# Cya Cruze!!



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

VtTD said:


> After 15+ service visits for non-routine maintenance (car problems, mostly emissions) and about a month of total time in loaners over the past 4 years, the Cruze is gone! Traded it in. Now I'm talking with an attorney about options to go after GM for losses since they were excessive to say the least. Been a rough ride.
> 
> Thanks to anyone who has been able to help out from time to time over the years. Best of luck to everyone with their Cruze. I'll still lurk around from time to time so if anyone has any odd things that pop up, especially emissions issues, maybe I can help out from experience.
> 
> Thanks again!


Sorry to hear about your problems. It seems you would have qualified for a buyback under the Federal lemon law, but that is going to be off the table now you traded it in. Lawyers are going to want a retainer fee up front. It's going to be a difficult fight going up against GM, especially if they did continue to try to fix and offered loaners at no cost. I'm not sure it's worth the fight if you no longer have the car. I did similar with a 97 Dodge truck lemon back in 1999. I didn't have time for a legal fight and just needed a reliable vehicle.. ended up trading the lemon for a Chevy truck that worked extremely well for over 110k miles before I traded it to upgrade to a Diesel. Sometimes it's just bad luck. I have two gen 1 Cruze Diesels, one has had a few warranty items repaired, the other has had no big issues in its history. I recently got a 2018 Diesel and it's getting amazing MPG, and is fun to drive, and manual transmission. Hope you traded for something you'll enjoy that won't give you problems. 

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## neile300c (Jul 8, 2014)

what did you trade it for?
Also, when you bought the car, was there any kind of arbitration agreement signed?


----------



## Eddy Cruze (Jan 10, 2014)

As mentioned by others you might have jumped the gun if you were looking into a buyback or legal action. GM does not promise what you bought will work, although they do stand behind their Factory Warranty. I know my Arizona Dealer would not sell the car if an arbitration form wasn't signed.


----------



## Nescafe (Mar 16, 2015)

While the service folks can be hospitable, they're snakes just like the salesman. I've had too many bad experiences to make me want to go anywhere the parts counter at a dealership so I can't blame OP. At least his dealership provides a loaner, GM leaves warranty work loaner vehicles to dealer discretion. Also arbitration for service at every dealership is standard, "quality repairs" completed by not enough techs who don't have enough time, and don't want you watching what they're doing.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Eddy Cruze said:


> As mentioned by others you might have jumped the gun if you were looking into a buyback or legal action. GM does not promise what you bought will work, although they do stand behind their Factory Warranty. I know my Arizona Dealer would not sell the car if an arbitration form wasn't signed.


I would have walked away if the sale was contingent on an arbitration form. That's a sign of a shady dealership.


----------



## KpaxFAQ (Sep 1, 2013)

I'm seriously considering buying another one of these "troubled" cars for pennies on the dollar, spending 1k for the delete and having a fantastic vehicle....


----------



## Dieselfever (Feb 23, 2017)

KpaxFAQ said:


> I'm seriously considering buying another one of these "troubled" cars for pennies on the dollar, spending 1k for the delete and having a fantastic vehicle....


Yep, a trip to Oz makes the CTD trouble free for sure. We bought ours this past March with 11k miles. We just passed 30k miles trouble free all while getting 50-55 mpg everywhere we go. So, drop a house on that emissions witch with a tune from Oz!


----------



## VtTD (Nov 5, 2013)

Not sure about the arbitration. I need to pull paper work together. I'm just starting to figure out if legal makes sense. Haven't had to pay a legal fee yet. At the very least I am thinking small claims. I would love to come after them for the repetitive emissions issues many (not all) seem to experience, not just in my car but we'll see. It's really not so much about the money, rather GMs stubbornness to fix an issue that clearly exists. I did tell GM I wanted them to buyback the car, but because there was not a lot of repeat work done, they wouldn't budge. Apparently the entire car can fall apart and be fixed but if it's not the same part that keeps failing, they don't care. I was thinking about having a delete done. Absolutely nothing against people doing it, and this is not to start a debate, but it is not for me and I'll leave it at that.

Got a CX-3.


----------



## Eddy Cruze (Jan 10, 2014)

obermd said:


> I would have walked away if the sale was contingent on an arbitration form. That's a sign of a shady dealership.


Bradley Chevrolet & Ford, Lake Havasu AZ and apparently Parker too, absolute crooks. To be fair I was under the influence of Narcotics when I signed on the dotted line although this practice is more common than you think!
No Ripoff Clause


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

VtTD said:


> Not sure about the arbitration. I need to pull paper work together. I'm just starting to figure out if legal makes sense. Haven't had to pay a legal fee yet. At the very least I am thinking small claims. I would love to come after them for the repetitive emissions issues many (not all) seem to experience, not just in my car but we'll see. It's really not so much about the money, rather GMs stubbornness to fix an issue that clearly exists. I did tell GM I wanted them to buyback the car, but because there was not a lot of repeat work done, they wouldn't budge. Apparently the entire car can fall apart and be fixed but if it's not the same part that keeps failing, they don't care. I was thinking about having a delete done. Absolutely nothing against people doing it, and this is not to start a debate, but it is not for me and I'll leave it at that.
> 
> Got a CX-3.


I looked at the Mazdas, C-X3, and C-X5.. nice cars, actually Mazda is trying to get their Diesel in the CX-5, it's a bit late.. supposed to have been out already. I'm definitely interested in that CX-5 with a Diesel. 

As to GM experience with troublesome cars, aka"Lemons". Been there and done that. As you found out they want to keep fixing it forever.. but at some point it's just too late. I had a 2007 GMC Duramax truck that had oil leaks that they could not seem to fix.. after 7 tries I was done with that truck. GM did not offer to buy it back either, despite the lemon law being very clear that 4 attempts on same issue and they had to offer a buyback.. I found a lawyer who specializes in lemon law and who charged his fees to the manufacturer.. he contacted the GM lawyers and they THEN bought the truck back, and paid his fees.. it's as if it's a scam to pay lawyers! They could have done the buyback with less cost if they didn't force me to get a lawyer. I took that check and bought a new Dodge Cummins and still have that truck, I had money left over, as the Dodge was quite a bit cheaper, even after some deprecated value due to miles driven. 

In your case, it's not going to be easy to get anything from GM since you traded in the car, I never got anything from Chysler from the first Dodge that was a lemon, because I also had traded it in. I never thought I'd buy another Dodge after that.. but did. In 2009 the Ford Diesel Engine was bad, GM was super expensive and automatic only, so I had only the Dodge to choose from... Thankfully it's been a good truck, but there have been many with issues.. often because of driving patterns that do not work well with the emmisions systems. 

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## neile300c (Jul 8, 2014)

I like the Mazda's, I'm just shocked at how the CX-3 is smaller than the Mazda3 Hatch. Have fun, and good luck!


----------



## VtTD (Nov 5, 2013)

CX-5 with a diesel was originally what I was going to hold out for, but I'd want to give it a few years to see if it runs into any of the same emissions issues. That was too long for me. Maybe next time. I love diesel, just not the problems I had with it.

As for the size of the CX-3, I definitely agree. It's nuts that it's smaller than the Mazda3, but it's AWD and I really like the way it feels a little higher up and the way it looks. Mazda3 is more practical, I think, at least in most cases. The CX-3 is similar to a car I had a long time ago that I really liked.


----------



## blackbird (Nov 6, 2017)

I've been through the arbitration process in California with a Ford which resulted in a lemon buyback with a similar number of problems the dealer could never fix. It's human nature to get upset and want to sue the manufacturer, but you need to be realistic. Assuming you bought the car new, since you traded it in you essentially gave up any rights to force GM to buy it back or replace the car.

You could pay a lawyer a larger retainer or try to take GM to small claims, but to play devil's advocate they might state you were covered under the factory warranty and they attempted to repair the car every time. If it's primarily for different problems it hurts your case even more.

Definitely vent, be glad you moved on but don't let it constantly nag at you about the bad experience. About the only thing you can do it tell others of your experience and not give GM your money again. In my case on the Ford I had bought back, I really enjoyed the car (SVT Focus) and know sometimes problems happen when building a complex machine and I ended up buying another new one a couple years later that has been rock solid. Unfortunately problems can happen with nearly any car, from an inexpensive economy car to high-end luxury cars.


----------



## eddiefromcali (Aug 21, 2017)

should've hired a lemon law attorney. I hired one after my Highlander sat at the dealer for over a month. All it takes is 30+ days and it qualifies...theres other ways it could qualify as well (Repeated fix attempts). My issues started from day 1, so I only paid $55 in mileage usage and got all my money back minus any insurance payments I made, which is fair. I'd just walk away and enjoy your new vehicle.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

VtTD said:


> CX-5 with a diesel was originally what I was going to hold out for, but I'd want to give it a few years to see if it runs into any of the same emissions issues. That was too long for me. Maybe next time. I love diesel, just not the problems I had with it.
> 
> As for the size of the CX-3, I definitely agree. It's nuts that it's smaller than the Mazda3, but it's AWD and I really like the way it feels a little higher up and the way it looks. Mazda3 is more practical, I think, at least in most cases. The CX-3 is similar to a car I had a long time ago that I really liked.


I just noticed, you are in VT. Went to College there.. Cold winters.. did you mostly do short drives? Small state. The combination of short drives and cold weather is the most difficult for the emissions on these cars, any Diesel with emissions actually. 

The new 1.6L (LH7) engine is less reliant on EGR, due to it operating on a lower compression ration, 16:1 vs the 16.5:1 of the Gen 1 (LUZ), that may not seem like a big difference, but the high compression and heat for compression ignition make the formation of NOx possible, the lower that ratio, the less NOx right from the start. 

Mazda is looking to go even LOWER, 14:1, that approaches the ratio of a Gasoline engine.. This would be the Skyactive-D engine. I would expect it to have far less emissions system issues because it has that lower compression ratio from the start, and Mazda seems to be approaching the introduction slowly. Keep in mind, the new Mazda engine is not NEW, neither was the new LH7 engine for GM, the latter has been around in EU since 2013, and Mazda has had success with Skyactive-D in Japan already.. the challenge in the US is our emissions, and we have a very wide climate and altitude band and all vehicles have to work in all the extremes.. that is a challenge for the engineers, and inevitably outcomes vary even with the most careful engineering upfront. One might ask why not run a lower compression ratio if it helps emissions? Well cold start becomes the new challenge in the lower compression game, Mazda has a new idea about keeping the exhaust valves open slightly when cold to aid in that process, as well as a complex injection nozzle, that may be the challenge for the Mazda in a VT winter, I'd be looking to see how that bears out. 

GM 2.0 Liter I4 Diesel LUZ Engine Info, Power, Specs, Wiki | GM Authority

GM 1.6 Liter I-4 LH7 Diesel Engine Info, Specs, Wiki | GM Authority

MAZDA: SKYACTIV-D | SKYACTIV TECHNOLOGY


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

MRO1791 said:


> I just noticed, you are in VT. Went to College there.. Cold winters.. did you mostly do short drives? Small state. The combination of short drives and cold weather is the most difficult for the emissions on these cars, any Diesel with emissions actually.
> 
> The new 1.6L (LH7) engine is less reliant on EGR, due to it operating on a lower compression ration, 16:1 vs the 16.5:1 of the Gen 1 (LUZ), that may not seem like a big difference, but the high compression and heat for compression ignition make the formation of NOx possible, the lower that ratio, the less NOx right from the start.
> 
> ...


14:1 is a lot lower but still not close to a gas engine of 9:1 or 10:1. I think OP trading his car then think your going to sue the manufacturer is a complete waste of time and energy and resources. Gm can’t make it right in this situation or even attempt to. I fully understand the frustration but gimme a break. I drive almost all highway miles and my car has been great, one cel to replace the heater thing in the def tank. If my driving changes to short trips I will buy a gas car.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

IndyDiesel said:


> 14:1 is a lot lower but still not close to a gas engine of 9:1 or 10:1. I think trading your car then think your going to sue the manufacturer is a complete waste of time and energy and resources. Gm can’t make it right in this situation or even attempt to. I fully understand the frustration but gimme a break. I drive almost all highway miles and my car has been great, one cel to replace the heater thing in the def tank. If my driving changes to short trips I will buy a gas car.


Well, not all gas engines.. one already has 14:1 and one is coming out that actually is a compression GAS engine (Skyactive-X) granted most gas engines are well below this, but most Diesels are well above it.. which is the point.. my comment is about the trend. 

MAZDA: SKYACTIV-G | SKYACTIV TECHNOLOGY


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

MRO1791 said:


> Well, not all gas engines.. in fact one is coming out that actually is a compression GAS engine, with 14:1.. granted most gas engines are well below this, but most Diesels are well above it.. which is the point.
> 
> MAZDA: SKYACTIV-G | SKYACTIV TECHNOLOGY


Almost ALL gas engines are close to what I stated. Diesel has always been high compression.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

*[FONT=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]Typically a Diesel is between 15:1 and 23:1 compression ratio.. so going to 14:1 is a significant reduction, approaching the ratio of a Gas engine, while gas engines are typically been 9:1 to 10:1, they have been increasing, and thus my point is that the difference is closing.. that was it.. I'm not saying they are the same, rather that they are approaching.. that is it. For example, my Cummins is 17.3:1 compression ratio, well above both Gen 1 and Gen 2 Cruze Diesels. [/FONT]*


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

Then there is this concept Gas engine, that is a compression ignition.. Mazda has one as well, the pressure for higher MPG is driving this kind of innovation. To get better efficiency, GAS engine compression is trending UP, Diesel is trending DOWN, for efficiency, and emissions compliance. 
https://www.caranddriver.com/featur...l-gas-engine-runs-without-spark-plugs-feature
https://www.wired.com/story/mazda-injection-compression-skyactivx-engine/
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...ency-breakthrough-diesel-engine-runs-gasoline


----------



## VtTD (Nov 5, 2013)

MRO1791 said:


> I just noticed, you are in VT. Went to College there.. Cold winters.. did you mostly do short drives? Small state. The combination of short drives and cold weather is the most difficult for the emissions on these cars, any Diesel with emissions actually.


UVM? 

The driving is mixed. Not as much highway as I would in the more rural parts of the state, but still some. Day to day about 11 miles each way to work, about half interstate. But there are plenty of times I'm on the highway for much longer periods of times. At least once a week.

Interesting trends on compression, btw.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

IndyDiesel said:


> 14:1 is a lot lower but still not close to a gas engine of 9:1 or 10:1. I think OP trading his car then think your going to sue the manufacturer is a complete waste of time and energy and resources. Gm can’t make it right in this situation or even attempt to. I fully understand the frustration but gimme a break. I drive almost all highway miles and my car has been great, one cel to replace the heater thing in the def tank. If my driving changes to short trips I will buy a gas car.


DI gas engines are well into the 12-14 range now (N/A motors). The 2.0/2.5 Skyactives are at the high end of that range. 

Skyactiv-X, a compression-ignition gasoline engine (in some scenarios, anyway) will bump that CR to 15-16:1!


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

VtTD said:


> UVM?
> 
> The driving is mixed. Not as much highway as I would in the more rural parts of the state, but still some. Day to day about 11 miles each way to work, about half interstate. But there are plenty of times I'm on the highway for much longer periods of times. At least once a week.
> 
> Interesting trends on compression, btw.


Norwich University. 

Your driving profile is similar to mine, but the climate is quite different, it rarely is below freezing here. Mine barely has enough time for a proper Regen. I monitor it via Snipesy's Biscan app. When it's up for regen, I'll try to let it finish, sometimes driving about 10 more minutes. Or, when I know it's close, like tonight, I'll command the Regen to start ASAP so it will complete. Yes, this is extra care that it should not need, but it's likely part of why it's not been a problem for me. It would be even worse for my truck, it takes longer to start a Regen, and longer to complete. It also would never get to operating temperature on my commute, so I rarely use it that way, it's mostly long drives with trailer, or when I actually need a truck. So far it's had minimal issues, but also had less than 50k miles.. 

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

Oh, typically a regen takes a minimum of about 20 minutes, sometimes closer to 30 minutes. Over 30 minutes for my Truck. An 11 mile drive with half interstate won't permit a full regen, meaning it would shut down mid regen with 1200 degree DPF.. sit there.. and start over next drive and perhaps still not complete, since it takes time to get warm enough to start. GM ought to be more upfront about how this system works, in your drive profile a has car, plug in hybrid, Volt, or even the bolt makes more sense. There was a disclaimer on emmisions when I bought the truck that warned about short drives and long idle periods as cause for problems.. of course if they made such a warning for the Cruze, they would scare off already scarce customers to buy this car. I like them, but I'm well aware of the limitations of the emmisions system.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## chevrasaki (May 1, 2015)

VtTD said:


> UVM?
> 
> The driving is mixed. Not as much highway as I would in the more rural parts of the state, but still some. Day to day about 11 miles each way to work, about half interstate. But there are plenty of times I'm on the highway for much longer periods of times. At least once a week.
> 
> Interesting trends on compression, btw.


You're going to love your Mazda. I love mine.


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

jblackburn said:


> DI gas engines are well into the 12-14 range now (N/A motors). The 2.0/2.5 Skyactives are at the high end of that range.
> 
> Skyactiv-X, a compression-ignition gasoline engine (in some scenarios, anyway) will bump that CR to 15-16:1!


Ok, I don’t follow every manufacture, the lion share of engines being manufactured and driven are still in the 9-11 range. 14 for a gas engine represents a very small percentage of engines being manufactured today. Still I didn’t realize Mazda was in that range, my bad.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

IndyDiesel said:


> Ok, I don’t follow every manufacture, the lion share of engines being manufactured and driven are still in the 9-11 range. 14 for a gas engine represents a very small percentage of engines being manufactured today. Still I didn’t realize Mazda was in that range, my bad.


Yeah, it's creeping up as engine families are retired or redesigned. Turbo DI engines are typically in the 10-ish range (new Cruze motor is 10:1). Most of the newer N/A's are on the higher side. GMs 2.5 (a bit older tech) is 11.3; 3.6 LGX is 11.5:1. Honda's DI K24 was 11:1. Toyota's new 2.5 is 12.5. Ford's N/A engines (what are left) are in the 11-12 range.

It seems like mfrs are riding a finer line these days between what will run on 87 octane and what will get the best MPG at the leanest AFR possible. Some of the higher compression ratios are actually less in practice because some engines leave an intake valve open for a bit to emulate Atkinson cycle.


----------



## chevrasaki (May 1, 2015)

jblackburn said:


> Yeah, it's creeping up as engine families are retired or redesigned. Turbo DI engines are typically in the 10-ish range (new Cruze motor is 10:1). Most of the newer N/A's are on the higher side. GMs 2.5 (a bit older tech) is 11.3; 3.6 LGX is 11.5:1. Honda's DI K24 was 11:1. Toyota's new 2.5 is 12.5. Ford's N/A engines (what are left) are in the 11-12 range.
> 
> It seems like mfrs are riding a finer line these days between what will run on 87 octane and what will get the best MPG at the leanest AFR possible. Some of the higher compression ratios are actually less in practice because some engines leave an intake valve open for a bit to emulate Atkinson cycle.


If GM desires to sell cars with a lean burn, they should go back to selling the origianl Saturn SL's. They were easily getting over 40MPG in the early 90s.

No turbo, no direct injection, no VVT.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

chevrasaki said:


> If GM desires to sell cars with a lean burn, they should go back to selling the origianl Saturn SL's. They were easily getting over 40MPG in the early 90s.
> 
> No turbo, no direct injection, no VVT.


Emissions requirements (specifically NOx) were very different in the 90's, and the 1.9L engine couldn't be brought up to those standards in later years. Honda's HX Civic engines used to get some ridiculous fuel economy as well, as did the 2.0L in my '88 Accord (never dipped below 33 MPG in the time I owned it).

Cars also weigh quite a bit more than they used to and have grown in size quite a bit. The new Civic is much bigger than that Accord was.


----------



## chevrasaki (May 1, 2015)

jblackburn said:


> Emissions requirements (specifically NOx) were very different in the 90's, and the 1.9L engine couldn't be brought up to those standards in later years. Honda's HX Civic engines used to get some ridiculous fuel economy as well, as did the 2.0L in my '88 Accord (never dipped below 33 MPG in the time I owned it).
> 
> Cars also weigh quite a bit more than they used to and have grown in size quite a bit. The new Civic is much bigger than that Accord was.


You can still find light cars. Kia Soul & Rio, Mini Cooper, Toyota Corolla, 86, & iA, Mazda MX-5, Honda CR-Z & Fit, Ford Fiesta, Prius C, Hyundai Accent, Alfa Romeo 4C, Nissan Versa, Fiat 500, Toyota Yaris, Chevy Spark, Smart cars, Mitsubishi Mirage.....

They're all under 2,800 lbs. (The Mirage is under 2,000 lbs) Those are the cars you want. Weight ruins everything.

Edit: But you're absolutely correct about emissions restrictions.


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

chevrasaki said:


> If GM desires to sell cars with a lean burn, they should go back to selling the origianl Saturn SL's. They were easily getting over 40MPG in the early 90s.
> 
> No turbo, no direct injection, no VVT.


I had a 98 Saturn SL, the car was efficient and a good car, but yikes the ride sucked and the drivers seat gave me massive back aches, go back to really cheap stuff and no one would buy the car. Just my thoughts. Sometimes you get what you pay for.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> Kia Soul & Rio, Mini Cooper, Toyota Corolla, 86, & iA, Mazda MX-5, Honda CR-Z & Fit, Ford Fiesta, Prius C, Hyundai Accent, Alfa Romeo 4C, Nissan Versa, Fiat 500, Toyota Yaris, Chevy Spark, Smart cars, Mitsubishi Mirage.....
> 
> They're all under 2,800 lbs. (The Mirage is under 2,000 lbs) Those are the cars you want. Weight ruins everything.


I might drive 2 out of that list...the rest, no thanks. Most are stripped down, tiny, unrefined, and underpowered.

I hate big land yachts like the Chrysler 300 and Impala, but I'm pretty happy with a balance of safety, comfort, and good ride quality and features. 

My friend's Mazda 3 has so much interior noise on the highway that you practically have to talk in raised voices to hear each other from a foot away. Potholes and road imperfections become tiring after 10 minutes in the passengers seat. Mazda has recently gone to great efforts to limit cabin NVH and improve ride quality and interiors, and it has paid off setting the brand apart from the rest of the Japanese cars in my book.


----------



## chevrasaki (May 1, 2015)

jblackburn said:


> I might drive 2 out of that list...the rest, no thanks. Most are stripped down, tiny, unrefined, and underpowered.
> 
> I hate big land yachts like the Chrysler 300 and Impala, but I'm pretty happy with a balance of safety, comfort, and good ride quality and features.
> 
> My friend's Mazda 3 has so much interior noise on the highway that you practically have to talk in raised voices to hear each other from a foot away. Potholes and road imperfections become tiring after 10 minutes in the passengers seat. Mazda has recently gone to great efforts to limit cabin NVH and improve ride quality and interiors, and it has paid off setting the brand apart from the rest of the Japanese cars in my book.


I admit it's not a very impressive list, but my point is, everyone says cars are getting heavier. But the reality is, people just want larger and heavier cars. I think a couple vehicles from that list are decent. The Soul, Fiesta, Yaris, Corolla, 86, and MX-5 are all decent depending on what you're looking for in a car. If you want something cheap and efficient, there's plenty to choose from.


----------



## VtTD (Nov 5, 2013)

jblackburn said:


> My friend's Mazda 3 has so much interior noise on the highway that you practically have to talk in raised voices to hear each other from a foot away. Potholes and road imperfections become tiring after 10 minutes in the passengers seat. Mazda has recently gone to great efforts to limit cabin NVH and improve ride quality and interiors, and it has paid off setting the brand apart from the rest of the Japanese cars in my book.


Dead on. I can't speak much about the 3, but my CX-3 has a lot of road noise. It's a few years old though so maybe the newer models are better. It will take some getting used to, compared to the quiet ride from the inside of the CTD. I have a mid-range, touring model, so the interior is a little stepped up and I love it. The base models can still be kind of boring inside, I think. The overall interior of the 2014 CTD I had was more intuitive than the CX-3. I like the style of the CX-3 interior better though. Definitely trade offs between the two cars. Some odd things are not standard on the CX-3 either that were in the 2014 CTD. Like auto headlights and automatic drivers seat controls. I would expect those standard in a mid-level model.. especially considering some other higher end features (bose, moonroof, leather(ish) seats) but maybe it's not as common as I think in other cars.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

chevrasaki said:


> You can still find light cars. Kia Soul & Rio, Mini Cooper, Toyota Corolla, 86, & iA, Mazda MX-5, Honda CR-Z & Fit, Ford Fiesta, Prius C, Hyundai Accent, Alfa Romeo 4C, Nissan Versa, Fiat 500, Toyota Yaris, Chevy Spark, Smart cars, Mitsubishi Mirage.....
> 
> They're all under 2,800 lbs. (The Mirage is under 2,000 lbs) Those are the cars you want. Weight ruins everything.
> 
> Edit: But you're absolutely correct about emissions restrictions.


Weight doesn't ruin everything.. because... Physics. the lighter the car, the bigger the G-forces in a crash, and the more severe the injuries. You can put all the airbags in the world in it, and it won't change that fact. The weight increase is trending up, an it is not all based upon size, the crash standards are much more demanding today than they were even a decade ago, and people look for cars with safety ratings based upon how well they do in a crash, and you will not get good performance there without strength, door beams, structural improvements... all of which add weight.. that and now expected power windows, sun roofs, etc.. all adds weight. The mirage has about the lowest of low ratings in many areas.. All that said, my 1996 Saturn SL weighs in about 2300lbs... a car of similar size today WILL be more than that, even some smaller are about the same, Mirage included. That adds some perspective.. the SL gets about 40MPG hwy, and averages about 34, using a little oil at 200K miles.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

Found this on the Mirage: 15 New Cars To Avoid | Forbes 
And this for "Smart" car: 15 New Cars To Avoid | Forbes


----------

