# Cruze VS Cobalt



## Cruzer (Oct 18, 2010)

So you knew this thread was going to happen - Which one would you pick: Cruze or the Cobalt and why?

Cruze for me, just because I never really like the looks of the Cobalt and was never comfortable driving it. Not sure if it was the seats or the way I fit into the car but it was not my favorite.


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

like i said in another post, i die a little inside when anyone even remotely compares the two cars. its night and day...


----------



## CruzeChick (Nov 13, 2010)

Cruze for sure! Cobalts were not nearly as stylish! Bought a cruze this week


----------



## racer114 (Nov 7, 2010)

I agree with shawn. There is no comparison here. The Cruze is in a completely different league. The Cobalt is a decent econobox, but cheaply built. The Cruze is a world class small car that realistically competes with the Japanese and Korean competition.


----------



## lre107 (Nov 4, 2010)

I prefer the Cruze, it is light years better than the Cobalt. But has been the trend with almost every GM car lately, it is about 200 to 300 pounds to heavy.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...how does that old saying go: _"...*out* with the OLD, *in* with the NEW..."?_

_..._because the *Cruze* is the GM _replacement_ for the *Cobalt*.


----------



## AF_mike (Oct 6, 2010)

shawn672 said:


> like i said in another post, i die a little inside when anyone even remotely compares the two cars. its night and day...


I feel for ya. 

May the Cruze live on longer than the Cobalt did!


----------



## gunner22 (Nov 20, 2010)

The Cruze and Cobalt were my two final choices when shopping for a new car. It came down to safety and design. The Cruze's safety features are second to none. It's hard to find a Cobalt with even ABS.

In the end it came down to if I buy a Cruze would I feel I should have gotten a Cobalt: No. Would I have doubts about my choice of a Cobalt over a Cruze: Yes.

After the 100 mile drive home. I know I made the right choice.


----------



## cruze-control (Jul 23, 2010)

its no contest. cruze wins by a mile. so many automotive journalist keeps saying that the cruze is what the cobalt shouldve been but never was. other than the cobalt being available in 2 door form theres no other thing that it beats the cruze in.


----------



## buck95 (Jan 19, 2013)

I just traded my Cobalt LS XFE 5 speed for a Cruze LS 6 speed. Miss the 155 hp 150 ft lds 2.2 vs the Cruze 138 hp 125 ft ld 1.8. The Cobalt would take any hill in 5th and pull away when giving gas. I have to constantly shift the Cruze, no torque lot less power. Reminds me of my old Vibe or loaded 18 weeler. Both me and my Buddy that bought my Cobalt on a in/out at the dealer drove together (me in back) 120 miles back home. He averaged 37.5 mpg, me 34.5. In a Auto the Cruze may not be as bad. Comparing the manual two, the Cobalt has it way over the Cruze in power, torque, and mileage. Wish they had kept the 2.2 in these. Wouldnt recommend buying a standard Cruze, just not enough torque.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

buck95 said:


> I just traded my Cobalt LS XFE 5 speed for a Cruze LS 6 speed. Miss the 155 hp 150 ft lds 2.2 vs the Cruze 138 hp 125 ft ld 1.8. The Cobalt would take any hill in 5th and pull away when giving gas. I have to constantly shift the Cruze, no torque lot less power. Reminds me of my old Vibe or loaded 18 weeler. Both me and my Buddy that bought my Cobalt on a in/out at the dealer drove together (me in back) 120 miles back home. He averaged 37.5 mpg, me 34.5. In a Auto the Cruze may not be as bad. Comparing the manual two, the Cobalt has it way over the Cruze in power, torque, and mileage. Wish they had kept the 2.2 in these. Wouldnt recommend buying a standard Cruze, just not enough torque.


The 1.4T would have been the better engine for you to get, it's even better than the 2.2ecotec for usable power output. It may only have 138HP, but the torque of 148lb-ft starting at 1850rpm(2500RPM for the manual) through about 5,000RPM, that's much much better than the 2.2ecotec with torque peak of 150 around 4,000RPM. 

I had a 2.2ecotec 4speed auto cavalier, it required downshifting to maintain speed on hills to get into the engines torque(all other 4 cylinders are the same in this respect). With the low RPM torque of the 1.4T, there is no reason to ever rev past 2,500-3,000RPM. It doesn't even feel like a 4 cylinder. 

The Cruze is much better than the cobalt or cavalier for that matter, is this even a real question?


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Anyone considering an LS cruze with the 1.8L should just save the $1,500 to upgrade to the 1LT with the 1.4T engine & many more available options.


----------



## mikep88 (Nov 12, 2012)

Having owned a Cobalt SS/SC, and now a Cruze eco, my opinion of the two...

Power- well.... lol although the 1.4 does do really well for what it is
Looks- out, in, overall... Cruze
Handling- Cobalt, but like the power, not an apples to apples comparo
Safety- never smashed either so gotta go with the rankings, Cruze
Comfort- Really loved the Recarros in the Cobalt so...
MPG- hands down Cruze
Reliability- at this point slight edge to Cobalt, as I had zero issues with mine
Functions (controls, ergo, layout, etc...)- def the Cruze, except for the steering wheel controls, just dont like the little toggle switch control for up/down/push for source for the radio

So overall, if I had a my SS brand new and my Cruze brand new, sitting in front of me right now and could choose only one, I'd take the Cobalt, now if Chevy had offered the lsj/lnf or their replacement in a Cruze, that would be parked in my garage right NOW.


----------



## jsusanka (Jan 31, 2011)

spacedout said:


> The 1.4T would have been the better engine for you to get, it's even better than the 2.2ecotec for usable power output. It may only have 138HP, but the torque of 148lb-ft starting at 1850rpm(2500RPM for the manual) through about 5,000RPM, that's much much better than the 2.2ecotec with torque peak of 150 around 4,000RPM.
> 
> I had a 2.2ecotec 4speed auto cavalier, it required downshifting to maintain speed on hills to get into the engines torque(all other 4 cylinders are the same in this respect). With the low RPM torque of the 1.4T, there is no reason to ever rev past 2,500-3,000RPM. It doesn't even feel like a 4 cylinder.
> 
> The Cruze is much better than the cobalt or cavalier for that matter, is this even a real question?



Totally agree the hp/torque numbers don't do the cruze justice. I always like the way it has gotten up to speed and I can manually shift the thing anyway. The cruze has a better manual shift than our mazda 3s. 

I just want to say our mazda 3 gets terrible gas mileage close to mustang range. In fact I bet the mustang v6 gets better gas mileage. The cruze gas mileage just seems to be going up the more the engine gets broken in. My computer says I am getting 30.1 in about 75 % citty driving and calculating mileage at the gas pump I am getting about 29.6 so those numbers are pretty close. That is better than my old civic and yet the car would blow away my old civic away in a race. So if the car stops using anti-freeze I will be completely 100% satisfied even though the panel alignment still needs a lot of work. I am going in Tuesday to get the last door aligned with the rest of the body panels. The hood and trunks still aren't aligned but I am leaving those alone it isn't that noticeable (at least not as much as the doors IMO). The body panel issue isn't just my car I have looked on numerous lots at new cruzes and it is a broad issue.


----------



## MjC (Dec 23, 2012)

aside from cobalt having the option of a coupe, cruze wins!


----------



## Greasemonkey2012 (Jul 8, 2012)

I wish the Cruze would of gotten the 2.0l turbo would of been sweet car but their going for fuel economy  


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com App


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

The only thing I miss about my Cobalt SS/TC is the LNF 2.0 engine. 

If GM brings in this engine with the Cruze redesign soon, I'm all in.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

MjC said:


> aside from cobalt having the option of a coupe, cruze wins!


At least the cruze 4door has a nice body lines, the 4 door cobalt has a strange bulging look to the rear seat area to gain some headroom. Also strange not only did GM mess up the body lines of the 4 door, they changed the tail lights from the nice round ones on the coupe to some generic taillights. 

Seems having two different tail lights would cost more money to produce than one, but what do I know.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

mcg75 said:


> The only thing I miss about my Cobalt SS/TC is the LNF 2.0 engine.
> 
> If GM brings in this engine with the Cruze redesign soon, I'm all in.


You guys keep talking about torque and low rpm, I have the diesel and it has more of both. Nearly doubles the 1.4T for torque and has similar fuel consumption. Even with your diesel being more expensive it is still good value "bang for buck".


----------



## Greasemonkey2012 (Jul 8, 2012)

Aussie said:


> You guys keep talking about torque and low rpm, I have the diesel and it has more of both. Nearly doubles the 1.4T for torque and has similar fuel consumption. Even with your diesel being more expensive it is still good value "bang for buck".


U would got a diesel if they were out in Canada when I got my car  


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com App


----------



## jdubb11 (Mar 14, 2012)

only thing i miss about my cobalt is the heat it produced at all winter temps


----------



## Patman (May 7, 2011)

buck95 said:


> I just traded my Cobalt LS XFE 5 speed for a Cruze LS 6 speed. Miss the 155 hp 150 ft lds 2.2 vs the Cruze 138 hp 125 ft ld 1.8. The Cobalt would take any hill in 5th and pull away when giving gas. I have to constantly shift the Cruze, no torque lot less power. Reminds me of my old Vibe or loaded 18 weeler. Both me and my Buddy that bought my Cobalt on a in/out at the dealer drove together (me in back) 120 miles back home. He averaged 37.5 mpg, me 34.5. In a Auto the Cruze may not be as bad. Comparing the manual two, the Cobalt has it way over the Cruze in power, torque, and mileage. Wish they had kept the 2.2 in these. Wouldn't recommend buying a standard Cruze, just not enough torque.



Most if this can be resolved with a tune. I had the same feeling, I went from my 2.2 Aleros with 5 speeds and then my wife's 2.2 Chevy Classic to a 2011 Cruze LS 6 speed. Remember also, the Cruze has higher gearing to get better MPG. After the tune you will miss little of the Cobalt power and find it with the added room and MPG of the Cruze.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

We get the same heat from our 2012 2LT compared to the much larger 2.2L Ecotec engine by just driving six blocks further.

Consider that a small price to pay for a 20-30% increase in fuel economy. 

You certainly can't miss that extremely uncomfortable seat in the Cobalt.


----------



## buck95 (Jan 19, 2013)

buck95 said:


> I just traded my Cobalt LS XFE 5 speed for a Cruze LS 6 speed. Miss the 155 hp 150 ft lds 2.2 vs the Cruze 138 hp 125 ft ld 1.8. The Cobalt would take any hill in 5th and pull away when giving gas. I have to constantly shift the Cruze, no torque lot less power. Reminds me of my old Vibe or loaded 18 weeler. Both me and my Buddy that bought my Cobalt on a in/out at the dealer drove together (me in back) 120 miles back home. He averaged 37.5 mpg, me 34.5. In a Auto the Cruze may not be as bad. Comparing the manual two, the Cobalt has it way over the Cruze in power, torque, and mileage. Wish they had kept the 2.2 in these. Wouldnt recommend buying a standard Cruze, just not enough torque.


After several hundred miles, my Cruse in now running a lot better then the first hundred when I left this message. Could the Computer have limited the power for the first hundred miles or so? There is a world of difference almost on par with the old Cobalt now that I have some miles on it. Feel a lot better about my Cruze performance now that its getting breakin in.


----------

