# Chevy Cruze 1.4L turbo reliability stands at -143% by Consumer Reports...



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Most unreliable source from information, I would pick what ever they liked the least.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

CR is supposingly a non-profit organization, but as such does receive donations. Maybe GM and Ford should donate a couple of bucks.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Lmao @ Dodge Dart. They're practically falling apart around their owners.

Funny, they gave the Cruze 1.8 a bad score last year, now it's better? 

CR is a joke.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Cr is definitely a joke. 


Sent from the sexy electrician


----------



## Diesel Dan (May 18, 2013)

2yrs 26K miles and all we had go bad was the complementary water pump replacement.


----------



## 2013LT (Jul 3, 2013)

Besides recalls my car has been absolutely solid for 26k miles


----------



## N8zdad (Mar 23, 2014)

My son is not logging huge miles on his 1.4 Cruze, but his has been flawless besides the axle recall. I put it in the "**** fine vehicle" category (especially for the price and low operating costs). 

At this point I feel the need to reevaluate my opinion of CR....They are in fact *NOT* worthy of lining the bottom of my 4 bird cages. They are a worthless rag of the highest order.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

Why do people keep quoting CR? All you are doing is spreading their propaganda. Just ignore it and especially don't buy it as you are boosting the circulation.


----------



## kfr291 (Aug 11, 2012)

i think one issue is when people have no issues they do not report it, but as soon as one little thing brakes " omg company X is horrible this car is the worse"

most people on this site have a great expeirence with thier cruze ( my self included )


----------



## 30 Ounce (Nov 18, 2012)

We have 70k on our 2012 ECO and the only thing we had to fix is the valve cover/PVC under warranty just a few weeks ago. I think CR has a vendetta or something...


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

CR is worthless. Complete and utter BS.


----------



## jsusanka (Jan 31, 2011)

All I got to say is that I would buy a cruze again. I would go for an LTII or LTZ or I would at least get an RS LT1. 

We had a 1996 civic and it was our best car. I would say the cruze is equal to that as far as stuff going wrong plus it has a lot more options on it. So I would buy the cruze again. 

I know a lot of people who bought recommended cars in CR and they have had more things go wrong with them than my cruze. 

I am one of them because I bought a 1998 toyota corolla and it was in the shop all the time and the dealer would always fight us on repairs. When the rack started leaking it was gone at 60,000 miles.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

My personal experience is that CR gets a -200% reliability rating. Every car my wife and I have purchased based on CR has been a lemon. Every car I have ignored CR's reporting has been extremely reliable.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

2013LT said:


> Besides recalls my car has been absolutely solid for 26k miles



I pointed this out in another thread recently, but relevant here too. My car has not been in for service besides oil changes and a couple recalls done at the same time in 2.5 years and 55,000miles(88,500 kilometers).

I'm sure there are others who have even longer period or more mileage than me with out repairs... from my experience mechanically none of my GM cars need anything other than general maintenance over a 100,000 mile period.


----------



## Chevy Fan (Jul 12, 2014)

If you go back several years and you look at where CR rated the 2002 Tahoe, you would see it was near the bottom. I bought, and still own my 2002 Tahoe and it is still running great and I have just over 200,000 miles on it. We bought our Cruze in March, and we absolutely love this car. We have had no issues with it and we are averaging over 32 mpg. My brother bought a Mazda and its been in the shop several times already. CR is the last place I would go to determine what type of vehicle I buy.


----------



## Eddy Cruze (Jan 10, 2014)

At times like this I wonder what our own resident statistician "True Delta" thinks? I just concluded my first 700 mile trip in the CRUZE and it performed flawlessly. In this Country most people swear by CR so who knows? Ask me what I think about Hampton Inn which in fact they just did by email and I need to see my 100% Satisfaction Guarantee for the first night before I can say. I do however give San Diego a -143% if that means anything:angry:


----------



## mikestony (Jan 17, 2013)

Honest question here, but why is CR bologna? Is it just the rating for the Cruze, or the magazine overall?
I don't read it, but always thought it was a trustworthy source?
Seems like the overall opinion here is that CR is _not_ trustworthy?


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

mikestony said:


> Honest question here, but why is CR bologna? Is it just the rating for the Cruze, or the magazine overall?
> I don't read it, but always thought it was a trustworthy source?
> Seems like the overall opinion here is that CR is _not_ trustworthy?


How is your car to you right now? Good? Cool, do you want to do a survey on it? Nope I'm fine, why bother. 

Let's try this again...

How's your car to you right now?
Frigging Horrible! Want to do a survey on it? 
Yes! I want to tell the world about this here car!


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

mikestony said:


> Honest question here, but why is CR bologna? Is it just the rating for the Cruze, or the magazine overall?
> I don't read it, but always thought it was a trustworthy source?
> Seems like the overall opinion here is that CR is _not_ trustworthy?


CR depends too much on reporting of it's paid members for car evaluations. This is a very small subset of the American population so any car results they have are skewed. Yes, they do attempt to purchase cars but simply don't have the money for many real reviews each year. This tends to translate into the reviewers strong anti-American car biases come through in their reviews. For smaller purchases they can purchase significant numbers of items to test themselves, which eliminates most of the reviewer bias because they have a lot more data points.

JD Powers is paid for by the industries they rate, but this also translates into being able to send out and receive millions of surveys, giving them a much better sample to report from.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Merc6 said:


> How is your car to you right now? Good? Cool, do you want to do a survey on it? Nope I'm fine, why bother.
> 
> Let's try this again...
> 
> ...


Would love to tell CR about our Toyota. Into the shop next week the 4th time for transmission issues. Toyota has replaced so many torque converters on these cars that they've run out and have to order them from Japan (the transmissions are built in America). 

Im sure they'd just ignore it though. Because Lexus/Toyota can't do anything wrong by them. 

I really think they just ride out on what manufacturers reputations used to be years ago.


----------



## jsusanka (Jan 31, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> Would love to tell CR about our Toyota. Into the shop next week the 4th time for transmission issues. Toyota has replaced so many torque converters on these cars that they've run out and have to order them from Japan (the transmissions are built in America).
> 
> Im sure they'd just ignore it though. Because Lexus/Toyota can't do anything wrong by them.
> 
> I really think they just ride out on what manufacturers reputations used to be years ago.



You know I honestly think part of it is they really think there is nothing wrong with their cars and it is all just you thinking there is something wrong. It was sort like telling bush there was something wrong with the economy before 2006. When I took my corolla in it was like they had their fingers in their ears and saying "we are not listening" "we are not listening" "our cars are perfect there is nothing wrong with them it is your imagination".


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

jsusanka said:


> You know I honestly think part of it is they really think there is nothing wrong with their cars and it is all just you thinking there is something wrong. It was sort like telling bush there was something wrong with the economy before 2006. When I took my corolla in it was like they had their fingers in their ears and saying "we are not listening" "we are not listening" "our cars are perfect there is nothing wrong with them it is your imagination".


The service department has actually been great; would give them an A+ for their effort. Peoples major complaint on this forum seems to be service departments turning little issues into a big hassle and I would completely agree - the minor issues with my Cruze have been a pain to have addressed.


----------



## neile300c (Jul 8, 2014)

jblackburn said:


> Funny, they gave the Cruze 1.8 a bad score last year, now it's better?


That's what I was thinking!


----------



## waltchan (Jul 23, 2014)

Good news, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Cruze 1.8L moves up to average reliability next year when it reaches the final year of the first generation design (then, I'll buy one). The Chevy Equinox and GMC Terrain are already at the top of reliability as they are old-design now. Not just Cruze alone, but cars with turbocharged engines from all makes have proved to be more troublesome than naturally-aspirated, so I'll stick with non-turbo.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

waltchan said:


> The Chevy Equinox and GMC Terrain are already at the top of reliability as they are old-design now.


Your logic is a bit flawed as the engine and transmission in both of those cars was around before even the 2010 models came out(first year of current Equinox/Terrain). Transmission came out in 2008, Engine 2006. Both had been proven well before the first year, let alone 6 years later. 

Besides the 2.4L engine should have already been replaced in both of those cars & the Buick Verano with the newer 2.5L ecotec. Better MPG, more power and quieter.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

If every nut, bolt, and every thread in the carpet was defective in this vehicle, it would only be 100% defective.

How did they come up with a -143%?


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

I was wondering that myself. 


Sent from the sexy electrician


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Can read some extremely negative reviews on practically any product on the web. Some I know for a fact are not in line with my experience. So wonder exactly is posting these very negative reviews. My guess is the competition.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Any brand of vehicle nowadays is basically the same in quality. Just buy whatever you like and you should be pretty good for at least 5 years. That's what I tell people now when they can't decide between 2 or 3 vehicles. 


Sent from the sexy electrician


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

NickD said:


> If every nut, bolt, and every thread in the carpet was defective in this vehicle, it would only be 100% defective.
> 
> How did they come up with a -143%?


Are they calculating depreciation of value as well?


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Merc6 said:


> Are they calculating depreciation of value as well?


Could be an idiot doing the calculations, or a former grade school basketball coach demanding 143% from his players.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

waltchan said:


> Good news, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Cruze 1.8L moves up to average reliability next year when it reaches the final year of the first generation design (then, I'll buy one). The Chevy Equinox and GMC Terrain are already at the top of reliability as they are old-design now. Not just Cruze alone, but cars with turbocharged engines from all makes have proved to be more troublesome than naturally-aspirated, so I'll stick with non-turbo.


Not necessarily. The 1.8 (LS) simply isn't as drivable. You're shortchanging yourself if this is the only reason you want the LS vs the LT, ECO or LTZ.


----------



## Vetterin (Mar 27, 2011)

Look at the bright side............they rated the exhaust system for ALL years on both the 1.8 and 1.4 much better than average. I guess no one reported having their exhaust fall off their car on the highway. :uhh:


----------



## Diesel Dan (May 18, 2013)

Vetterin said:


> Look at the bright side............they rated the exhaust system for ALL years on both the 1.8 and 1.4 much better than average. I guess no one reported having their exhaust fall off their car on the highway. :uhh:


Funny!
Still have the original exhaust on my 2000 pickup with 140K+ and 2002 grand am with 170K.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

My dads 1997 Silverado still had the original exhaust when we junked it 2 years ago. 360k km


Sent from the sexy electrician


----------



## MCH86GN (Oct 23, 2014)

Where the **** does CR get their information? BTW, did they ever rank the 2002 Ford Explorer. It was by far the worst vehicle made in the new millennium. By 2007 I had racked up about $7k in repairs on the vehicle and I still wasn't finished paying it off. I will never, ever buy a Ford again. Simply because Ford put out an inferior product and would not take responsibility for it. Even though it is still driving ok, I can't sale it or even give it away. Nobody wants the headache of owning it.


----------



## Slammed2014Eco (Feb 13, 2014)

Google Image Result for http://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/pontiac/aztek/2005/oem/2005_pontiac_aztek_4dr-suv_base_fq_oem_1_500.jpg

What about this bad boy?


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

MCH86GN said:


> Where the **** does CR get their information? BTW, did they ever rank the 2002 Ford Explorer. It was by far the worst vehicle made in the new millennium. By 2007 I had racked up about $7k in repairs on the vehicle and I still wasn't finished paying it off. I will never, ever buy a Ford again. Simply because Ford put out an inferior product and would not take responsibility for it. Even though it is still driving ok, I can't sale it or even give it away. Nobody wants the headache of owning it.


2005 and 2006 Subaru Legacy/Liberty GT are same boat. There are screens inside bolts that catch debris the filter doesn't catch and if you didn't take half the engine apart at 60k you started the turbo failure leading to engine failure loop. You also had a cat before the turbo so when the cat fails it takes the turbo. The stock tune leans out cylinder 4 and burns the valves. There's more but $7k is an understatement.


----------



## hawkeye (Mar 31, 2012)

I just have a few comments to some of the posts. The Equinox engine was a new direct injection 2.4 liter for 2010. It was troublesome- valve problems in its first year. Also the 143% is the amount worse than the average vehicle,which I believe was due to the water pump leaks.Consumer reports puts more weight on problems with the engine, trans, and cooling system, so the Cruze may not have had more numbers of problems ,but got hurt by the type-cooling system. The 1.8 was about 30% worse than average. I've always done better than what CR says.


----------



## dhpnet (Mar 2, 2014)

I've seen cars that I would give a -143% reliability rating, but I wouldn't put the Cruze in that category. If my Cruze was that unreliable I would get rid of it immediately. So far it's been a great car. Exactly what I expected. It seems like there is some bias in their report. I give Consumer Reports a -200% reliability rating.


----------



## jalaner (Dec 28, 2013)

The Cruze has 143% more problems than the average car, same model year. So if the average is 10 problems per 100 cars -143% would be 24.3. I haven't seen the detailed report but it could be minor electrical problems such as My Link. Last year Fords control system problems reduced their ratings although the cars didn't have major mechanical problems. This rating does not surprise me since my CTD was in the shop for 34 days with emissions problems and this forum indicates the Cruze has several problem areas.


----------



## Robbyjarm (May 28, 2014)

I'm a 2012 Lt 1.4t owner at 55K with NO repairs or faults to date. I drive like an a** wot all the time. I cant get this car to break if i try. Just proper fluid exchanges and you're golden


----------



## jalaner (Dec 28, 2013)

Just checked the Cruze reliability details on CR online. The 11s and 12s had much higher than average engine cooling problems. The 13s and 14s had much higher than average drive system (think drive axle recall) problems. Not enough CTDs built to rate. Both areas are common complaints on the forum. CR is usually accurate. Even the least reliable new cars are more reliable than the most reliable cars from the 1990s so everyone should calm down.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> Even the least reliable new cars are more reliable than the most reliable cars from the 1990s so everyone should calm down.


Pfft, my 1990's-early 2000's cars were some of the best I ever had.

Since then, foreign quality has gone down and "domestic" quality has gone up...

Unless you go by Consumer Reports.


----------



## Slammed2014Eco (Feb 13, 2014)

Merc6 said:


> 2005 and 2006 Subaru Legacy/Liberty GT are same boat. There are screens inside bolts that catch debris the filter doesn't catch and if you didn't take half the engine apart at 60k you started the turbo failure leading to engine failure loop. You also had a cat before the turbo so when the cat fails it takes the turbo. The stock tune leans out cylinder 4 and burns the valves. There's more but $7k is an understatement.


Not to mention they're a pain in the ass to work on.. Just changing the injectors in the 05 STi was a horrible experience.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

Slammed2014Eco said:


> Not to mention they're a pain in the ass to work on.. Just changing the injectors in the 05 STi was a horrible experience.


The spark plugs in the Legacy bay required the battery and under hood fuse box to come out for the drivers side. Passenger side you could get away with just removing the air box. Reason I laugh when someone says these plugs are difficult to do outside of safely handling the coil pack boots.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Merc6 said:


> The spark plugs in the Legacy bay required the battery and under hood fuse box to come out for the drivers side. Passenger side you could get away with just removing the air box. Reason I laugh when someone says these plugs are difficult to do outside of safely handling the coil pack boots.


V8 Triton. Ugh.


----------



## jalaner (Dec 28, 2013)

Automobile reliability, safety, efficiency, and maintenance frequency have steadily improved since the car was invented. My CTD does not have Japanese reliability like my Pontiac Vibe (accurately predicted by CR). But the improved ride, comfort, safety etc (accurately described by CR) makes it worth the dealer repair trips. It is more comfortable than my 1998 Deville which burned at least a quart of oil every 1,000 miles from new, eventually losing oil pressure ,from internal seal failure, and dying. I just kept a case of Penzoil in the trunk. The CTD also is twice as efficient. The downside is increased complexity making owners repairs difficult.


----------



## iggy (Feb 14, 2013)

Whatever!


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

CR use to complain about finding one loose screw in a door panel. Ha, can't do that with the Cruze, doesn't have any screws.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

jalaner said:


> Automobile reliability, safety, efficiency, and maintenance frequency have steadily improved since the car was invented. My CTD does not have Japanese reliability like my Pontiac Vibe (accurately predicted by CR). But the improved ride, comfort, safety etc (accurately described by CR) makes it worth the dealer repair trips. It is more comfortable than my 1998 Deville which burned at least a quart of oil every 1,000 miles from new, eventually losing oil pressure ,from internal seal failure, and dying. I just kept a case of Penzoil in the trunk. The CTD also is twice as efficient. The downside is increased complexity making owners repairs difficult.


My ctd has "Japanese reliability" because I've had zero issues so far. It has 9k miles on it as well. 


Sent from the sexy electrician


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

money_man said:


> My ctd has "Japanese reliability" because I've had zero issues so far. It has 9k miles on it as well.
> 
> 
> Sent from the sexy electrician


I would hope it's been good for 9k. Get back to us in a couple years.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Haha. It is kind of a low mileage. 


Sent from the sexy electrician


----------



## iggy (Feb 14, 2013)

Mine had a PCV valve go at about 65K miles. Which means they replaced the valve cover because it's built right into that. While it was in the shop, the mechanic ( who happens to be a friend of mine ) noticed the water pump was weeping and replaced that too.

So maybe by modern car standards having to do any repair in the first 70,000 miles is worthy of being 143% bellow average reliability?

Heck, when I started driving cars, you were lucky if you could get 50,000 miles out of any car... But then I did have a 1976 Dodge Dart ( red white and blue color scheme and all ) that went 250,000k without hardly a oil change.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

iggy said:


> Heck, when I started driving cars, you were lucky if you could get 50,000 miles out of any car... But then I did have a 1976 Dodge Dart ( red white and blue color scheme and all ) that went 250,000k without hardly a oil change.


Good old Slant 6 in it?


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

I'm hoping to go the whole time I have my ctd with no problems, I'm willing to accept wheel bearings and O2 sensors though


Sent from the sexy electrician


----------



## hawkeye (Mar 31, 2012)

A former poster was calculating the average number of problems that the Cruze may have had to be 143% below average,but that wouldn't be how CR does it. The problems with the cooling system are weighted more. It might count as 2 or 3 problems-CR just doesn't mention how much more they weigh it. The engine and transmission problems are also given more weight. The infotainment problems on other vehicles, for example, don't carry as much weight.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Wonder how many failures 2014's have had. They seem to new to be having failures. 


Sent from the sexy electrician


----------



## iggy (Feb 14, 2013)

Yes, a slant 6... I got the car in 1980 , from one of my Dad's co-workers. I think it had about 110,000 miles on it when I got it. I eventually put at least 140,000 of my own miles on it, and when I owned it, I bet I never change the oil more then 4 times, just added when low mostly. Those things just ran, and ran, and ran... I drove the thing off the end of a road while.. intoxicated, bent the heck out of the front suspension, if not for that I'd probably driven it for another 100,000 miles. 

What might be not well know... you could fit a six pack in the front vent boxes, they had a door big enough to put cans in. They would sort of roll out like a vending machine. Great for keeping beverages cold in the winter 



jblackburn said:


> Good old Slant 6 in it?


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

I assume those dodges had the same problem as 60's dodges and didn't like to start in the rain?


Sent from the sexy electrician


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

CR could pick on the entire automotive industry for extensive use of throwaway parts. This list is getting very long. Even the entire unibody is a throwaway part.

Could rebuild a starter or generator for less than 50 cents, blower motors are throwaway, make a fuel pump like new again for a buck, now 250 bucks for this piece of plastic. Could make a carburetor like new again for three bucks, injectors are another throwaway part. With a V-8 at 60 bucks each, that's 500 bucks.

All of the vehicle's electronics, around 5000 bucks worth is all throwaway. Breaking bolts is quite common, back in the old days, was far more common to break your wrench. Also have to be super careful, with one slip can break a 60 buck plastic sensor or a way over priced piece of plastic injector hose.

When I see any new vehicle, the word throwaway comes to mind. And its not snap together, snap apart. Its snap together, break apart. 

Shocks use to be rebuildable. In terms of the automotive rebuilding business a key for the most common form of recycling, over the last 30 years, over 30,000 were put out of business. Recycling today consist of using a melting pot.


----------



## Colt45 (Jan 4, 2014)

CR has zero credibility. They have been on the take with 'foreign" automakers for years. I have owned both their 'best' and thier 'worst' and have had the opposite experience that they portrayed. I believe the picked the Ford Focus years ago as their best car, and that could very well have been up there with Lada and Skoda in the quality department.

Bottom line....if you get a good car, no matter what the make, it will be a good car. If you get a bad one, you get a bad one.

I guess it depends on the calibration of the robot or the breakfast the five year old machinist ate that morning over in China.


----------



## hawkeye (Mar 31, 2012)

I just looked at the 2015 buying guide issue and the 11 and 12 were much worse than average for the cooling. The areas that hit the 14 was the drive system(driveshaft or axle,cv joint,traction stab cntrl,and other parts that awd vehicles have). The suspension and audio system were the other two trouble spots. It seems the axle recall May be the reason for the rating. I didn't think they counted recalls against the ratings in the past.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

hawkeye said:


> I just looked at the 2015 buying guide issue and the 11 and 12 were much worse than average for the cooling. The areas that hit the 14 was the drive system(driveshaft or axle,cv joint,traction stab cntrl,and other parts that awd vehicles have). The suspension and audio system were the other two trouble spots. It seems the axle recall May be the reason for the rating. I didn't think they counted recalls against the ratings in the past.


Only if they're Japanese


----------



## iggy (Feb 14, 2013)

I've owned Chrysler products all my life, never had any issues with cars starting in the rain. For the most part, all of the Chrysler products I ever owned were rock solid cars. My first car was a 1966 Plymouth Fury II , that my grand mother gave me... Party on wheels... big block 318CID motor, loved freaking car. I owned two Darts, a Omni GLH Turbo, a Town & Country, and still own a 1997 Dodge Dakota, since having that first Plymouth. 

At one point I tried to take the big block 318 out of the Fury and put it in a Twister, I darn near got it to fit, but my cobbled up exhaust hit on the steering box and I gave up...

This wasn't my Fury( but it looked quite similar ) ... but the day I had to do this to my Fury,( sometime in 1981, after driving it for 3 years ) was a very sad day. Mine went to the junk yard with it's big block in the trunk...


----------



## drillbit (Aug 14, 2013)

I have 2013, 1.4 LT with 30,000 miles and not one thing wrong except the "thrusting" at idle. I commute 100 miles a day 5 days a week and never a problem. I live in Pittsburgh with hilly terrain and horrible winters. I question CR's results.


----------

