example. I take their car reviews w/a grain of salt. I do trust them to report reliability car statistics as I've generally found them to be on the mark.

As for your second assertion, I've never heard such a bizarre claim about CR or "everyone else" and their opinion of CR.

It seems _you_ don't like them because the Cruze and many GM products don't do well in their reliability scores nor (in the past) did many score well in their road tests.

It's human nature to criticize things we disagree with and not do so w/things we agree with.


----------



## steve333 (Oct 23, 2010)

cruzeman said:


> I hope the cruze scores all black circles in the upcoming april issue and give GM what they deserve. I have had so many things go wrong with this thing in the last couple months and as of today I believe my heater core is leaking plus there is a antifreeze leak somewhere in the engine compartment. Plus my steering is still notchy at highway speeds. To bad I would have to pay an additional 6-8 grand to trade in for a different car. I used to love my car but suddenly I wish it would get stolen!!! I'm glad some of you are having good luck with their Cruzes but I am just disgusted with mine.


Sounds like a lemon law issue. If I were you I would go this way and get them to give you a new car.


----------



## doc03 (May 18, 2011)

jakkaroo said:


> you also realize more than half the people or maybe all the people who have had a problem have modified there cruze,i highley doubt a 2010 prius has an intake made for them or even a performance tune,plus why are you on the forum if you dont like the cruze



Thank you I have been thinking the same thing. If he hasn't had good luck with GM products and doesn't like the Cruze why is he here? My experience with CR is they are a bunch of yuppie egg heads that have a prejudice against American products. If Honda or Toyota comes out with a product, before they even test one they rate them as having a much better than average reliability.


----------



## doc03 (May 18, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> Sigh... you're yet another person who isn't properly reading the reliability charts. Please read http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...uze-reliability-dec-11-issue-2.html#post61927 again.
> 
> You can see examples of cars that scored average (for comparison) at http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...cruze-reliability-dec-11-issue.html#post61912 and below average at http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...cruze-reliability-dec-11-issue.html#post61917.
> 
> The reliability ratings are from responses from surveys of a sample size of at least 100 per model year per model. Those have _nothing_ to do with their reviews on aspects such as seating position. CR has had plenty of cars which are reliable but yet score too low to recommend (e.g. Yaris, '12 Civic, Honda Insight.).



You are the authority on CR and you have to school us on our reading. I probably read CR before you were born. You read things into stuff that doesn't even exist. I give you an example of how how irrelevant the magazine is with their comment about the seating position on the Tacoma. Then you think you have to school me that the seating position doesn't have any bearing on their reliability rating. I know that! Where did I say it did?


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

doc03 said:


> If Honda or Toyota comes out with a product, before they even test one they rate them as having a much better than average reliability.


Why do they need to test the car to before assigning it a reliability rating? Reliability ratings are independent of their road test results. 

CR uses both together in deciding whether to recommend a vehicle. There are plenty of vehicles that do reasonably well in their tests but don't get recommended due to unknown or below average reliability. The reverse is also true (e.g. Toyota Yaris, Honda Insight).

I recall reading that they intentionally do not include their test car as one of the data points in their reliability ratings anyway. Even if they did, it would be 1 data point. They need a minimum of 100 responses for a given model year of that model to have sufficient data.


----------



## jakkaroo (Feb 12, 2011)

this thread sucks,enough said lol jk


i love my cruze but would die for a h2b honda


----------



## eagleco (May 3, 2011)

The best we can hope for now is that GM gets the message and works hard to improve the reliability of the Cruze. Maybe then in a year or two, our car will be reliable enough to warrant a recommendation by CR. In the meantime, this will hurt sales somewhat, and I really want to see the US auto industry come back strong, so I am disappointed.

My 7 month old Eco has experienced just one minor problem so far, and I love the car. Guess I better go knock on some wood.


----------



## nobog (Oct 25, 2011)

_Reading it right or wrong if you take someone else's opinion over your own you will get what you deserve every time. Just my opinion, but I think CR is useless waste of paper (or bandwidth).

_Ditto! The average (auto) consumer doesn't know a master cylinder from a muffler bearing, the only real-world data would be the warrenty data from the manufactuers but that ain't gunna happen.

JK


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

sciphi said:


> CR's reliability reports suffer from a number of statistical flaws.
> They tell us nothing about their methodology, make no effort to control the results, and expect us to believe it.


For these reasons, I stopped using CR. Their reports are junk from a statistical standpoint. They are meaningless. Garbage in, garbage out.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

doc03 said:


> My experience with CR is they are a bunch of yuppie egg heads that have a prejudice against American products. If Honda or Toyota comes out with a product, before they even test one they rate them as having a much better than average reliability.


You are being kind. CR has their opinion, backed up by their opinion.


----------



## cruzeman (Mar 13, 2011)

drive a civic, corolla and a cruze 250,000 and then tell me how great american cars are compared to foreign.


----------



## yourdoinitwrong (Aug 7, 2011)

cruzeman said:


> drive a civic, corolla and a cruze 250,000 and then tell me how great american cars are compared to foreign.


By all means then, please, go ahead and get rid of your Cruze and buy something that you will be happy driving.


----------



## mr_raider (Aug 13, 2011)

cruzeman said:


> drive a civic, corolla and a cruze 250,000 and then tell me how great american cars are compared to foreign.


My dad has 1997 Sunfire sitting in his driveway. Original engine (2.2l pushrod), 4 speed tranny, no rust on the body, original paint job. Brakes, battery, tires, starter motor have been changed but still using original supsension components. The entire body rattles like a tin can, the radio is shot, and the speakers are fried, but it starts every morning in sub zero temepratures.

It is my understanding that the J bodies are the biggest POS ever built in automotive history. If my cruze is half as reliable as our cavalier, I'll take it any day.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

cruzeman said:


> drive a civic, corolla and a cruze 250,000 and then tell me how great american cars are compared to foreign.


I did exactly that b4 I bought my Cruze. The Honda Civic was nice, but kinda of too small for my height. The Corolla, 4 speed automatic? And cramped and unrefined. The Cruze had gorgeous interior, quiet, tons of driver leg room and smooth. Is the Cruze perfect? heck no!!!! But is it a great car! Sure is! And 250K sold in first year is confirmation.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

cruzeman said:


> drive a civic, corolla and a cruze 250,000 and then tell me how great american cars are compared to foreign.



Oops! Did you mean drive the Cruze 250K miles? Sorry. I know that the Cruze body (minus tranny/motor) had 2+ years and millions of miles before being released into USA. The motor was an German design and the tranny (6 spd auto) has been out for a few years. Does that help?

And, I can't remember the last time I rode in any car with 250K miles. Most of the ones that run 150K are pretty much warn out and show it. Too each his own.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

montgom626 said:


> Oops! Did you mean drive the Cruze 250K miles? Sorry. I know that the Cruze body (minus tranny/motor) had 2+ years and millions of miles before being released into USA. The motor was an German design and the tranny (6 spd auto) has been out for a few years. Does that help?
> 
> And, I can't remember the last time I rode in any car with 250K miles. Most of the ones that run 150K are pretty much warn out and show it. Too each his own.


FWIW, we had some discussion of the above points at http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...turning-into-another-gm-bomb-5.html#post55521 before.

I've never personally ridden in a car w/250K miles but I'd be curious to ride in this 1+ million km (~621K miles) Prius taxi (Hybrids prove very reliable | CTV British Columbia) or this 451K mile 09 Prius (299,999+ Mile Club - Page 53 - PriusChat Forums, odometer picture at 431K miles at 299,999+ Mile Club - Page 44 - PriusChat Forums).


----------



## cruzeman (Mar 13, 2011)

My last 2 commuter cars had 315000 and 220000 miles. Both were prizms which are toyotas in disguise. Since the nummi plant closed and had 3500 in gm dollars to spend I bought into the new gm and all the testing the Cruze has been through. Well it turns out I'm a sucker because I've been through more trouble then both my prizms combined in less then a year! 

sent from my Thunderbolt using AutoGuide App


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> I've never personally ridden in a car w/250K miles but I'd be curious to ride in this 1+ million km (~621K miles) Prius taxi (Hybrids prove very reliable | CTV British Columbia) or this 451K mile 09 Prius (299,999+ Mile Club - Page 53 - PriusChat Forums, odometer picture at 431K miles at 299,999+ Mile Club - Page 44 - PriusChat Forums).


The exception proves the rule?


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> FWIW, we had some discussion of the above points at http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...turning-into-another-gm-bomb-5.html#post55521 before.
> 
> .


I am so glad that the facts have proven that discussion wrong. Not anecdote as many rely on for their version of the truth.


----------



## KenJr (Feb 26, 2011)

You still here Cruzeman? I figured you'd have dumped your awful Cruze by now and gotten a different car. Every time I come to this forum you're griping about something.

I've had my Eco for a year now. At first I thought I had a manual transmission problem but learned that the problem was me, not it. I was treating it the way I treated my sport transmissions in past years. This one needs to be treated more gently and with respect. 

Great car! No problems. As for Consumer Reports, over the years I've found it to be very handy at times .. but at other times it's way off the mark. The secret with using CR is to treat it as one of several reference sources.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

cruzeman said:


> drive a civic, corolla and a cruze 250,000 and then tell me how great american cars are compared to foreign.


I drove a 1990 Pontiac Transport (first model year) for 240,000 miles. Didn't start having any problems until it was over 180,000 and ten years old. CR rated it a "much worse than average". My wife's Dodge Intrepid (don't remember the model year) was a year that CR gave the Intrepid a "Best Buy" and "much better than average" rating. That same year CR gave almost all GM vehicles "worse" or "much worse than average" ratings. Her Intrepid stalled two or three times after every fill up, had to have the transmission replaced at 38K miles (a known problem but Dodge wouldn't issue a recall or replace it for free as it was out of warranty) and the rack and pinion steering had to be replaced a little over 40K. She wouldn't let me paint it lemon yellow with "DODGE" spelled out in black on both sides of the car. My 2002 Montana is just now showing signs of abuse as it was used as a tow vehicle for a 3,000 lb trailer. CR also didn't like the Pontiac Montana.

As a result I will never trust CR again.


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

cruzeman said:


> drive a civic, corolla and a cruze 250,000 and then tell me how great american cars are compared to foreign.


While I agree on the previous Corolla and Civic 100%, we don't know for sure what the Cruze will be like long term. 

One thing I can tell you for sure is this. Toyota and Honda have been cheaping out on parts quality due to a stronger yen for awhile now. Neither company builds as good of a quality vehicle as they did 10 years ago. 

I'm the service manager for a 6 bay independant shop and I'm seeing things now from Toyota that I did not used to see. Wheel bearings and fuel pumps on Corolla's with less than 60k miles. Wheel bearing on a 2007 Yaris with only 40k miles today actually.


----------



## limited360 (May 6, 2011)

mcg75 said:


> While I agree on the previous Corolla and Civic 100%, we don't know for sure what the Cruze will be like long term.
> 
> One thing I can tell you for sure is this. Toyota and Honda have been cheaping out on parts quality due to a stronger yen for awhile now. Neither company builds as good of a quality vehicle as they did 10 years ago.
> 
> I'm the service manager for a 6 bay independant shop and I'm seeing things now from Toyota that I did not used to see. Wheel bearings and fuel pumps on Corolla's with less than 60k miles. Wheel bearing on a 2007 Yaris with only 40k miles today actually.


Family owns an 8 bay shop in metro Detroit... Glad someone else had seen the trends over the past 10 years from the imports. I'd be comfortable saying the big 3's (Chrysler is a stretch) have been growing in longterm durability, where the Asian car companies have been declining. The 300,000 mile civic is rarer and rarer these days...

Btw I have an 88 Chevrolet 1500 with 300k on it that I love to drive still... Coasts as well as the cruze  properly broken in!


----------



## 98sonoma (Nov 30, 2010)

limited360 said:


> Btw I have an 88 Chevrolet 1500 with 300k on it that I love to drive still... Coasts as well as the cruze  properly broken in!



my dad has a '92 Chevrolet 1500, standard cab, long bed, 4.3l w/5 speed...he has over 425k on it and about 30k miles ago replaced the original clutch!!! He drives 90 miles a day. 3k mile oil changes, 2 water pumps, 2 radiators, and a couple of other small things only...it's a dog now though, hard to get up over 80 mph (but does 75 on the interstate to keep up with traffic!)


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

limited360 said:


> Family owns an 8 bay shop in metro Detroit... Glad someone else had seen the trends over the past 10 years from the imports. I'd be comfortable saying the big 3's (Chrysler is a stretch) have been growing in longterm durability, where the Asian car companies have been declining. The 300,000 mile civic is rarer and rarer these days...
> 
> Btw I have an 88 Chevrolet 1500 with 300k on it that I love to drive still... Coasts as well as the cruze  properly broken in!


Chrysler is a big stretch. The Magnum, 300 and Charger have truly weak front ends. Calibers, Patriots have control arm bushings and rear alignments link bushings that go bad way too early. We had a customer in one day with an 08 Caravan for a gof and he asked up to check for a wheel bearing noise. He had a left rear bearing dangerous loose but both front bearing were also bad. I've never seen 3 bad on a single car before. 

Based on what I see daily in the shop, I don't recommend Chrysler, Kia, Hyundai or Volkswagen to any of my customers. GM, Ford, Mazda, Nissan are about the same quality wise. Toyota and Honda at the top with Honda being the more reliable of the pair.


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

cwerdna said:


> Sorry, I disagree w/your claims, at least when it comes to reliability results. They're just reporting the stats when it comes to reliability w/surveys distributed to their subscribers. The sample size needs to be >100 for a given make and model year.


I'm sorry but your claim to sample size needed is simply not true. 

Source. 

I feel, based on 15 years of running repair shops of all makes and models, that a lot of what they state is misinformation fed to them by a small sample of unhappy owners.


----------



## Patman (May 7, 2011)

Patman said:


> My unreliable 1.8 just turned over 12000 miles with no problems. Never been back to the dealer except for the recall. I guess if Chevrolet wanted to get above average scores, they should have paid CR to do so like Honda and Toyota did. I am happy with my 1.8 so far. Gas mileage is better than the Civic I had(better not tell CR that they would say something is wrong with the driver not the car). With every car there is the good and the bad(esp in the first year). CR must search out the "bad" Cruzes to evaluate since they are still new. I never really put too much stock in biased ratings anyway.


Follow up ready to turn over 16000 miles still no problems. Can't think of another car I would prefer to own. 6 speed and tune make the car a joy to drive and mileage makes this obscene gas price time a little more tolerable. 120 MPH(did in Indiana trying to pass a Fiat 500 doing 100 MPH) is very smooth and stable going that fast is not a common occurrence Indiana doesn't have lots of traffic and few police on I -74(that I have found) and 70 MPH speed limit.


----------



## hawk (Mar 10, 2012)

Lol at anyone who thinks Consumer Reports is anything other than subjective drivel. In some cases you're better off going opposoite of their stuffy OPINIONS. In more cases that they will ever admit, they simply recycle tests and opinions from one your to the next when the model years are similar...


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

mcg75 said:


> I'm sorry but your claim to sample size needed is simply not true.
> 
> Source.
> 
> I feel, based on 15 years of running repair shops of all makes and models, that a lot of what they state is misinformation fed to them by a small sample of unhappy owners.


So they're lying at http://www.consumerreports.org/cont...umer-reports-carreliability-faq_ov.print.html ?

I understand the complaints at TTAC. The author of that post runs TrueDelta. I don't see where he claims that the sample size of at least 100 is not true though.

Ok, if it's a small sample of unhappy owners, what about the people who report few or no problems? Even if it's mostly unhappy owners, should it mean that the vehicles w/the largest sales should thus have the worst reliability ratings and those w/small size the best? That's not the case. Think about things a bit further...


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

cwerdna said:


> So they're lying at Consumer Reports Car Reliability FAQ | Answers to Reliability Questions - Consumer Reports ?
> 
> I understand the complaints at TTAC. The author of that post runs TrueDelta. I don't see where he claims that the sample size of at least 100 is not true though.
> 
> Ok, if it's a small sample of unhappy owners, what about the people who report few or no problems? Even if it's mostly unhappy owners, should it mean that the vehicles w/the largest sales should thus have the worst reliability ratings and those w/small size the best? That's not the case. Think about things a bit further...


So giving 2011 cars a rating based off the 2008 model because 2008 was the only year they recieved enough samples is not misleading? If you don't have the 100 samples you claim you need then do not report on the model based on older data. 

How is it that in the past Consumer Reports has given a recommended rating to one vehicle and not another, yet they are mechanically the same even being built on the same line in the same plant? 

Source

In my opinion, they get some things right. Traditionally, Honda and Toyota have been at the top, there is no question of that.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

mcg75 said:


> So giving 2011 cars a rating based off the 2008 model because 2008 was the only year they recieved enough samples is not misleading? If you don't have the 100 samples you claim you need then do not report on the model based on older data.
> 
> How is it that in the past Consumer Reports has given a recommended rating to one vehicle and not another, yet they are mechanically the same even being built on the same line in the same plant?
> 
> ...


I need to dig up my April 2011 CR issue to see look at the reliability charts. I believe there are four things here. 

1) Karesh making claims that CR will recommend vehicles/lines despite a lot of their models/years having insufficient data, even for the most recent years. Ok, that's possible and even probable.

2) He's saying that sometimes (always) give predicted reliability ratings when there's insufficient reliability info for many model years. That might be happening. 

I've seen some cars w/big gaps. So, should they just give no predicted reliability ratings, even when they've received some info on the years listed as having insufficient data? It makes sense that they might not have data points to publish detailed reliability info for given years, it still can be meaningful

3) I highly doubt that CR is publishing detailed reliability info by system on cars where there's <100 sample size for a given model year.

4) As for the last point, so, what should they do? This is what readers reported. Toss it? Lump together the two cars? We don't know what's going on at the plant. For all we know, there are extra processes and checks or differences in suppliers between the supposedly "identical cars". For all we know, certain variants are built certain days and there's an issue w/the workers, equipment, supplier, line, etc. on those days.

There's more than what goes on at the plant. It can include what happens at the dealer, the PDI that's done, the quality of the replacement parts, service department, and mechanics.


----------



## Vetterin (Mar 27, 2011)

Well just wait till you read about the Cruze in the April 2012 Issue.......(not good)!


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

It doesn't really matter what CR says. The fact that the Cruze is a GM vehicle means that CR will rate it poorly - period! You can search my other posts about CR's crap rating for Pontiac minivans vs my actual experience with them.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...from Sociology 101: _"...PERCEPTIONS are REAL to those who hold them..."

..._when YOU have a bad experience, it's a BAD experience, _regardless_ of what "others" try to say _otherwise._


----------



## gman19 (Apr 5, 2011)

Vetterin said:


> Well just wait till you read about the Cruze in the April 2012 Issue.......(not good)!



What else should we have expected from CR??


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

gman19 said:


> What else should we have expected from CR??


Not very much. Ford was doing well in their ratings until they released the Sync infotainment system. System has a few kinks being worked out and it's sent their CR ratings down because of it. Ford did have some auto trans shift issues that didn't help either but the fact that people having problems syncing their phones to the car sends reliability down proves CR is nothing but toliet paper. 

Source


----------



## ShadowHawkRacer (Apr 23, 2012)

KenJr said:


> You still here Cruzeman? I figured you'd have dumped your awful Cruze by now and gotten a different car. Every time I come to this forum you're griping about something.
> 
> I've had my Eco for a year now. At first I thought I had a manual transmission problem but learned that the problem was me, not it. I was treating it the way I treated my sport transmissions in past years. This one needs to be treated more gently and with respect.
> 
> Great car! No problems. As for Consumer Reports, over the years I've found it to be very handy at times .. but at other times it's way off the mark. The secret with using CR is to treat it as one of several reference sources.


I don't think cruzeman is just simply complaining. My Cruze has a major cooling issue and terrible smells using the heat/defrost. Major sickening antifreeze smell. And honestly I think most Cruze owners are going to run into this especially during the winter. yes other than that issue the Cruze has been fine... but I am sorry getting headaches, vomiting from the smell and oh yeah and antifreeze causes blindness, birth defects , kidney failure... is not a small issue. Did I mention GM knows this is an issue and has no idea how to fix it or... they can't afford the fix. I have owned 12 different GM vehicles over the years and the way GM and the dealer has treated me this time is evident in how they don't really care about their customers. So at this point I think CR can say what they want... I will never buy GM again! I was a loyal fan to the end. No more GM... never again!


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

ShadowHawkRacer said:


> I don't think cruzeman is just simply complaining. My Cruze has a major cooling issue and terrible smells using the heat/defrost. Major sickening antifreeze smell. And honestly I think most Cruze owners are going to run into this especially during the winter. yes other than that issue the Cruze has been fine... but I am sorry getting headaches, vomiting from the smell and oh yeah and antifreeze causes blindness, birth defects , kidney failure... is not a small issue. Did I mention GM knows this is an issue and has no idea how to fix it or... they can't afford the fix. I have owned 12 different GM vehicles over the years and the way GM and the dealer has treated me this time is evident in how they don't really care about their customers. So at this point I think CR can say what they want... I will never buy GM again! I was a loyal fan to the end. No more GM... never again!


We try to help people around here; we really do. There are avenues people have taken to get their cars replaced, which I'm not sure if you've investigated. In either case, we don't appreciate people jumping in here, venting, and trash-talking GM because they got a lemon. It happens with every car company. We do as much as we can to point you in the right direction, and some of us will even go out of our ways to help you, but don't come in here just to vent. Ask for help if you must, but don't troll. 

At this time, we have many people that have driven in excess of 10,000 miles with no such issues. 

Again, I've said this repeatedly and I'm not sure if it has sunk in; GM is not a dealer. GM is a car manufacturer, and the dealerships are independent and privately owned. If a dealership gave you a bad experience, find another one.


----------



## ShadowHawkRacer (Apr 23, 2012)

OK so Not sure I understand your point....Completly But If bliss is what you want I can deal with that. Other than my issue the car has been just fine.!I wouldn't have purchased it if I didn't like it. That being said I put no stock in CR.... I think fellow owners have a better idea of how they feel about their cars reliability.. that CR does.

So I apologize for venting.. 



XtremeRevolution said:


> We try to help people around here; we really do. There are avenues people have taken to get their cars replaced, which I'm not sure if you've investigated. In either case, we don't appreciate people jumping in here, venting, and trash-talking GM because they got a lemon. It happens with every car company. We do as much as we can to point you in the right direction, and some of us will even go out of our ways to help you, but don't come in here just to vent. Ask for help if you must, but don't troll.
> 
> At this time, we have many people that have driven in excess of 10,000 miles with no such issues.
> 
> Again, I've said this repeatedly and I'm not sure if it has sunk in; GM is not a dealer. GM is a car manufacturer, and the dealerships are independent and privately owned. If a dealership gave you a bad experience, find another one.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

ShadowHawkRacer said:


> OK so Not sure I understand your point....Completly But If bliss is what you want I can deal with that. Other than my issue the car has been just fine.!I wouldn't have purchased it if I didn't like it. That being said I put no stock in CR.... I think fellow owners have a better idea of how they feel about their cars reliability.. that CR does.
> 
> So I apologize for venting..


Venting is fine. We get a lot of people who come in and vent. We try to help those people as much as we can, and I can sympathize with people who run into issues like yours that they can't seem to get fixed, but when they take the proper avenues to get the car replaced under a lemon law, it should be assumed that they got a lemon. By definition, an automotive lemon isn't the norm. You speak about it as if everyone is guaranteed to have this issue sooner or later. If I had this issue and the car was taken back under lemon law, I'd buy another Cruze, because I would do so under the understanding that this was a one-off problem that could not fixed or reproduced, and that the second car would not have this issue anymore. 

You telling everyone how terrible GM is doesn't do much but undermine our efforts. Every car maker makes lemons, so please keep that in mind.


----------



## litesong (Oct 14, 2011)

mcg75 said:


> While I agree on the previous Corolla and Civic 100%, we don't know for sure what the Cruze will be like long term.
> One thing I can tell you for sure is this. Toyota and Honda have been cheaping out on parts quality due to a stronger yen for awhile now. Neither company builds as good of a quality vehicle as they did 10 years ago.
> I'm the service manager for a 6 bay independant shop and I'm seeing things now from Toyota that I did not used to see. Wheel bearings and fuel pumps on Corolla's with less than 60k miles. Wheel bearing on a 2007 Yaris with only 40k miles today actually.


Some of the reliability problems of Toyota & Honda come from that period of time when both companies were leapfrogging their production schedules trying to keep up with demand before the recession(depression). The Prius numbers were soaring skyward by as much as 40+% per year.
But complaining about Toyota & Honda jumping success woes, nevertheless does not refute the fact that a one year old Cruze has lower reliability records than a five year old Honda Fit. Cruze problems can be expected to drop further after first year only 'better' system problems in engine cooling, minor transmission, drive system, climate system, suspension, brakes, body integrity, body hardware, audio system & finally the lackadaisical power equipment.


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

litesong said:


> Some of the reliability problems of Toyota & Honda come from that period of time when both companies were leapfrogging their production schedules trying to keep up with demand before the recession(depression). The Prius numbers were soaring skyward by as much as 40+% per year.


Just before the recession, there was a multiple stories written about Toyota trying to get supplier costs reduced by 30%. When you try to slash prices like that, the supplier will have no choice but to supply an inferior part. 

Source. 

And this story comes well after all the issues I've seen with their newer product in comparison to the old. 

By the way, Truedelta gives the Cruze a better reliability rating than CR. Unlike CR, Truedelta will tell you how many people are reporting on the car and will tell you the difference between minor and major issues. CR would dump the Cruze for reliability if someone's bluetooth phone won't hook up properly whether it's the phone's or car's fault.


----------



## litesong (Oct 14, 2011)

mcg75 said:


> By the way, Truedelta gives the Cruze a better reliability rating than CR. Unlike CR, Truedelta will tell you how many people are reporting on the car and will tell you the difference between minor and major issues. CR would dump the Cruze for reliability if someone's bluetooth phone won't hook up properly whether it's the phone's or car's fault.


Commenting again on the data you won't answer:
Confirming what CR said that reliability of a five year old Honda Fit is better than a one year old Cruze, TrueDelta also shows that 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 year old Honda Fits have better reliability than a one year old Cruze. 

Whatever excuses you are using for the Cruze, two sets of data(one that you first mentioned) says Cruze customers are having headaches that will increase.

As for me, I like the Cruze(EcoCruze). I might buy it, if I can reasonably pay for coverage to be extended to 10 years. It also helps that the Chevy dealer is only 2 miles away. Might have to visit the shop more than I would like.


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

I have never payed attention to anything Car and Driver, Motor TrEnd, or especially Consumer Reports Say about an American car. They are all completely Biased and there is no argument against my claim. You can try but I will win. Countless articles go by where they rate American Cars against others and when the American car is the clear winner they find something, like it not having enough cup holders, to give it 2nd place or worse. And yes i happen to having a Motor Trend article that came down to how many cup holders the vehicles had. All in all the ONLY reliable way to get a good review on a car is to find a forum, like this one, and straight out ask the owners how they like the car, see what kinds of issues its having, and the like.


----------



## the_dog (May 24, 2012)

> I have never payed attention to anything Car and Driver, Motor TrEnd, or especially Consumer Reports Say about an American car. They are all completely Biased and there is no argument against my claim. You can try but I will win. Countless articles go by where they rate American Cars against others and when the American car is the clear winner they find something, like it not having enough cup holders, to give it 2nd place or worse. And yes i happen to having a Motor Trend article that came down to how many cup holders the vehicles had. All in all the ONLY reliable way to get a good review on a car is to find a forum, like this one, and straight out ask the owners how they like the car, see what kinds of issues its having, and the like.




So paint problems, heater core leaks, scalding hot coolant shooting out resulting in serious burns, widespread rattles, transmission issues, and vehicles catching on FIRE (along with many other issues) all reported on this forum don't indicate, along with Consumer Reports, that the Cruze has a "few" reliability problems? Check out the forums for the Honda Civic, Mazda Mazda3, or the Subaru Impreza and you won't see the same number or severity of issues. Your argument doesn't hold water, there is no reason why CR would have a bias in reporting reliability data, they accept no advertising and they even purchase their own test cars. Just because the data doesn't suit you, doesn't mean it is invalid.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

the_dog said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> So paint problems, heater core leaks, scalding hot coolant shooting out resulting in serious burns, widespread rattles, transmission issues, and vehicles catching on FIRE (along with many other issues) all reported on this forum don't indicate, along with Consumer Reports, that the Cruze has a "few" reliability problems? Check out the forums for the Honda Civic, Mazda Mazda3, or the Subaru Impreza and you won't see the same number or severity of issues. Your argument doesn't hold water, there is no reason why CR would have a bias in reporting reliability data, they accept no advertising and they even purchase their own test cars. Just because the data doesn't suit you, doesn't mean it is invalid.


Just to get your story straight...

Heater core leaks are being worked on. This isn't the first car in the world that's had this problem. 

Hot coolant shooting out resulting in serious burns? Where? I haven't yet that problem yet. If you weren't sure, the heater core is in the HVAC box and is sealed off from the engine bay. How exactly is the coolant reaching you? Still missing the point on this one. 

Widespread rattles? Not seeing posts about that. We did read one post by NickD, and he discovered it was the seat belt flapping against the side of the car with the windows down. 

Transmission issues were generally resolved for the 2012 year. 

Vehicles catching on fire? If you actually read past the thread title, you would have seen that these *always *happen directly after the oil changes, and are a result of improper filter and seal replacement causing oil to leak and burn. I also recall the reports have been extremely few and far between. 

Yes, check out the forums. See what lemons people with Hyundais, Mazdas, Fords, Dodges, Toyotas, and Hondas come up with. If you think Chevy is the only car company capable of producing a lemon, you should do a bit more research.

It is not at all news that CR has a bias. The mere thought that they review cars fairly is laughable at best.


----------



## steve333 (Oct 23, 2010)

mcg75 said:


> Just before the recession, there was a multiple stories written about Toyota trying to get supplier costs reduced by 30%. When you try to slash prices like that, the supplier will have no choice but to supply an inferior part.
> 
> Source.
> 
> ...


Truedelta rated the Cobalt as reliable so I wouldn't trust their stats either. Its probably somewhere in between. As a Cobalt owner I can tell you that the Cobalt is not reliable, at least past the warranty. many many issues within the warranty but they didnt cost me anything. After warranty-known front end suspension and steering issues from the first model year on-GM never changed the faulty parts and never fixed the problems. I was hoping they learned their lesson and changed things with the Cruze but I don't like what I'm reading.



XtremeRevolution said:


> Just to get your story straight...
> 
> Heater core leaks are being worked on. This isn't the first car in the world that's had this problem.
> 
> ...


Should the car ever have been sold in the first place with transmission issues?
Heater core leaks in the 2nd year after the car has been produced?
I think we should hold GM up to a higher standard than what they've been showing us.
Other car companies have their issues as well, they just don't seem to have as much


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

steve333 said:


> Should the car ever have been sold in the first place with transmission issues?
> Heater core leaks in the 2nd year after the car has been produced?
> I think we should hold GM up to a higher standard than what they've been showing us.
> Other car companies have their issues as well, they just don't seem to have as much


No, it shouldn't have, but that was proven to be more of a coding problem than anything else. Everyone who installed the Trifecta tune had this fixed permanently. I don't believe it was an internal transmission issue as a result. Supposedly some people think its fine, while it drivers others crazy. 

Before people start pointing fingers at GM, you have to remember that in this day and age, no car manufacturer makes their own parts anymore. It's always made by a third party and then installed in your car. I'll give you two examples. 

LuK was contracted to make the clutches for the Cruze. Up until ~November of 2011, they produced some defective clutches and admitted to it. There's a large thread on this in the general section as a sticky. Since then, not many people have come back to report issues, and my car has been doing fine. GM's fault? No. 

NGK was contracted to make the spark plugs for the Cruze. They claim they were supposed to be .027". They weren't. In fact, they were so far all over the place that one really has to wonder if NGK actually checked the spark plugs they were delivering. This led to numerous hesitation, bogging, and near-stalling conditions for some people on this board that were remedied with a correction in the spark plug gap. Should GM have gone to extra measures in quality control to ensure this wouldn't happen? Sure, but is it their fault that the gaps are wrong? No. It's NGK's fault. 

Someone manufactured the front struts for the Cruze, and they were deemed as too noisy but not unsafe. GM halted production of the Cruze in December to engineer and wait for the production of a revised strut assembly. There is now a TSB out for it. GM's fault? No. 

We can look at each problem in the Cruze and I estimate over 75% of them can be pointed to the vendor that was contracted to produce the part in question. When one of those parts is determined to be defective, a redesign is needed depending on impact and severity. I'm fairly certain this will apply to the heater core leaks as well. 

Now we come to the comparison between other car manufacturers. We remember a time when Toyota's acceleration pedals were sticking and the cars were accelerating on their own. If I recall, that was narrowed down to a part produced by a vendor, not a design flaw. 

We can go on all day with the experiences others have had with Non-GM cars, but we shouldn't need to. When someone's car is having issues, every other car manufacturer will sound more reliable. The grass unfortunately isn't always greener on the other side, unless you got a lemon and assume that all Cruzes are lemons. We might think Hyundais don't have as many issues, until we buy a Hyundai like the Sonata and discover the plethora of problems some people have reported, just to name one example. 

One must keep in mind that forums like this are magnets for people with car problems. This is part of the reason they exist. It does not, however, represent or accurately reflect all Cruze owners and their vehicle's problems.


----------



## the_dog (May 24, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Just to get your story straight...
> 
> Heater core leaks are being worked on. This isn't the first car in the world that's had this problem.
> 
> ...


In case you weren't aware of some of the issues, including second degree burns as a result of the Cruze. I don't think the Cruze is a bad car, but I also don't think you can argue that it hasn't been plagued by problems. I think these links speak for themselves-

*Catching Fire- show me a new Civic, Mazda3, Impreza, or even Focus that has caught fire- whether or not it was after an oil change. Clearly there is a design flaw. Two Cruzes catching on fire resulting in total loss is two too many.*

http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-chevrolet-cruze-general-discussion-forum/6939-cruze-fires-news.html

http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...69-my-cruze-caught-fire-after-oil-change.html
*
Paint chips- albeit a common issue in modern cars, still another reliability concern with the Cruze*

http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...rum/1596-red-metallic-paint-chips-galore.html

http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...forum/4932-paint-chips-behind-rear-doors.html

*Rattling*

http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-chevrolet-cruze-general-discussion-forum/664-rattling-sound-when-starting-engine.html

http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...apart-terrible-rattle-right-side-vehicle.html

*Transmission*

http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...n-forum/6622-cruze-transmission-problems.html

http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...orum/1293-transmission-issues-2011-cruze.html

*Coolant leak inside car resulting in 2nd degree burns*

http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...rum/5650-cruze-leaked-coolant-inside-car.html

Now, I tend to believe Consumer Reports when they say reliability on the new Cruze is below average. I realize that the Cruze isn't the first car in the world to have one of these problems, but all of them?


----------



## steve333 (Oct 23, 2010)

XtremeRevolution said:


> No, it shouldn't have, but that was proven to be more of a coding problem than anything else. Everyone who installed the Trifecta tune had this fixed permanently. I don't believe it was an internal transmission issue as a result. Supposedly some people think its fine, while it drivers others crazy.
> 
> Before people start pointing fingers at GM, you have to remember that in this day and age, no car manufacturer makes their own parts anymore. It's always made by a third party and then installed in your car. I'll give you two examples.
> 
> ...


The problem is, GM continues to use these same suppliers even after they have proven to be incompetent.
That's GM's fault. The front end components on my Balt are the same from year 2005-2010. That is inexcusable, IMO.
If GM is using substandard component suppliers than GM should find others. I blame GM for that.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

the_dog said:


> In case you weren't aware of some of the issues, including second degree burns as a result of the Cruze. I don't think the Cruze is a bad car, but I also don't think you can argue that it hasn't been plagued by problems. I think these links speak for themselves-
> 
> *Catching Fire- show me a new Civic, Mazda3, Impreza, or even Focus that has caught fire- whether or not it was after an oil change. Clearly there is a design flaw. Two Cruzes catching on fire resulting in total loss is two too many.*
> 
> ...


There's a design flaw because a technician doesn't know how to properly perform an oil change? The fires are isolate incidents. Two in how many that were sold since 2010? What were at now, half a million sales or more? I fail to find the logic unless all you're trying to do is bash the Cruze, which is all it seems you've joined to do. I'm not going to call the Cruze an unreliable car because two or three of them caught fire. 

You wanted an example? Here you are:
Have you experienced an engine fire in a Toyota or Lexus? - Toyota Lexus Forum - Performance Parts Tuning

Again, these issues affect all car manufacturers. Stop being naive and thinking others can do no wrong. 

Have you actually read the threads you copied and pasted, or did you just read the titles? See my post count. I've been here long enough to have seen these threads already. This is not news to me. What bothers me the most about your approach is that you read into isolated incidents as if everyone is having these problems. So one guy had an engine rattling noise. Guess what, it was probably something they loosened up after the service he went in for, which he clearly stated. The second thread was NickD's post I referred to earlier, where his seat belt was rattling because of the wind. If you don't take the time to read, why should I take the time to respond?

So a pipe burst. Big deal. It's the only report on this forum I've been able to find. Safe to say it's not a real issue and it was a defect in the material used. Would it be the first time this has happened in any car? Most certainly not. That member didn't actually come back to report what had actually happened. 

If the paint chips are a common issue, why bring them up? I thought we were comparing these to other cars. Have we turned to listing all of the Cruzes deficiencies instead? 

With regard to the transmission issues, I'm not even going to address them because you didn't bother reading them. You just copied and pasted links without looking into them. One guy had only two posts on this forum and never came back to report the result, and the other guy said his problem was slowly going away over time, as many have told him the transmission adapts to your driving style. 

I tend to think with my head, not let others think for me, and when an issue report comes up, I read into it to find out why the issues is happening, what is being done to fix it, and what the end result is. I'll have a discussion with you when you're prepared to do more than just copy and paste links.


----------



## the_dog (May 24, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> There's a design flaw because a technician doesn't know how to properly perform an oil change? The fires are isolate incidents. Two in how many that were sold since 2010? What were at now, half a million sales or more? I fail to find the logic unless all you're trying to do is bash the Cruze, which is all it seems you've joined to do. I'm not going to call the Cruze an unreliable car because two or three of them caught fire.
> 
> You wanted an example? Here you are:
> Have you experienced an engine fire in a Toyota or Lexus? - Toyota Lexus Forum - Performance Parts Tuning
> ...


I'm not going to waste my time arguing with a Chevy Fan Boy, so this is it. Two or three total loss fires, big deal huh? Tell that to the people who had their cars catch fire. Tell the guy who got 2nd degree burns from his car- "big deal". I don't really care if the person followed up on the issue, the fact that it happened in the first place is unacceptable. As for the fires, maybe you should practice what you preach and read the thread instead of copying and pasting links. In the Toyota and Lexus fire thread, three responses- a technician who hasn't seen one fire in 15 years that wasn't the fault of a human, one car that was over 5 years old, and another that was 18 years old at the time of the post. The Cruzes that have caught fire have been 2011s. You say it is the technicians' error that caused the fires, do you think technicians ever make mistakes on other cars- but yet you don't see reports for newer compact cars from other manufactures catching fire and NHTSA investigations for fire risk on the Civic, Mazda3, Impreza, Focus, Forte, Elantra do you? 

I will choose to drive cars from companies that prove to be reliable. I don't want to drive a car that has terrible shifting for my first part of ownership, I'll choose a car with a transmission that just works from the beginning. While I know other car manufactures also have issues, some have more issues than others- and obviously Chevy is having more issues with the Cruze than other manufacturers are having with their compacts. You can choose to ignore Consumer Reports data and chalk it up to bias, but bias alone doesn't account for the "Well Below Average" rating for the Cruze. It is a scary thought that all these issues are cropping up in the first two model years. Imagine what problems these cars will have in the next ten years. Good for GM for fixing the problems as they come up, but even better for Honda, Subaru, Mazda, and others for not having these problems in the first place.

If people are okay buying a car (which definitely has its perks) that is known to have many issues, that's their prerogative. But don't deny that these problems exist and in higher numbers than average- that's downright misleading and simply not true. People have the right to know which cars have been reliable, and that's what Consumer Reports provides potential car buyers.

And as an aside- let's not forget one of my favorite recalls, albeit not the Cruze, but on another Chevrolet product, failure to install the brake pads...ring a bell? (That would be the Sonic)


----------



## fastdriver (Jan 7, 2011)

Investigation expanded to 2012 Cruze.

US safety regulators expand Chevy Cruze probe | Reuters


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

litesong said:


> Commenting again on the data you won't answer:
> Confirming what CR said that reliability of a five year old Honda Fit is better than a one year old Cruze, TrueDelta also shows that 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 year old Honda Fits have better reliability than a one year old Cruze.
> 
> Whatever excuses you are using for the Cruze, two sets of data(one that you first mentioned) says Cruze customers are having headaches that will increase.


Won't comment on? 

First, they are comparing cars from two different classes. One has premium features and is a new model, the other is economy car that sells more base models. 

Secondly, how come they never say that the 5 year old Fit is just as reliable as the 1 year old Civic? For that matter, how come they don't say a 5 year old 4 cyl Camry is just as reliable as a 1 year old Civic? Because it doesn't suit their purposes, that's why. 

Somebody questioned CR's rating of the Cruze on their forum. A moderator replied "there are problems with the drivetrain and transmission." Of course he doesn't say that there are virtually no outright failures and most problems were solved with the reprogramming. He then goes on to say you would expect virtually no problems at all with a brand new car in it's first year. Really? Link.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

mcg75 said:


> Won't comment on?
> 
> First, they are comparing cars from two different classes. One has premium features and is a new model, the other is economy car that sells more base models.
> 
> ...


Reading that thread convinced me beyond any shadow of a doubt that this thread should be locked up and Consumer Reports is run by a bunch of biased and agenda-diven loonies.

Sent from my Bulletproof_Doubleshot using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

Wow. Ok lets go there. 

I stand by my comment and can show you proof of bias in many ways. But we will start elsewhere.

The Cruze is a new car. Every car has problems, Lots of them in its first years of production. Every product in the world has problems when it is new. Its not until it is a few years old that the kinks are worked out and it is truly a good design. Hence why A few of the most reliable vehicles in history are actually trucks. Up until recently Trucks hadn't really changed since the 60's. They came with proven Small Block power plants and transmissions that had been used, abused, and redesigned time and time again to be almost perfect. THAT IS HOW YOU MAKE A RELIABLE CAR. It just doesn't roll out of the factory perfect. 

You want to pick apart a fire based on 2 Cars that may or may not have had their oil changed in the same place? By someone who was obviously too incompetent. To "the_dog" you stated " In the Toyota and Lexus fire thread, three responses- a technician who hasn't seen one fire in 15 years that wasn't the fault of a human..." What is the difference here? Both of the Cruze's fire were obviously due to human error. 

You wanna know why no one else has problems? Because your not finding them

2011 Honda Civic
Transmission- 7 people have reported problems with the car (Automatic Transmission) stalling while on hills. 
_Multiple people have also reported hard shifting and lurching during shifts at only 10k miles
Axles- 4 people have reported that upon taking their car in for a 15k mile service they were informed that their axles were 
bad.
Also a recall that is pretty serious Quote "Honda is recalling certain model year 2011 Honda Civic vehicles. To prevent fuel from leaking out of a vehicle's fuel tank into the evaporative emissions canister in the event a roll-over incident occurs, the fuel pump module is equipped with a roll over valve (rov). Due to improper ultrasonic welding of the plastic case that houses the rov within the fuel pump module, the case material may break or crack, which may cause the rov to separate from the case and fail to function, thereby increasing the risk of fuel leakage in a roll-over incident."

Mazda 3- 
Noise- Mazda 3 drivers have reported a rattling noise from the trunk
Transmission- Many reports about the 2010 and 2011 models with faulty clutches. Going bad at as little as 4100 miles. and not only the clutch but 3rd gear blowing out as well in some models.

Toyota Corolla
Complaints of chemical smell when running Air conditioning
Paint- Chipping paint in multiple areas of the car. Mainly on 2010 models but some 2011 models have been reported as well. 
Steering - 4 complaints of problems with the electronic Steering Assist.


I could keep going, but i will stop here. You see, just because you don't mention the problems with other cars, does not mean that those problems don't exist, nor that the car is more reliable.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Hmm, interesting. Wonder how Mazda is handling the clutch problems when Cruze owners reported some of the same things and many owners have had to pay out of their own pockets for new ones.

Honda has had problems with both manual and automatic transmissions for a very, very long time. My sister owned a 2001 Accord V6 that had the transmission replaced twice in 5 years. Interestingly enough, she replaced it with a Ford Escape (also known for lots of stupid issues) that has been just fine.


----------



## litesong (Oct 14, 2011)

litesong wrote: CR said that reliability of a five year old Honda Fit is better than a one year old Cruze, True Delta also shows that 1, 2, 3, 3 & 5 year old Honda Fits have better reliability than a one year old Cruze.
//////////////////////////////////////
mcg75 wrote:
......how come they never say that the 5 year old Fit is just as reliable as the 1 year old Civic? For that matter, how come they don't say a 5 year old 4 cyl Camry is just as reliable as a 1 year old Civic? Because it doesn't suit their purposes, that's why.
/////////////////////////
litesong wrote:
No, they don't say either of those statements because those would be lies. But it is true in 2 sets of data (one data set that you brought up) THAT:

....... reliability of a five year old Honda Fit is better than a one year old Cruze. True Delta also shows that 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 year old Honda Fits have better reliability than a one year old Cruze.

We'll see if future data continues the downward switchbacks that the Cruze journey has started near its Trailhead. 

I stand by my previous statement:
As for me, I like the Cruze(EcoCruze). I might buy it, if I can reasonably pay for coverage to be extended to 10 years. It also helps that the Chevy dealer is only 2 miles away. Might have to visit the shop more than I would like.
////////////////////
However, my tight garage might be too tight for the Cruze. The Hyundai Elantra has one inch more rear seat shoulder room than the Cruze, while having one inch less exterior width than the Cruze. 

Besides, the Elantra would turn the garage into a family affair with my wife's Hyundai Accent that has been superlative for 65,000 miles. We're miffed because we couldn't get any use out of the 60,000 mile warranty & we're afraid the 100,000 mile drive train warranty won't get used either.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

2010 Mazda MAZDA3 Premature Clutch Failure | CarComplaints.com
Huh, apparently no better than Chevy has.


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

Well it seems all those haters decided to leave and delete all their comments so they couldn't look stupid anymore.


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

litesong said:


> litesong wrote: CR said that reliability of a five year old Honda Fit is better than a one year old Cruze, True Delta also shows that 1, 2, 3, 3 & 5 year old Honda Fits have better reliability than a one year old Cruze.
> //////////////////////////////////////
> mcg75 wrote:
> ......how come they never say that the 5 year old Fit is just as reliable as the 1 year old Civic? For that matter, how come they don't say a 5 year old 4 cyl Camry is just as reliable as a 1 year old Civic? Because it doesn't suit their purposes, that's why.
> ...


lies? According to truedelta, what I stated is exactly the case.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## litesong (Oct 14, 2011)

mcg75 said:


> According to truedelta, what I stated is exactly the case.


Not according to CR. But you slithered off the subject, Cruze reliability. Both CR & truedelta say Cruze is slipping downward near its trailhead. Again:

.......CR reports reliability of a five year old Honda Fit is better than a one year old Cruze. True Delta also shows that 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 year old Honda Fits have better reliability than a one year old Cruze.


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

litesong said:


> Not according to CR. But you slithered off the subject, Cruze reliability. Both CR & truedelta say Cruze is slipping downward near its trailhead. Again:
> 
> .......CR reports reliability of a five year old Honda Fit is better than a one year old Cruze. True Delta also shows that 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 year old Honda Fits have better reliability than a one year old Cruze.


I don't care what CR says. Their methods and unreported sample sizes have zero meaning to me. 

As far as reliable goes, Truedelta shows the Cruze to be much more reliable than the Focus or Mazda 3. But do you really think that's the case? Perhaps you should do more than look at simple stats and see the issues as they are reported through Truedelta as opposed to looking at little half dots. 

And if you hate the car that much, don't buy one and leave this forum instead of invading other threads such as the wind noise one to spread your nonsense.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Lets see, Mazda, GM, Mitsubishi. Anyone see a pattern here? Are there so few manual transmissions running around any more that no one actually knows how to make a solid, reliable, inexpensive clutch anymore.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

..."Lies, darn lies, and statistics"....

As a subscriber and member of both True Delta and Consumer Reports, I find them both very useful. Having filled out surveys for both, I find them both relevant. My background of having double majors in both marketing and business management gives me a slight advantage in knowledge of marketing research, surveys, questionnaires, and consumer behavioral research. 

Whatever individual opinions are or criticisms leveled, justified or not, it sure would be a shame if either or both entities ceased to exist. Nothing is perfect. Nothing will ever perfectly mirror each individuals ideals. Nothing will perform perfectly to our expectations. Everybody is flawed, all systems are flawed. This does not mean we throw the baby out with the bath water.

After spending some time comparing True Delta and Consumer Reports, especially considering where True Delta has some larger representation of individual model years, patterns start to show up, and one starts to mirror the other. 

Little or hard to explain inconsistencies does not make the work invalid as a whole. Can Consumer Reports be better? YES! Could Consumer Reports be quicker showing the data and showing trends of improvement, thus possibly getting a car that had a rough start put on the recommended list? Maybe. They would have to probably change their survey model to be primarily online based (which is how I filled out the latest survey). This would be a Herculean transition concerning their subscriber base. Remember, everything costs money, there is no free lunch, and extra expenses have to be funded. If they make the wrong step, pester member's two or three times more a year for updates on repairs, they risk the chance of chasing off their primary income and knowledge base,....the Consumer that subscribes and pays money and fills out those questionnaires. 

The claims of bias against American vehicles as an overarching whole of Consumer Reports seems to not be a very objective conclusion. There will always be individuals within an organization that have biases. Whether that is reflected by that persons work and conclusions is hard to quantify. Everybody has biases of some sort, but does that mean we all put those biases into something we are trying to objectively quantify? Are we really the problem? Are we that much different than the Consumer Reports' engineer or tester that is trying to do his or her best? Are our own biases affecting our views on this whole subject of this thread? Maybe we have to examine ourselves more before we can answer these questions more objectively. 

Some links on Consumer Reports methods of testing and other links:
Consumer Reports auto testing and reliability: Top six myths busted

How we test

Consumer Reports Car Reliability FAQ | Answers to Reliability Questions - Consumer Reports

Consumer Reports Car Reliability FAQ | Answers to Reliability Questions - Consumer Reports

consumerreports - YouTube

Cars - YouTube

Test complete video: 2011 Chevrolet Cruze

http://wardsauto.com/ar/day_at_track

Just for fun:
Mustang vs. Camaro - YouTube
CobaltSS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq5H9Y_vRR0&list=PLB736310C5CFD8AF9&index=131&feature=plpp_video
Caddy CTS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB8pGmNgkdw&list=PLB736310C5CFD8AF9&index=91&feature=plpp_video
Pontiac G8:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d96mQzxKiFA&feature=relmfu


----------



## litesong (Oct 14, 2011)

mcg75 said:


> .....you should do more than look at simple stats and see the issues as they are reported through Truedelta as opposed to looking at little half dots.
> And if you hate the car that much, don't buy one


I've never seen the selling technique mcg75 displays.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

When CR came out and said this is the worse can opener in the world.










Knew they are full of BS, only can opener that works on my coffee cans, very easy to use. My wife hated it a first, but is now the only one she will use now.

If they will test each of the 20,000 components that make up a vehicle, least 10,000 thermal cycles, then I would start to believe what they are saying.

As it it, they are just guessing, oh my gosh, one tire was 3 psi low! And found a loose screw in the door panel. A bunch of idiots.


----------



## steve333 (Oct 23, 2010)

Swingline makes the best can openers


----------



## litesong (Oct 14, 2011)

NickD said:


> When CR came out and said this is the worse can opener in the world.


Just heard one of the Cruze posters here, just bailed out of his Cruze. Did anyone offer him a can opener as he left....... even this one.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

litesong said:


> Just heard one of the Cruze posters here, just bailed out of his Cruze. Did anyone offer him a can opener as he left....... even this one.


People have their reasons, and we generally don't try to poke and prod at people and argue with them. A can opener might help us look into their heads further to find a reason, but I doubt it would get us any real information. 

We had one guy sell his Cruze Eco MT because he thought he didn't have enough passing power on the highway. Ended up getting a base Subaru Impreza, which has less torque and an inferior powerband. I'm sure there was more to it than just "not enough passing power."


----------



## CamO (Jan 24, 2011)

Wow I have to say what the HECK is going on with the Cruzetalk site? I've read comments on Inside GM News...but didn't think it was this bad!

Why hasn't the moderator banned cwerdna yet? Total troll who sits on this site picking at actual Cruze owners commnents... Even more disgraceful are the posts from Cruzeman - so sorry to hear you've got a bad Cruze I guess it happens but does that give you the right to trash the car using your "moderator" login? I've never heard of a new car having that many problems. 

I've got 20K km's on my Cruze and it's been an amazing car. 
http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/901-cwerdna.html


----------



## fastdriver (Jan 7, 2011)

CamO said:


> I've never heard of a new car having that many problems.
> 
> I've got 20K km's on my Cruze and it's been an amazing car.


You must NOT be reading all the topics here!


----------



## mr_raider (Aug 13, 2011)

I'm not an expert in statistics, but I have enough knowledge to know that I should reserve judgement until a few model years are out, and we can see the trend in reliability in and out of warranty. If my Cruze ends up being half as reliable as my dad's 15 year old Sunfire, I will be pleased.


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

mr_raider said:


> I'm not an expert in statistics, but I have enough knowledge to know that I should reserve judgement until a few model years are out, and we can see the trend in reliability in and out of warranty. If my Cruze ends up being half as reliable as my dad's 15 year old Sunfire, I will be pleased.


Hey, finally some common sense in this thread.

The new ford focus has more than twice the problems of the cruze according to truedelta. If we make our decisions based on if circles are half or completely filled instead of looking at what the problems truly are then the new focus will be ready for the boneyard after 3 years.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## fastdriver (Jan 7, 2011)

mr_raider said:


> I'm not an expert in statistics, but I have enough knowledge to know that I should reserve judgement until a few model years are out, and we can see the trend in reliability in and out of warranty. If my Cruze ends up being half as reliable as my dad's 15 year old Sunfire, I will be pleased.



WHY does everyone seem to miss the fact that the Cruze was out in OTHER countries for SEVERAL years and supposedly tested for 4 MILLION miles BEFORE coming to the USA? Shouldn't that have been a long enough time to see a trend in reliability? We don't know how the Cruze has held up in other countries. At least I don't know. I know all the arguments about suppliers etc., but I'm sure GM has some of the same suppliers that they were using for years.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

fastdriver said:


> WHY does everyone seem to miss the fact that the Cruze was out in OTHER countries for SEVERAL years and supposedly tested for 4 MILLION miles BEFORE coming to the USA? Shouldn't that have been a long enough time to see a trend in reliability? We don't know how the Cruze has held up in other countries. At least I don't know. I know all the arguments about suppliers etc., but I'm sure GM has some of the same suppliers that they were using for years.


The 1.4T engine hadn't been used overseas. If I remember correctly, it was a new engined developed for the Chevy Volt/Ampere.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

obermd said:


> The 1.4T engine hadn't been used overseas. If I remember correctly, it was a new engined developed for the Chevy Volt/Ampere.


...no, the 1.4LT was _designed_ by GM-Opel in europe and used in Opel Astras, Corsas, Merivas and Saab 9.1s beginning in *2009* _before_ coming here in *2011* in the Cruze.


----------



## Gritts (Jan 23, 2011)

fastdriver said:


> WHY does everyone seem to miss the fact that the Cruze was out in OTHER countries for SEVERAL years and supposedly tested for 4 MILLION miles BEFORE coming to the USA? Shouldn't that have been a long enough time to see a trend in reliability? We don't know how the Cruze has held up in other countries. At least I don't know. I know all the arguments about suppliers etc., but I'm sure GM has some of the same suppliers that they were using for years.


A wonderful marketing tool. Think about how the Cruze differs from the offshore versions from engines to suppliers to assembly plants. Think about how GM didn't expect to sell so many Cruzes....

As for MY experience my car has been rock solid its entire life--which began over 1 year and 14,000 miles ago. If I had problems with my car I would gravitate to a website like Cruzetalk seeking answers. This tends to skew the view of the car to any observer. I think MY car is well-built made of high quality mterials (superior in fact to many current vehicles on the market) and worth every penny. I think the exterior design of the car is extra-ordinary. I could not replace it with a car of equal quality for the price I paid for my LS.

Unfortunately for U.S. manufacturers, the Japanese have been building solid cars of this quality (although at a higher price point) for at least 20 years. It takes time to build what is essentially a new brand and a new relationship. Considering that GM changes the names of their cars every few years, it's no wonder the quality of the Cruze is so easily suspect. This car has no history, hence GM's B.S. about the previous testing in overseas markets.


----------



## litesong (Oct 14, 2011)

Gritts said:


> As for MY experience my car has been rock solid its entire life--which began over 1 year and 14,000 miles ago.


As for my experience with my Dodge Caliber, often denigrated for its style, performance, space inefficiency, reliability, silly ads, for being a Dodge, & for having a CVT, it has been rock solid, is now AVERAGING 22% OVER its EPA HIGHWAY rating with the use of 100% pure(ethanol-free) gasoline, is smooth, has elegant motion & been reliable for 5.5+ years & 50,000 miles.


----------



## Woodlands1 (Apr 12, 2012)

Simply stated I really like my Cruze. 

For those that don't like their Cruze, sell it and move on. For those that want to bash the car, go buy the car you want and move on. This isn't rocket science. Why waste band space on nothing?


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

Woodlands1 said:


> ...For those that don't like their Cruze, sell it and move on. For those that want to bash the car, go buy the car you want and move on. This isn't *rocket science*. Why waste band *space* on nothing?


...because, like the X-Files clip says, _"...the *truth* is *out* there..." _and _some_ people visit this forum to find out about _both_ the the *GOOD* (pro) and the *BAD* (con) _aspects_ of this car -- there are *two* sides to _every _*story*, including the Cruze's.


----------



## sndguy (Nov 17, 2011)

My oldest just traded her Caliber, after two trannies and a pile of other issues. She got a Cruze Eco after driving mine.



litesong said:


> As for my experience with my Dodge Caliber, often denigrated for its style, performance, space inefficiency, reliability, silly ads, for being a Dodge, & for having a CVT, it has been rock solid, is now AVERAGING 22% OVER its EPA HIGHWAY rating with the use of 100% pure(ethanol-free) gasoline, is smooth, has elegant motion & been reliable for 5.5+ years & 50,000 miles.


----------



## litesong (Oct 14, 2011)

sndguy said:


> My oldest just traded her Caliber, after two trannies and a pile of other issues. She got a Cruze Eco after driving mine.


Sorry to hear your daughter had bad troubles with numerous Caliber ailments.

Noting that you are in New Hampshire, I heard the CVT did not like excessive snow, especially if drivers often broke traction with both front wheels turning at different speeds. Fortunately, we don't have as much snow as your region can get. Knowing the CVT was tech with strong, but a new technology carbon graphite belt, I have tried to be careful with my CVT. The CVT has rewarded me with superiority in smoothness, quietness, elegance, & mpg efficiency. In addition, the incredible smoothness has caused less wear on my average OE tires, which now look like they will exceed 60,000 miles before needing to be changed.


----------



## Gritts (Jan 23, 2011)

litesong said:


> Sorry to here your daughter had bad troubles with numerous Caliber ailments.
> 
> Noting that you are in New Hampshire, I heard the CVT did not like excessive snow, especially if drivers often broke traction with both front wheels turning at different speeds. Fortunately, we don't have as much snow as your region can get. Knowing the CVT was tech with strong, but a new technology carbon graphite belt, I have tried to be careful with my CVT. The CVT has rewarded me with superiority in smoothness, quietness, elegance, & mpg efficiency. In addition, the incredible smoothness has caused less wear on my average OE tires, which now look like they will exceed 60,000 miles before needing to be changed.


Frankly I am a stickler about maintaining and not abusing my rides, but I'll be darned if I'd drive something that might break if the _wheels spin in the snow_. I once drove my 87 Grand Am to the top of a mountain spinning and struggling to keep moving forward in middle of a snow storm. Maybe not the smartest move on my part, but I was young and thought I _had_ to get to work. I did and the G/A didn't snap a single string...


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

CamO said:


> Wow I have to say what the HECK is going on with the Cruzetalk site? I've read comments on Inside GM News...but didn't think it was this bad!
> 
> Why hasn't the moderator banned cwerdna yet? Total troll who sits on this site picking at actual Cruze owners commnents... Even more disgraceful are the posts from Cruzeman - so sorry to hear you've got a bad Cruze I guess it happens but does that give you the right to trash the car using your "moderator" login? I've never heard of a new car having that many problems.
> 
> I've got 20K km's on my Cruze and it's been an amazing car.


Great, shoot the messenger. If you examine my previous posts, you'll find your statement to be totally untrue.

I don't work for Consumer Reports and don't conduct their surveys. I trust them to report the statistics as they've generally been accurate for the vehicles I and my parents have owned. You can blame GM and your fellow Cruze owners who responded to the survey.

Being a forum moderator doesn't magically make one have a reliable car.

Just the stats are bad doesn't mean that ALL units will have those problems. Reliability of the car you get will always be luck of the draw. Some cars statistically do worse than others, so I like to improve my odds by sticking w/vehicles and brands that have better average than reliability, preferably consistently.


fastdriver said:


> You must NOT be reading all the topics here!


Yep.


----------



## mr_raider (Aug 13, 2011)

fastdriver said:


> WHY does everyone seem to miss the fact that the Cruze was out in OTHER countries for SEVERAL years and supposedly tested for 4 MILLION miles BEFORE coming to the USA? Shouldn't that have been a long enough time to see a trend in reliability? We don't know how the Cruze has held up in other countries. At least I don't know. I know all the arguments about suppliers etc., but I'm sure GM has some of the same suppliers that they were using for years.


Indeed. Then I invite you or anyone else to show me Australian or European data for the Cruze since 2008. That would be far more instructive than the 1 year data of CR


----------



## litesong (Oct 14, 2011)

Gritts said:


> ..... I once drove my 87 Grand Am to the top of a mountain spinning and struggling to keep moving forward in middle of a snow storm. Maybe not the smartest move on my part, but I was young and thought I _had_ to get to work.


I've done lots of young life spinning in the snow. I'm got older & smarter about abusing equipment & then getting mad when it broke down. Bought the Dodge Caliber Nissan CVT for its efficiency, elegance & what I thought to be its conquest over an inherent weakness in CVT technology. After 50,000 personal miles & Nissan's, Toyota's, & other manufacturers continued use of the CVT, I believe the CVT to be dependable if NOT abused.

I also believe that lots of equipment abusing americans expect far too much from equipment & deserve their costs when equipment has to be repaired.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I got caught by surprise driving back 4 hours in a snowstorm this year with bad tires on my car. Almost home, the roads were unplowed and my right tire had no tread on it from where the car had been out of alignment at an earlier point in its life. 

Traction control (left tire had traction; right did not) and lots of light-footed tire spinning got me up the hill into my parking lot where the car sat out the rest of the storm. I'm sorry, but if spinning tires under light throttle (not doing burnouts) kills a transmission, that to me is an absolutely useless car. 

Not to mention Nissans with CVTs are just freaking annoying to drive. 

The last reliable Chrysler vehicles died when they killed off the Jeep Cherokee. My parents have owned two since those - a Town & Country and a Liberty. Both unreliable pieces of junk and both with transmission and engine problems (and my dad is a stickler for taking good care of his cars). 


Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

Reliability is in the hands of the owner/driver. Now dont attack me yet, yes it happens certain cars have problems that the owner could never have prevented. Like dropping trannys by 50k miles. However, In my life I have seen a 2002 Daewoo Lanos, owned by my sister and my father. (she used it to drive to college, when she graduated he bought it from her as his daily) 90% of these 02 Lanos' ended up in junkyards across america by 50-60k miles with lists of ailments. On the other hand, 10 years and 140,000 miles later my dad still drives his daily. It went the first 100k miles on oil changes, tires, and the brakes replaced 1 time. in the last 40k miles it has had upper and lower ball joints, tie rod ends, a new thermostat and some more tires and brakes.

I had a 97 Explorer that i bought used at 86000 miles. The 4.0 SOHC were known pretty widely for problems. After buying it I drove it to just over 200,000 miles on regular maintenance. Tires, brakes, oil changes (4 months or 4k miles), and timing chain at 178,000. Then sold it and it still drives today approaching 300k miles on the original build of the motor and tranny.

If a Daewoo Lanos can do it. Every brand new car should be able to do it. 100,000 miles on only regular maintenance and driven by someone who really takes care of it. Now like I said your always gonna have some cars that do have problems that can't be controlled by the owner. But I'm saying that in my experience, 90% of problems in the first 100,000 miles are founded in user error in some way.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Gritts said:


> Frankly I am a stickler about maintaining and not abusing my rides, but I'll be darned if I'd drive something that might break if the _wheels spin in the snow_. I once drove my 87 Grand Am to the top of a mountain spinning and struggling to keep moving forward in middle of a snow storm. Maybe not the smartest move on my part, but I was young and thought I _had_ to get to work. I did and the G/A didn't snap a single string...


Happens a lot with people who don't know how to drive. It's not the transmission that goes, but the differential. With higher powered cars like my 95 Regal also with an open differential, putting down nearly 350 lb-ft of torque while taking a turn and flooring the gas will probably only break one tire loose. I haven't done it, but I know how easy it is to do so without a LSD. If you're in the snow and you have one wheel spinning like mad and the other staying still, chances are your differential isn't going to like it.


----------



## CamO (Jan 24, 2011)

fastdriver said:


> You must NOT be reading all the topics here!


If you go to any car forum you'll see comments from people having problems with their cars. I think that's one of the major reasons these forums are created. 

I do think GM should be responding to ANY issues with their new cars..especially one as important as the Cruze to keep their customers happy.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

silverls said:


> Reliability is in the hands of the owner/driver. Now dont attack me yet, yes it happens certain cars have problems that the owner could never have prevented. Like dropping trannys by 50k miles.


While I agree that lack of proper care and maintenance can result in problems, I strongly disagree. My former 04 350Z had more trouble in its first 5 years than my mom's 96 Camry (bought new in 96) ever did until it was totaled in early 08.

All of these were fixed under warranty on my Z: both power window motors failed at almost the same time (dealer said the motor and regulators failed), I had a seeping valve cover gasket, and I had seemed like an exterior squeak when the car was cold (was diagnosed as needing the infamous axle click TSB). I also had issues w/the inner edges of the front tires feathering and cupping. Nissan had essentially extended the warranty on such issues on 03 and 04 350Zs, a few times, and fortunately, I got two new front tires out of it too. I did all of the required maintenance and the car didn't have high mileage. 

Every one of the above issues was well known on my350z.com except the valve cover gasket. The feathering issue even made it to the automotive press numerous times w/it happening on various long term test cars.

I always hear of VW owners having electrical problems and peeling interiors (at least in earlier years). Not much owners can do about that.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

Consumer Reports recently tested a Cruze Eco, Ford Focus SFE, and Honda Civic HF in a comparo of these respective automaker's special fuel savings packages. Because the Focus and Civic are only available in "automatic" transmissions, they tested the automatic Eco.

The results are.............DOH, nobody really cares what CR thinks according to this thread, whether good or bad, and I do not want to be the one that starts the resultant firestorm, so the heck with it. :tututtongue4:...my bad, real bad! 
:tongue4:
But there are some good things, really!


----------



## mr_raider (Aug 13, 2011)

silverls said:


> Reliability is in the hands of the owner/driver. Now dont attack me yet, yes it happens certain cars have problems that the owner could never have prevented. Like dropping trannys by 50k miles. However, In my life I have seen a 2002 Daewoo Lanos, owned by my sister and my father. (she used it to drive to college, when she graduated he bought it from her as his daily) 90% of these 02 Lanos' ended up in junkyards across america by 50-60k miles with lists of ailments. On the other hand, 10 years and 140,000 miles later my dad still drives his daily. It went the first 100k miles on oil changes, tires, and the brakes replaced 1 time. in the last 40k miles it has had upper and lower ball joints, tie rod ends, a new thermostat and some more tires and brakes.
> 
> I had a 97 Explorer that i bought used at 86000 miles. The 4.0 SOHC were known pretty widely for problems. After buying it I drove it to just over 200,000 miles on regular maintenance. Tires, brakes, oil changes (4 months or 4k miles), and timing chain at 178,000. Then sold it and it still drives today approaching 300k miles on the original build of the motor and tranny.
> 
> If a Daewoo Lanos can do it. Every brand new car should be able to do it. 100,000 miles on only regular maintenance and driven by someone who really takes care of it. Now like I said your always gonna have some cars that do have problems that can't be controlled by the owner. But I'm saying that in my experience, 90% of problems in the first 100,000 miles are founded in user error in some way.


Yup. Cheap cars are bought by cheap people who cheap out on maintenance. BMw and Audi are supposed to be som ethe most unreliable cars, but owners never complain, because they fork out the big bucks to maintain them.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

mr_raider said:


> Yup. Cheap cars are bought by cheap people who cheap out on maintenance. BMw and Audi are supposed to be som ethe most unreliable cars, but owners never complain, because they fork out the big bucks to maintain them.


That's why Honda had to stop putting timing belts on Civics, even though they're quieter and run smoother. People didn't bother to change them.


----------



## AaronR1074 (May 23, 2012)

I hate CR. The worst was when I worked at Circuit City the **** customers would walk up to me and whip out the magazine.. See? they said this was a good model!

"Look, do we carry this? no.. that's because that's LAST YEAR"S MODEL!" If all they are going do to is read off the **** magazine then why do they even need to ask the sales associate? They've already made up their minds.

CR is obnoxious because people judge everything based on what they read there not on their own experiences. It's like the #1 source to find somethign evil in just about every product. They think just because they rate something with a "perfect" that everything else is garbage.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I think it's funny how years ago, they recommended the 2004 Jeep Liberty as a CR Best Buy. 4-5 years down the road, it made their list of 'least reliable used cars'. 

Make up your **** mind! :goodjob:

My dad's owned one for 7 years. It's put him off from ever owning another Chrysler product, but it's been more reliable than others he knows.


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> While I agree that lack of proper care and maintenance can result in problems, I strongly disagree. My former 04 350Z had more trouble in its first 5 years than my mom's 96 Camry (bought new in 96) ever did until it was totaled in early 08.
> 
> All of these were fixed under warranty on my Z: both power window motors failed at almost the same time (dealer said the motor and regulators failed), I had a seeping valve cover gasket, and I had seemed like an exterior squeak when the car was cold (was diagnosed as needing the infamous axle click TSB). I also had issues w/the inner edges of the front tires feathering and cupping. Nissan had essentially extended the warranty on such issues on 03 and 04 350Zs, a few times, and fortunately, I got two new front tires out of it too. I did all of the required maintenance and the car didn't have high mileage.
> 
> ...


 I don't understand what you are disagreeing with. Part of my quote that you "responded" to says "yes it happens that certain cars have problems that the owner never could have prevented" What i am saying is that yes it does happen. but not in the majority of cars out on the road.


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

mr_raider said:


> Yup. Cheap cars are bought by cheap people who cheap out on maintenance. BMw and Audi are supposed to be som ethe most unreliable cars, but owners never complain, because they fork out the big bucks to maintain them.


Can we say that owners who do the maintenance never complain because they fork out the big bucks? I have been that person complained to before. And the first thing i said, "Have you taken this car to the dealership for it scheduled maintenance?" And every time the answer was "No" And people don't understand just how that can affect the reliability and the value of the car. I wont buy used cars without a maintenance history. They are absolutely worthless to me. I have to at least be able to get a Carfax and see that the dealership maintenance was done at regular intervals.


----------



## fastdriver (Jan 7, 2011)

Are the Cruze, Focus, and Civic High MPG Models Worth the Money? | Business News


----------



## steve333 (Oct 23, 2010)

fastdriver said:


> Are the Cruze, Focus, and Civic High MPG Models Worth the Money? | Business News


Not a positive review at all


----------



## litesong (Oct 14, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> ....... if spinning tires under light throttle (not doing burnouts) kills a transmission.......
> Not to mention Nissans with CVTs are just freaking annoying to drive.
> The last reliable Chrysler vehicles died when they killed off the Jeep Cherokee.


I never said light throttle & I don't know what abuse the CVTs got. I love the smooth continual, even, efficient elegance of my CVT..... just the way power should be applied to wheels, tires & road. CVTs are best in stop&go commuter conditions, mountain terrains with continually changing slopes which the CVT has every gear to match, & hilly cities. CVTs keep engine rpms low & tires are lasting 20% to 30% longer than normal, because of lack of shift-shock. 

CVTs do seem to be able to live extended lifespans before needing replacement. I will say CVTs are expensive to replace. A lot of auto trannies(6,7,8 speeds;Dual Clutches, Hybrid Power Splitters) have big repair costs.

You don't like Nissan CVTs. You don't like Chrysler. OK. We got ya.

If someone wants to rod their cars, engines, & trannies, then get a manual tranny. They are cheaper & when you have to repair them, it'll cost less. .


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

fastdriver said:


> Are the Cruze, Focus, and Civic High MPG Models Worth the Money? | Business News


So it seems that Business News is also worthless in that they don't bother to fact check before running someone else's garbage.


----------



## coinneach (Apr 10, 2012)

Fact-checking? Who does that any more?


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

On a positive note about the Cruze Eco testing:

They commented that the 2012 Eco felt smoother and more responsive than the 2011 LT, primarily due to the new transmission programming that was applied to all 2012 models.
Even with the rear drum brakes and low rolling resistance tires, dry braking stopping distances were shorter.
Handling was nimble, with quick, nicely weighted steering.
They like the solid feel, with a quiet cabin and compliant ride. They say the interior is nicely finished, with plenty of leg room up front.

Although city mileage stayed the same at 17mpg, the highway mileage increased by 4 to 40mpg, for an overall 27mpg. 

Unfortunately they stopped doing the 150 mile test loop of mixed driving, because of time and cost, and that they did not feel that it added any statistically relevant data to their overall gas mileage scores. This is disappointing to me because on occasion I would see some differences and anomalies for certain individual models. Of course a 150 mile trip on different roads, times, traffic conditions and weather, among other things can cause what seems like apparent anomalies. Too hard to have controlled conditions. But to me, this is still relevant as a real world driving situation and can reflect what one could expect in the real world.

Interesting side note is that they listed the Cruze Eco as having a 15.6 gallon gas tank. I guess technically they would be correct, just useable space is about 3 gallons less. This would throw their cruising range number off.

***EDIT: As JBLackburn has stated, the Cruze Eco automatic does indeed have a fully useable 15.6 Gallon gas tank. the manual version, although having the 15.6 gallon gas tank, is limited to only taking 12.6 gallons, unless you have a lot of time on your hands at the pump. Thank you JBlackburn for the correction.

I wonder if there will be a trend of shorter stopping distances and other handling paradigms since they just repaved their testing track.


----------



## steve333 (Oct 23, 2010)

17MPG city is beyond awful. Is that really correct?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

ECO AT's have the 15.6 gallon tank just like the rest of em.

17?! My 4.0 Jeep got that kinda mileage!!! They must have been drag-racing from every stoplight.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

Thank you jblackburn for the correction. I edited my post to reflect the correction.

Yeah, the city gas mileage testing they do is pretty extreme. Their overall gas mileage is also weighted heavier with city driving over highway driving. The only solace is that all vehicles go through the same test, so they should be somewhat comparable. 

When comparing vehicles and looking at a percentage difference in tested mpg's, you can expect, even if you are applying hypermiling techniques and getting much better mileage than stated, overall about the same percentage difference would be reflected between the compared vehicles in mpg. Of course some vehicles might be more conducive to bigger gains when hypermiling than others, so there will always be some type of variance in these kind of things. Then again, CR's tests are geared more for the masses and average drivers and their driving patterns.
CR uses a fuel meter that they plum into each car. It is my understanding that they regularly calibrate and check accuracy through control testing them too.
One of the fuel meters I noticed they were using is the Oval M-11 model lsf41, made in Japan
http://www.oval.co.jp/ovaleurope/gs_eu/gbb340e-12.pdf


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

steve333 said:


> 17MPG city is beyond awful. Is that really correct?


I'm not sure how CR gets this number. I get over 30 MPG in rush hour in my MT. I simply can't believe that the ECO AT gets that much poorer MPG in the city. CR must be driving with a brick for a right foot.


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

obermd said:


> I'm not sure how CR gets this number. I get over 30 MPG in rush hour in my MT. I simply can't believe that the ECO AT gets that much poorer MPG in the city. CR must be driving with a brick for a right foot.


Just as in the real world, two drivers aren't necessarily alike. It's nice to have the "same" conditions testing the cars except that not having the same driver test each car invalidates the results. I get 30mpg on my work route with the Cruze compared to 23mpg with my Cobalt SS and 28mpg with my fiance's 09 Civic. I'm happy with mpg and I don't even have an eco.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

mcg75 said:


> Just as in the real world, two drivers aren't necessarily alike. It's nice to have the "same" conditions testing the cars except that not having the same driver test each car invalidates the results. I get 30mpg on my work route with the Cruze compared to 23mpg with my Cobalt SS and 28mpg with my fiance's 09 Civic. I'm happy with mpg and I don't even have an eco.


Yeah, but this is a bit extreme. 17mpg average city in a Cruze? As others said, you have to be drag racing between each red light, have the A/C on constantly, have 5 people in the car and a trunk full of stuff, and be going uphill, both ways.

Either way, it's not relevant for anyone looking to buy a Cruze because 99% of the time, they won't be exposed to those kinds of conditions.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

Yep, I agree, 17mpg is, even considering their testing standards, 2-3mpg too low. I might initially think even more, but I am kind of taking into account the extra weight the Cruze has compared to the other vehicles compared in this latest round of tests. The Civic that weighs in at 2,680lb. got the same 21mpg in the city that the Focus (2,985lb.) got. The Cruze Eco weighing in at 3,140lb. should of still gotten better considering engine displacement, although the Turbo will make it eat gas like a somewhat larger engine. It might be a case that that the smaller displacement just has to work harder in stop and go traffic getting the vehicle's weight moving, thus making it less efficient. 

I would like to see an exhaust gas sniffer hooked up at idle, then ran through some low rpm acceleration tests. How lean or rich is it tuned at that range. Some engine designs need a little richer blend at idle, some idle and have great drivability with a very lean mixture. GM's early Northstar had a serious problem with this issue.

I would probably guess that the combination of being about 200lb's lighter, along with the powershift transmission (less parasitic losses than a traditional auto), direct injection, and a more efficient head and valve-train (and block;aluminum) design in the Focus helped it to achieve it's numbers.

Look at it this way. The Ford is already pretty topped out in traditional technologies, yet the Cruze is still very competitive with a lot of room for evolutionary improvement. The Cruze is a solid platform for which some great things can come out of it if GM is serious. 

Interestingly, in another comparo where they tested the VW Beetle (3,040lb.) with the much bigger 2.5l engine and 5 speed manual, managed 18mpg in the city. 

The Honda Civic got unreal highway gas mileage of 49mpg. The Focus got 43mpg on the highway. The Cruze Eco's 40mpg on the highway is very respectable.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

zr1000a1 said:


> The Cruze Eco's 40mpg on the highway is very respectable.


The MPG difference between the ECO AT and the ECO MT really goes to show how much more efficient a manual transmission is. Even at 65-75 MPH I can get 48 MPG in my ECO MT.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

steve333 said:


> 17MPG city is beyond awful. Is that really correct?


 Yes, probably, for _their tests._ Most gasoline powered non-hybrids do pretty poorly at The most fuel-efficient cars and Best & worst fuel economy.


obermd said:


> I'm not sure how CR gets this number. I get over 30 MPG in rush hour in my MT. I simply can't believe that the ECO AT gets that much poorer MPG in the city. CR must be driving with a brick for a right foot.


 As I've posted many times before, see the last page of http://www.consumersunion.org/Oct_CR_Fuel_Economy.pdf. I bet the short drives w/idling starting from a cold engine is what's killing them. 



> CITY MPG
> Our tests. These tests are stop-and-go city-driving simulations
> on our test track, which has a total of 18 stops and 4 minutes of
> total idle time. Top speed is 40 mph. Two different testers each
> ...


On my 06 Prius, I only can see mpg instantaneous mpg and history in 5 minute intervals (besides the amount since last reset) but I can tell you that on a cold engine, the first 5 minutes (per the history graph) almost always yields poor mileage, in the ~25-35 mpg range. 

Most newer Toyota hybrids will let one switch to a 1 minute interval graph. 

I suspect that if Cruze Eco automatic owners start from a cold engine, reset their DIC and try to follow what CR says of their procedure (from the limited info there), that they'd see pretty low mileage figures too, not too far off from CR's result.

It is unclear how much cooldown period there is between each run/tester and at how many times they shut off the car and restart the engine.

Discussion of Are the Cruze, Focus, and Civic High MPG Models Worth the Money? | Business News (or Are the high-mpg versions of the Chevrolet Cruze, Ford Focus, and Honda Civic worth the money?) should really be in a separate thread as discussion of FE by itself has nothing to do w/reliability results. Perhaps someone else should start a thread on that... if I do, a few folks here will likely bash me (again) as being a troll.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

Cwerdna, You beat me to it. Yesterday I put together info to try to explain the city mpg testing among others and never got around to posting it. Might as well do it while I am on here.
It helps to look at how awful other vehicles show on some of these tests too for comparison.
Even the new Prius C is a little disappointing.

New EPA mileage figures

The most fuel-efficient cars

Best & worst fuel economy

How we test

http://www.consumersunion.org/Oct_CR_Fuel_Economy.pdf

..."We perform our own fuel-economy tests, independent of the 
government's often-quoted EPA figures and the manufacturers' claims. 
Using a precise fuel-flow measuring device spliced into the fuel line, 
we run three separate circuits. One is on a public highway at a steady 65 mph. That circuit is run in both directions to counteract any wind effect. A second is a stop-and-go simulated city-driving test done at our track. The third is a 150-mile "one-day trip" using several drivers taking turns around a 30-mile loop of public roads that include a highway section, secondary roads, and rural byways. CR's overall fuel-economy numbers are derived from those three fuel consumption tests.".....

..."We anonymously buy production models at retail. All
vehicles are preconditioned for about 2,000 miles. Tire pressures
are set to manufacturer specifications."....

..."All testing is done outdoors year-round, never during
precipitation, with all results adjusted to a standard temperature of
60° F. For gasoline-electric hybrids, we start our tests with the battery at the charge level you normally find—about half. A calibrated fuel-flow meter is used to measure gas consumption.

CITY MPG
Our tests. These tests are stop-and-go city-driving simulations
on our test track, which has a total of 18 stops and 4 minutes of
total idle time. Top speed is 40 mph. Two different testers each
drive three runs for a total of six 2-minute, 40-second trials on
every test vehicle. Total test time is approximately 16 minutes.

HIGHWAY MPG
Our tests.The highway tests are run on a specific section of
state Route 2 near our test facility in central Connecticut. Two
testers make eight 5-mile runs at a constant 65 mph. The tests are
run in both directions to limit the effects of wind and grade differences. Each run is timed and limited to 4 minutes, 38 seconds. Total test time is approximately 37 minutes.

We run a test that the government doesn’t require: a
one-day trip test, which reflects a mixed driving cycle. Five different engineers drive back-to-back on the same day over a 31-mile route that includes 26 percent (8.2 miles) freeway, 11 percent (3.6 miles) highway, and 63 percent (19.2 miles) stop-and-go driving conditions.

Trials within each type of test are averaged and corrected
for ambient temperature to produce our published city and
highway mpg ratings and our one-day trip rating. Our published
overall mpg estimate is calculated as an equally weighted harmonic
average of the city, highway, and one-day-trip results."....
------------------------
When looking through the list and some anomalies pop up where overall gas mileage is a mpg or so either way compared with a vehicle that might have the same city and highway mileage, or did better in one measurement over another, might look like a discrepancy. It is probably due to the 150 mile loop test that they recently discontinued doing. Sometimes I would notice what appeared to by a small discrepancy between the overall and the 150 mile test, when also looking at the city and highway numbers for a particular model. 
I think it is a mistake to do away with the 150 mile test loop. CR does not think the 150 mile loop brings any real statistical relevance to the overall mpg numbers, probably weighing it against the extra time and costs associated with doing the test. It might be cheaper and make everything cleaner with the numbers, but the real world is not perfect, and those little anomalies might reflect a more realistic performance number for some. I find having the separate 150 mile mpg number interesting and relevant.The 150 mile test loop weighting into the overall mileage is also relevant to me.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

zr1000a1 said:


> Cwerdna, You beat me to it. Yesterday I put together info to try to explain the city mpg testing among others and never got around to posting it. Might as well do it while I am on here.
> It helps to look at how awful other vehicles show on some of these tests too for comparison.
> Even the new Prius C is a little disappointing.
> 
> ...


Yep, and since you mention the Prius c's disappointing looking number, there's is not a single non-plugin vehicle on their list that even achieves the Prius c's city number on their test (37 mpg). 

There's also Best vehicles for city & highway mpg.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

Cwerdna,
I agree. I just expected the Prius c to get better highway and overall mileage, especially for it's size. Still a good hybrid. Not my cup of tea though. Not sure if any hybrid at this point is. Have spent a lot of time in an 07 Prius, and for the right price, maybe. But the premium they still want and get are still a little out of my range when looking at the odometer and potential future repair costs. And yes, I realize they have some with over a half million miles on them, and there are ways to get newer battery packs for 700-1300 bucks. It is all the other components that are still scary high in price.
The 07 Prius, of which I have spent the most amount of time in as a passenger and driver is nice, but out on the highway with crosswinds it is something of a sail boat. Handling is mediocre, steering atrocious, engine with cvt transmission is gutless passing anything over 40-50mph. Gas mileage does make up for a lot of that though! 
The 2010 with the 1.8 liter might feel a little punchier at higher speeds. Might have to take one of those for a test drive.


----------

