# Had your engine shield recalled? Has your car become unstable?



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

*Did your car become unstable at highway speeds following the engine shield recall?*

*READ THIS BEFORE VOTING IN THE POLL
*
There have been several reports of the car "wandering" while driving at highway speeds as a result of the modification of this engine shield. This can also be described as a "floaty" feeling of the front end of the car. Essentially, a lack of stability and confidence. 

This issue is of very high importance, as aerodynamic changes can negatively affect a car's handling and stability at high speeds, and can potentially cause one to lose control of their car at 75-85mph should a large gust of headwind hit the front of their cars. 

To clarify, I'm looking for people who drive their cars on the highway at speeds at or above 65mph. If you had this recall done but have not yet driven at highway speeds, please do not respond as you will only skew the results and your response will be invalid. Please vote in this poll and share your experience in this thread. Provide any details you believe may be necessary, including what speeds you notice this behavior, the presence of any headwind, and any other side effects this recall has had on your car. Your input is valuable. 

Here are some of the reports we've received so far. If you're among the quoted users below, please still participate in this thread.



CapitalTruck said:


> Let me tell you, I noticed a major difference between handling before/after recall. I got a replacement shield from a dealer for 60 bucks and put it back on. Doesn't wander on the highway and windnoise is gone.





CapitalTruck said:


> My sister took her Cruze in to get butchered. It handled noticeably worse with the shield removed. Also, there was an increase in wind noise. It seemed as though the car was wandering at highway speeds (say 75 or so). I got a replacement shield (looked just like the one I took off) and put it back on. Wandering gone, noise down..





spacedout said:


> Maybe I'm not crazy, but I also thought I noticed the car starting to wander around when driving 75+mph. Never did this before the shield mod. Not bad but there is a change.





spacedout said:


> The front end definitely feels less planted at high speed, I suspect that's because of all the added air pressure entering the now gaping hole under the front.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Off angle head winds will be the worst. Many times a frontal cross wind will cause a car to wander and feel unsteady. Haven't had my splash shield modified yet as I haven't needed an oil change since the recall came out. The Lancer I traded for my ECO MT was absolutely awful in off angle head winds. I had to deal with them in my ECO and other than the constant push sideways there was no wobbling. Speeds were 75-85 mph on I-76 in eastern Colorado.

I have NOT had the shield mutilated yet and since I park on a hill I will see if I can get the steering electrical wrapped but no shield cutting. The last oil change resulted in oil dripping off my splash shield and onto my driveway, so I know my car will drain the shield when parked at my house.


----------



## ECOmaniac (Mar 14, 2012)

I've had terrible problems with this...just drove ~3400 miles to and from MI from UT, high speeds 70-85 the whole way, quite a few times where the car would shutter/shake and pull hard back and forth. Happened quite a bit when driving through NE during a storm, had a pretty good headwind. Turbulence around semis when passing is significantly worse to the point where it is actually dangerous. I didn't think much of it for a while but that long road trip made me realize something wasn't quite right. Definitely different since the shield mod.


----------



## hawkeye (Mar 31, 2012)

I've done several interstate trips since the modification, and there is absolutely no difference.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

obermd said:


> Off angle head winds will be the worst. Many times a frontal cross wind will cause a car to wander and feel unsteady.


That is EXACTLY what I noticed. I hit a big curve in interstate where the road changes direction & once the wind was a head wind blowing slightly drivers side to passenger side the car started to get pulled around. I know the car did not feel like this before as the car I traded for the cruse was a horrible highway wanderer(2004 cavalier). I plan on taking a little trip on the interstate in the next few days to make sure this was not just a fluke or super strong gust I had yet to experience in this car. It was bad enough my girlfriend commented on the car getting blown around. Both of us agree it was no where near as bad as the cavalier, but definitely not what we have come to expect from the cruze. 

According to the map below more than half the US has a speed limit of 70MPH or higher. Everyone knows that the majority of drivers are going 5+mph over the posted limit, so this change could effect allot of people. Map of maximum posted speed limits on rural interstates


----------



## DMac1988 (Oct 3, 2011)

Iv noticed that on bends on a highway my car likes to slide a little. Never did it before. N its only when im driving againest the wind. I also noticed my Fuel eco has dropped. Costing me waayyy more gas then normal. I went from 7-11L/100km n now always sits 13-19L/100km i cant hear wind noise since i dont like using AC. I dont like this shield removed at all. In storms lately that we had, when i lift my hood underneath is soaked to ****!! Never was b4 i got CAI on n i no its going to be an issue later down the road. The body will rust alot more faster then Normal.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

ECOmaniac said:


> I've had terrible problems with this...just drove ~3400 miles to and from MI from UT, high speeds 70-85 the whole way, quite a few times where the car would shutter/shake and pull hard back and forth. Happened quite a bit when driving through NE during a storm, had a pretty good headwind. Turbulence around semis when passing is significantly worse to the point where it is actually dangerous. I didn't think much of it for a while but that long road trip made me realize something wasn't quite right. Definitely different since the shield mod.


Thanks for the feedback. Please don't forget to vote in the poll.


----------



## Rockerxink820 (Aug 8, 2011)

Come to think of it i have...the car seems to drift alot more now at 65+ 

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## CruzeTech (Mar 23, 2012)

The dealer ordered parts to butcher my car. I guess they have a kit to do each car. It's some tape and clamps to keep stuff out of the way after they do the mod. They keep calling me to come in and get it done. I won't return their calls. 


Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

2012 Cruze LS. 10,xxx miles Have not experienced this problem yet. I dont drive highway too often however my last trip i made it up between 85 and 90mph and did not experience anything of the sort. Im thinking this is going to be a problem that is noticeable in the eco model mostly. Much like the mpg difference. May be wrong though. 

It might also be helpful to know mileage, and model. of vehicles that are having this problem. If not the modification, this may be a sign of early wear for some suspension parts. Or even bad tire wear with certain tires. 

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

CruzeTech said:


> The dealer ordered parts to butcher my car. I guess they have a kit to do each car. It's some tape and clamps to keep stuff out of the way after they do the mod. They keep calling me to come in and get it done. I won't return their calls.


Do you have a manual trans? If so what your dealer may have is the tape and restraint kit needed to tape and secure the power steering electrical lines. This part of the recall doesn't impact automatics.


----------



## coinneach (Apr 10, 2012)

I drove at highway speeds in a few thunderstorm outflow fronts after the hack job and didn't notice any difference in handling. And believe me, after getting caught in one in a Piper Warrior some years ago, I KNOW how it feels.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

silverls said:


> I dont drive highway too often however my last trip i made it up between 85 and 90mph and did not experience anything of the sort.
> 
> It might also be helpful to know mileage, and model. of vehicles that are having this problem. If not the modification, this may be a sign of early wear for some suspension parts. Or even bad tire wear with certain tires.


Well that could be the reason you don't notice the difference, you don't drive much highway. I drive like 75% highway so I would assume any change at those speeds I would notice well before you would. 

Good idea on checking car mileage as that could also have an effect. My car only has 8,000 miles, felt great for all those miles until I had the shield modified last week. 

I want to reiterate this is not an extreme change in the cars handling but when I can now feel wind gusts blowing the car & have to compensate with the steering wheel(slightly) then there is a change in my car. Honestly comparing the way it is now to other cars it still feels ok, just not the same as the car I paid for.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

I like the poll idea, but I'm wondering if you should differentiate between ECO and non-ECO models? Don't they have different under-car areo panels? If so, it seems to me that it might make a difference.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Jim Frye said:


> I like the poll idea, but I'm wondering if you should differentiate between ECO and non-ECO models? Don't they have different under-car areo panels? If so, it seems to me that it might make a difference.


I think it would be helpful, but is a bit out of the scope of this thread. The intention of this was to gather some hard evidence to present to GM to force them to acknowledge that there is an issue. I'm currently in the process of working with Tom Read (who is working with customer assistance) to get some exposure to this. If I'm unsuccessful in getting anything done or getting in contact with someone else at GM in the next week or two, I'll advise that people start filing NHTSA complaints left and right. One way or another, GM will listen. I'd prefer that they listen when I forward them your concerns and complaints, but we can do it the hard way and cause a media explosion like the last recall did if we have to.


----------



## Starks8 (Jul 20, 2011)

I can only imagine that with as heavy (over 3000lbs) as this car is, that "wandering" or being pushed around by the wind wasn't a common occurrence when on the highway even if during a windy or stormy day, so now that this car is seeing this "wandering" problem after the shield modification even on such a heavy and well planted car, the culprit has to be this shield hacking.


----------



## Tallboy (Jul 5, 2011)

Cruze Eco automatic here. Had the "recall" done. I drive up and down I-75 daily at 75-85 MPH, and have noticed zero diference in the way the car rides/handles.


----------



## Beachernaut (Mar 27, 2012)

I didn't notice any difference coming home from the dealer after the recall was done. 65 miles with the cruise set at 80mph. I did however get 44mpg on that trip. That's the only highway trip I've done since having the recall done.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

****. This. I'm not getting it done now. I was only 85% sure I'd refuse. Now... 100%.


----------



## GoldenCruze (Dec 18, 2011)

I just returned from a road trip. We went through a storm system that had 40mph gusts that did buffet my 2LT around a wee bit even through the engine shield is intact.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

GoldenCruze said:


> I just returned from a road trip. We went through a storm system that had 40mph gusts that did buffet my 2LT around a wee bit even through the engine shield is intact.


Well that's to be expected. These aren't tanks, lol.

Sent from my Bulletproof_Doubleshot using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## cruze01 (Mar 25, 2011)

I haven't noticed any wondering but I have noticed about 2mpg less on my average since the mod. I think it created more drag on the motor.


----------



## rustinn (Jun 7, 2012)

Can you get those covered installed back on by the dealer? And what is the cost of their butchering?


----------



## coinneach (Apr 10, 2012)

Dealers cannot charge for recall work, but they'll never undo the work once it's done since they're required to make the adjustments by law.


----------



## amalmer71 (Apr 5, 2012)

This is a good thread and causes great concern, but since very few states have a speed limit over 65 mph I wouldn't be surprised if the concern will be swept under the rug. I dealt with an issue in my '95 Blazer that occurred at ~70mph. They failed to address it since that's over the 65 mph speed limit in IL, where I reside, ignoring the fact I often drive to KY and MI where the speed limit is 70mph.

I'd also like to point out, to those of you who either have refused to have the recall procedure done, or plan on denying the procedure, if I'm not mistaken you will release (or have released) GM of all liability if the car catches on fire from the problem addressed in the recall. 

You may want to pay attention which way the wind is blowing before you spit.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

amalmer71 said:


> This is a good thread and causes great concern, but since very few states have a speed limit over 65 mph I wouldn't be surprised if the concern will be swept under the rug. I dealt with an issue in my '95 Blazer that occurred at ~70mph. They failed to address it since that's over the 65 mph speed limit in IL, where I reside, ignoring the fact I often drive to KY and MI where the speed limit is 70mph.
> 
> I'd also like to point out, to those of you who either have refused to have the recall procedure done, or plan on denying the procedure, if I'm not mistaken you will release (or have released) GM of all liability if the car catches on fire from the problem addressed in the recall.
> 
> You may want to pay attention which way the wind is blowing before you spit.


Adam,

Most of the states on my at least annual drives from Chicago to LA have 70 and 75mph zones. Texas has speed limits of up to 85mph. 

As for the recall, they can only be released of liability if the shield itself causes the fire as described in the recall, which states the issue arises from sloppy oil changes. Given I and many here do our own oil changes, this isn't an area of great concern.

I may order the revised shield when it becomes available.

Sent from my Bulletproof_Doubleshot using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

amalmer71 said:


> This is a good thread and causes great concern, but since very few states have a speed limit over 65 mph I wouldn't be surprised if the concern will be swept under the rug. I dealt with an issue in my '95 Blazer that occurred at ~70mph. They failed to address it since that's over the 65 mph speed limit in IL, where I reside, ignoring the fact I often drive to KY and MI where the speed limit is 70mph.


Here's the list of states with speed limits of 70 or higher. In addition, Ohio and Kentucky have laws in place that allow specific sections of road to be increased to 70 after the state's DOT reviews the road. The full chart is at Speed limit laws.


State
Rural interstates
Urban interstates
Other limited-access
Other roads
(mph)
(mph)
roads (mph)
(mph)
Alabama
70
65
65
65
Arizona
75
65
65
65
trucks: 65
Arkansas
70;
55
601
55
trucks: 65
California
70;
65
70
65
trucks: 55
trucks: 55
trucks: 55
trucks: 55
Colorado
75
65
65
65
Florida
70
65
70
65
Georgia
70
65
65
65
Idaho
75;
75
65
65
trucks: 65
Indiana
70;
55
60
55
trucks: 65
Iowa
70
55
70
55
Kansas
75
75
75
65
Louisiana
75
70
70
65
Maine
75
65
65
60
Michigan
70 (trucks 60); <70 (trucks 55)
65
70
55
Minnesota
70
65
65
55
Mississippi
70
70
70
65
Missouri
70
60
70
65
Montana
75; trucks: 65
65
day: 70; night: 65
day: 70; night: 65
Nebraska
75
65
65
60
Nevada
75
65
70
70
New Mexico
75
75
65
55
North Carolina
70
70
70
55
North Dakota
75
75
70
65
Oklahoma
75
70
70
70
South Carolina
70
70
60
55
South Dakota
75
75
70
70
Tennessee
70
70
70
65
Texas
75; 80 or 85 on specified segment of road
75
75
75
Utah
75; 80 on specified segments of road
65
75
65
Virginia
70
70
65
55
Washington
70; trucks: 60
60
60
60
West Virginia
70
55
65
55
Wyoming
75
60
65
65


----------



## amalmer71 (Apr 5, 2012)

Read, people. Read.

I said "Where I reside". I didn't say there weren't states that didn't have speed zones higher than 65 mph, did I? No.

I also said "if the car catches on fire from the problem addressed in the recall." IF, people. IF.

This happens nearly every time I try to help by giving people information. Someone tries to correct me on something I didn't even say. I'm just giving information based on my own experience and my own fore warnings based on my past experiences. This information is not up for debate since it is/was all true experience.

This site is becoming less and less attractive the more I visit it.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

amalmer71 said:


> Read, people. Read.
> 
> I said "Where I reside". I didn't say there weren't states that didn't have speed zones higher than 65 mph, did I? No.


Simmer down, he was just trying to post helpful info & in no way said anything negative against you or what you said. I also know your not full of BS, as the dealer once told a friend of mine they could not duplicate a noise he heard as it started at 70mph & that was above the posted limit. ended up being a wheel bearing. 

I had already posted the speed limit map on the first page(less detailed than the info above), but much easier to look at. There is only 16 states including Alaska & Hawaii that have 65mph speed limits or lower. Every other state is 70mph or higher. Map of maximum posted speed limits on rural interstates


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

amalmer71 said:


> ... but since very few states have a speed limit over 65 mph ...



See the quote above - you did say "very few states". Actually when you look at the map at Map of maximum posted speed limits on rural interstates you'll see that over 3/4 of the lower 48 has speed limits of 70 or higher and over half has speed limits of 75 or higher. I remember the double nickle as well as the fight in Congress over removing the federal speed limit. What finally got the Senate on the ball was a Senator from Delaware having to actually drive between Lincoln, Nebraska and Cheyenne. Wyoming. At 55 or even 65 this drive is simply dangerous - most people will get drousy on this drive from the sheer boredom.

Illinois is one of the 14 remaining states with speed limits of 65 or lower, so yes, high speed handling doesn't matter to you. It does matter to those of us who live where the speed limit is 75 or higher.


----------



## Beaker (Mar 21, 2012)

Haven't noticed anything. Drove to Charlotte and back at 75 mph with no issues.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Just looked over the poll. 5 people say their car is now more unstable, 12 people say it isn't, and 4 people haven't been paying attention. 

Of those who have been paying attention, that's an uncomfortably high percentage. 

On the 6th of August, I contacted Tom Read about this issue. Unfortunately, he deals primarily with Powertrain, so the issue is out of his area of responsibility and expertise. However, he did get contact the Manager of GM Social Media and worked with him to address these issues. These concerns have now been communicated to GM's Brand Quality division. Stacy told me she would share feedback from that team as soon as they receive it.

While she has stated in the past that her division is not in the position to present technical information, I suppose I'll take what I can get at this point and see where this leads us.


----------



## Kinmartin0789 (Feb 18, 2011)

i usually drive 70 or higher on the highway when i can that is lol. My car is the exact same as the day before they cut the sheild. would i like a new sheild? yes, but there have been no differences in fuel economy or driveablilty for me.


----------



## silverfox (Jan 5, 2012)

I have noticed a drop in economy and i think it will only be noticed by those who drive the same daily and pay close attention to their driving habits and watch their mileage.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

silverfox said:


> I have noticed a drop in economy and i think it will only be noticed by those who drive the same daily and pay close attention to their driving habits and watch their mileage.


I will need more data but think I may have lost some MPG too, currently I think its under 1mpg change so not a big enough change to really worry about. Can pick that back up when I get some new tires that can handle more PSI or just by changing my driving style a bit.


----------



## rbtec (Feb 3, 2012)

silverfox said:


> I have noticed a drop in economy and i think it will only be noticed by those who drive the same daily and pay close attention to their driving habits and watch their mileage.


I drive the same daily, and have noticed no difference in fuel economy or handling (75 % highway). I went and looked at my Fuelly numbers before and after the recall, and it supports my stance.


Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Getting mine chopped today. I have a run to Ft Morgan next Wednesday so I'll know then.


----------



## Beachernaut (Mar 27, 2012)

I did a 60 mile highway trip last night. Cruise set at 80 and with wind gusts. The car didn't react any differently to the gusts than expected. If it's different than it was before the recall was done, it's minor.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

The official message from GM Brand Quality is:



> We (General Motors) tested vehicles with the shield modification and compared these vehicle to those that did not have the modification. Vehicles with these modifications met or exceeded all of our design and safety standards. Vehicle handling characteristics were not appreciably changed and would not be perceptible to a customer under normal driving conditions.


Of those who have responded to this poll, 6 people (28.5% of those paying attention) have noted compromised stability. 

I'd like to strongly advise that those 6 people file NHTSA complaints, as GM is not taking these concerns seriously enough to investigate the issue further. 

You can file an NHTSA complaint by going to the following link:

https://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/VehicleComplaint/index.xhtml

The process is fairly quick, simple, and self-explanatory. If enough people file complaints, regardless of the severity of the symptoms noted, GM will be required to respond to these concerns. Please don't hesitate to file a complaint. The more complaints they receive, the more likely NHTSA is to begin an investigation.

Perhaps enough of these complaints may force GM to design a proper redesigned shield and make it available to everyone free of charge, instead of this ridiculous hack job they've been having dealers perform on our cars.


----------



## GM_6T40_Trans_Engineer (Feb 26, 2011)

How do you measure something that is subjective like a gust of wind that hit your car and how it felt?


----------



## fastdriver (Jan 7, 2011)

GM_6T40_Trans_Engineer said:


> How do you measure something that is subjective like a gust of wind that hit your car and how it felt?


Uh..maybe if it does it on a REGULAR basis especially on days with NO wind?:question:


----------



## GM_6T40_Trans_Engineer (Feb 26, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I think it would be helpful, but is a bit out of the scope of this thread. The intention of this was to gather some hard evidence to present to GM to force them to acknowledge that there is an issue. I'm currently in the process of working with Tom Read (who is working with customer assistance) to get some exposure to this. If I'm unsuccessful in getting anything done or getting in contact with someone else at GM in the next week or two, I'll advise that people start filing NHTSA complaints left and right. One way or another, GM will listen. I'd prefer that they listen when I forward them your concerns and complaints, but we can do it the hard way and cause a media explosion like the last recall did if we have to.


For history sake.


----------



## GM_6T40_Trans_Engineer (Feb 26, 2011)

fastdriver said:


> Uh..maybe if it does it on a REGULAR basis especially on days with NO wind?:question:


Please, continue. I want to see how the story/complaint evolves. It's already begun.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

GM_6T40_Trans_Engineer said:


> How do you measure something that is subjective like a gust of wind that hit your car and how it felt?



Your very right, there really is no way to measure the change. Poll kinda seems pointless when you point that out. Went on 225mile drive today, unfortunately my max speed was limited to 60mph max on the roads I was on. At the speeds I was driving there was no change in sound, handling or MPG(averaged 42.5mpg, DIC 46.5mpg).


----------



## GM_6T40_Trans_Engineer (Feb 26, 2011)

GoldenCruze said:


> I just returned from a road trip. We went through a storm system that had 40mph gusts that did buffet my 2LT around a wee bit even through the engine shield is intact.


Better add that to the poll: Adverse handling with the engine shield.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

GM_6T40_Trans_Engineer said:


> Better add that to the poll: Adverse handling with the engine shield.



If your user name is correct & you are the trans engineer, just wondering are you the one I need to yell at about this shitty ass automatic trans in the cruze? If you truly are one of these trans engineers I would hope you had better things to do(like redesigning the transmission) than posting useless crap on the forum. 

I just love how the trans does a neutral drop randomly when taking off from a stop sign. Basing your IQ on your comments I would suspect that was your bright idea.


----------



## GM_6T40_Trans_Engineer (Feb 26, 2011)

spacedout said:


> If your user name is correct & you are the trans engineer, just wondering are you the one I need to yell at about this shitty ass automatic trans in the cruze? If you truly are one of these trans engineers I would hope you had better things to do(like redesigning the transmission) than posting useless crap on the forum.
> 
> I just love how the trans does a neutral drop randomly when taking off from a stop sign. Basing your IQ on your comments I would suspect that was your bright idea.


The OP is all about being scientific, let's not leave anything out. Oh, wait, then it skews the desired end result.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

GM_6T40_Trans_Engineer said:


> How do you measure something that is subjective like a gust of wind that hit your car and how it felt?


How? You don't. You just notice the car suddenly feels different now that gm hacked up your car. I missed the part where WE should be doing the hard testing and research to prove it. May I remind you, we're not the ones who broke it.

Does it matter if we can't prove it? Nope. Want to know why? Because once NHTSA gets 50 complaints in (and that's just a random number), they'll mount an investigation for us. It's that simple. 

Did GM design a faulty shield to begin with? According to them, no, but sloppy oil changes forced them to take the measurs they did. Are most people buying it (believing that the oil changes solely cause the fires)? From what I've seen, no. 

Does this recall affect handling? Some say it does, some say it doesn't. Does it matter? No. What matters is people will file NHTSA complaints and if the NHTSA publishes the news and media catches wind of them, GM will be in the spotlight again and might just be forced to come up with a better solution than "let's hack it up with a sawzall." I've said this before, I understand why they did it, but I don't think it was the right thing to do, and if it's causing problems, those problems need to be reported. I support GM and would buy another GM product without thinking twice, but this whole recall has me shaking my head. 

At the end of the day, if NHTSA says "JUMP!," GM says "how high?" We don't have the power to do that on our own, but if we can present a case to NHTSA that says there is an issue and they confirm the issue, then something can be done about this. 

Sent from my Bulletproof_Doubleshot using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

GM_6T40_Trans_Engineer said:


> The OP is all about being scientific, let's not leave anything out. Oh, wait, then it skews the desired end result.



Right because someones sarcastic response would make the poll more scientific. One with common sense would see that you would just vote for one of the two options that indicate you experienced no issue.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

GM_6T40_Trans_Engineer said:


> The OP is all about being scientific, let's not leave anything out. Oh, wait, then it skews the desired end result.


You seem to love picking fights. Just stating the obvious. You're also sarcastic, but rudely, not amusingly. Perhaps you should stop trolling threads and just state your intent. 

All about scientific? Since when? Quote me. I'm all about being fed up with GM and this ridiculous, poor excuse for a "fix" hack job. Want to talk business? Show me aero simulations before and after the shield modification. Then, we can get "scientific." This thread isn't scientific. It's more political than anything, but if that's what it takes to get GM to listen, so be it. 

I wish it didn't have to come down to that, but I don't see any other choice. 

Sent from my Bulletproof_Doubleshot using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## hawkeye (Mar 31, 2012)

I know my recall was performed by doing the same "hack job" as everyone else, but when I look under the car, it looks as if it were designed that way. My local dealer in Owatonna, MN made clean cuts that look like they came from the factory. How many other people had a dealer that took there time to do a nice job? Or are most of you getting a "hack job" with jagged cuts like some pictures that I saw on another thread.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

hawkeye said:


> I know my recall was performed by doing the same "hack job" as everyone else, but when I look under the car, it looks as if it were designed that way. My local dealer in Owatonna, MN made clean cuts that look like they came from the factory.


My dealer also did a great job cutting the lower panel(no ragged edges), I posted a picture on another thread of mine, here's what mine looks like now.


----------



## Kinmartin0789 (Feb 18, 2011)

Same here. honestly though for those that swear this is affecting how the car handles i have to say are you positive you are not just lookign for a reason to get a change? im still upset with the hack job but they are doing what any smart company would in this moment. i can tell you in windy conditions the cruze will move regardless of what you have underneath its a light car. i would even argue that would be even less evident in the eco models where more air is traveling over the car. i will buy a new sheild if and when its available but not for fears of mpg or fears of control. its i want every bit of protection on the bottom side of my car.

this is by no means meant to stir the pot or to bash anyones thoughts. i feel like its a placebo test where your mind can trick you into thinking its diffrerent.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Kinmartin0789 said:


> Same here. honestly though for those that swear this is affecting how the car handles i have to say are you positive you are not just lookign for a reason to get a change? im still upset with the hack job but they are doing what any smart company would in this moment. i can tell you in windy conditions the cruze will move regardless of what you have underneath its a light car. i would even argue that would be even less evident in the eco models where more air is traveling over the car. i will buy a new sheild if and when its available but not for fears of mpg or fears of control. its i want every bit of protection on the bottom side of my car.
> 
> this is by no means meant to stir the pot or to bash anyones thoughts. i feel like its a placebo test where your mind can trick you into thinking its diffrerent.


You're not bashing anyone or stirring the pot, no worries. 

The thing is, people reported a compromise in handling before I created this thread. In fact, it's the reason why I created this thread. My understanding is that the difference was significant enough to mention. I'm still not sure what to think of it. 

I'd be more than happy to test this out for people if GM were to supply me with a brand new shield and let me have the recall done on mine at the dealer, but chances are they won't do that, and I don't want my shield hacked up. 

I'm quite happy for those of you who had your recall done cleanly and with some dignity. I wish I could say the same for everyone else.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Pretty sure someone mentioned the Buick Verano has the same shield, so its still available to buy even after this recall.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

spacedout said:


> Pretty sure someone mentioned the Buick Verano has the same shield, so its still available to buy even after this recall.


That seriously makes me wonder why the Verano wasn't included in the recall. Makes this whole thing sound very political.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

XtremeRevolution said:


> That seriously makes me wonder why the Verano wasn't included in the recall. Makes this whole thing sound very political.


It has to do with the engine used in the car, the Verano uses the 2.4 ecotec, which has the exhaust on the back of engine, no hot parts to catch panel on fire.(exhaust under engine on 1.4T seems kinda dumb if you ask me). 

All 2.2, 2.4 & 2.0 Turbo (& 2.0 supercharged) ecotec engines have the head designed backwards to the cruze. The Cobalt SS turbo was on firewall side of engine. Obviously GM must have had a reason for the switch but in this case I think it is part of the problem.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Was just thinking maybe the reason for the switch was the electric power steering could not handle having the turbos heat near by.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

The Verano has electric power steering as well. I thinks it more a case of the intercooler needing to be up front.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

obermd said:


> The Verano has electric power steering as well. I thinks it more a case of the intercooler needing to be up front.


Turbo puts off allot more heat than just a header, so heat by the electric steering could still be the reason for the backwards(to what I have come to know as an ecotec) head design. 

That doesn't explain the 2.0 turbo cobalt having the turbo in the back of engine(intercooler in front obviously). Someone should check out a Buick Regal & see where its turbo is located. My guess since it has same output as cobalt SS turbo its on the firewall side. 

Those engines are a different family of ecotec but would seem the design has been used successfully in the past & currently.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...the wife *hasn't* complained about any wandering or steering stability at highway speeds, which is a testament unto itself. And, she's driven the car from Tucson, AZ, to LA, CA, and back twice since having the "chain-saw" recall done.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

First impressions after getting the body hacked yesterday.

More road noise at all speeds and more engine noise above 2000 RPM. Apparently the splash shield acted as a noice barrier/canceler.

At 65 to 75 no noticable difference in handling. The car starts to jitter somewhere between 80 and 85. Before this jitter didn't start until 90 or so.

Conditions were upper 60s F and no wind on smooth road surface.

Next Wednesday I'll get a long high speed (75-80 MPH) with cross and head winds. It's always windy in Kansas (actually Colorado eastern plains) so I know I'll have to deal with wind. I'll submit my vote in the poll after that.


----------



## ShowCar (Aug 29, 2011)

I drive everyday at speeds of 70-90mph and have not noticed any changes in handling or mpg since the recall was done.


----------



## bartonmd (Jun 30, 2011)

I voted "yes" because there is some noticeable change in stability around 75-80mph. It feels largely the same on an open road with calm weather, but going around semis and with any kind of cross-wind, it does a little bit more wandering than it did before. Previously, it had to be a BIG gust to really have to correct or hold against it, but now it doesn't take much more than a variable stiff breeze and it wonders some. Feels much more like driving a van now, rathern than a low car with stiff suspension. It's not "OMG I'm going to lose control!" but it is noticeably more affected by side breezes than it was.

Mike


----------



## MikeyB3649 (Aug 19, 2011)

Driving to and from work at 65-70mph with cross winds. I do notice a wander and light feeling in the front. The vehicle is also very affected by when passing big rigs headed the other direction now. It's pretty large "push."

Edit: I am still seeing an apparent drop of 2-3 MPG in my fuel economy as well.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Remember guys, these are things that can potentially cause you to lose control of the car that would otherwise not affect you. Passing a semi at 75-80mph, then having a big gust come in at the same time, can be bad news. Not that it wouldn't be bad news for most cars, but the fact that the shield modification made this worse makes it worth investigating further. 

It is in your best interest to file an NHTSA complaint regarding this issue if you want to see anything done by GM regarding this issue.


----------



## Chevy Customer Care (Oct 29, 2011)

I would like to remind everyone if you are experiencing issues with your vehicle to please send me a PM. In the PM please include your vehicle concerns, name, address, phone number, VIN, current mileage and the name of your dealer. I am able to assist people on a case by case basis so please contact me with your concerns so I can assist you in getting them corrected. 
Thank you,
Stacy Chevrolet Customer Service


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Jim Frye said:


> I like the poll idea, but I'm wondering if you should differentiate between ECO and non-ECO models? Don't they have different under-car areo panels? If so, it seems to me that it might make a difference.



The more I think about this I think you are right. Miles on car(tires), RS package, Eco, rim size, sport suspension could all have an effect. 

Just a guess but would seem a LS or 1LT would be the most prone to this since they are using 16in rims & would have less contact patch with the road than the 17 or 18in rims. They also have the highest ground clearance & no shutter than closes up front. Heck even the RS package could now be directing more air into this area from the difference in the front end style. 

Mines a 1LT RS package & I notice a difference.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

If I get around to it, I can PM the members that voted with an issue to ask them what trim their car is, unless someone wants to get to it before I do.


----------



## Skraeling (May 30, 2012)

shield recall just got called for mine. Asked if I could have one of the new already changed panels instead of getting mine modified. was told no. Not very happy about that honestly.



spacedout said:


> Just a guess but would seem a LS or 1LT would be the most prone to this since they are using 16in rims & would have less contact patch with the road than the 17 or 18in rims. .



It could be 24 inch wheels and not matter a **** if the tires themselves arnt wide at all.

height != width


----------



## bartonmd (Jun 30, 2011)

Chevy Customer Service said:


> I would like to remind everyone if you are experiencing issues with your vehicle to please send me a PM. In the PM please include your vehicle concerns, name, address, phone number, VIN, current mileage and the name of your dealer. I am able to assist people on a case by case basis so please contact me with your concerns so I can assist you in getting them corrected.
> Thank you,
> Stacy Chevrolet Customer Service


I honestly suspect it has to do with the toe that the car has, and that may be why some are noticing it and some aren't. These seem to be set up with very little toe, from the factory, to trade some directional stability for fuel mileage. I suspect that those who are feeling this have a toe that's right around neutral, and the loss of the center section of the panel makes the car more prone to going where the air wants it to go.

The bad thing about this, assuming I'm right, is that at a dealer/customer service level, the "fix" is to put a shitload of toe in the car to make it stable, but at the expense of fuel mileage and tire wear (to some extent).

ETA: Isn't it interesting what happens when you have a very finely tuned system that's designed to all work together for a given goal, then you throw a wrench in it (or in this situation, cut a panel out of it) and see what happens?

Mike


----------



## hawkeye (Mar 31, 2012)

I can absolutely 100% say there is no difference in the highway stability. I just put 700 miles on my car doing between 70-76 on the freeway. I had conditions that had no wind on the way down, and I was driving into a headwind/crosswind on the way back. The car never once felt unstable. By the way the mpg at 76 mph with about 100 miles at 70 mph was 36.6 and 37.3 mpg. The DIC UNDERESTIMATED my mpg by 2/10ths on the first fill and overestimated it by 4/10ths on the second. It seems to be pretty accurate.


----------



## bartonmd (Jun 30, 2011)

hawkeye said:


> I can absolutely 100% say there is no difference in the highway stability. I just put 700 miles on my car doing between 70-76 on the freeway. I had conditions that had no wind on the way down, and I was driving into a headwind/crosswind on the way back. The car never once felt unstable. By the way the mpg at 76 mph with about 100 miles at 70 mph was 36.6 and 37.3 mpg. The DIC UNDERESTIMATED my mpg by 2/10ths on the first fill and overestimated it by 4/10ths on the second. It seems to be pretty accurate.


It's infinitely more likely that the car was a different angles or the pumping rate, and therefore, the auto shut-off on the pump was at a different place, rather than your DIC being high one time and low another (on a highway trip)... 

Mike


----------



## hawkeye (Mar 31, 2012)

Actually, I think being slightly high or low is actually a good thing. I was making the observation, because there seems to be several owners on the forum that are having very inaccurate DIC readings for their mpg and gallons used. I just had another fill that was nearly spot-on. I always do the hand calculations, too, but people that don't want to shouldn't automatically dismiss what the computer is saying. Mine is pretty accurate---but my Traverse and Malibu are always 100% correct.


----------



## bartonmd (Jun 30, 2011)

hawkeye said:


> Actually, I think being slightly high or low is actually a good thing. I was making the observation, because there seems to be several owners on the forum that are having very inaccurate DIC readings for their mpg and gallons used. I just had another fill that was nearly spot-on. I always do the hand calculations, too, but people that don't want to shouldn't automatically dismiss what the computer is saying. Mine is pretty accurate---but my Traverse and Malibu are always 100% correct.


My point is that the variance in 1 tank is well more likely a fill variance than a DIC/computer variance.

Mine is within .3-.5mpg on long highway trips, but if you run it hard, it gets a little optimistic.

Mike


----------



## jaszypoo (Dec 1, 2011)

No issues from what I can tell so far. I drive 50km daily one way to work at 65-70mph. Seems ok. A little more noise, I believe. In terms of fuel economy, only time can tell. We'll see at the next fuel up.


----------



## MyShibbyEco (Jan 21, 2012)

No idea if anyone brought this up already and I don't have time to read through 8 pages, but I would be curious to see before/after pics of peoples shields. Especially to compare the people's cars that do and do not wander.


----------



## fastdriver (Jan 7, 2011)

MyShibbyEco said:


> No idea if anyone brought this up already and I don't have time to read through 8 pages, but I would be curious to see before/after pics of peoples shields. Especially to compare the people's cars that do and do not wander.



Here are my before and after pics:

2011 recall BEFORE the fix pictures by fastdriver2 - Photobucket

2011 Cruze recall fix pictures by fastdriver2 - Photobucket

Engine debris after shield recall pictures by fastdriver2 - Photobucket


----------



## indigo (Feb 25, 2011)

Brought my car on a ~600mi each way road trip, half back roads, half highway. Had the recall done at my destination, this is a 2011 1LT with the 1.4t. automatic ~17k mi on it. Noticed no difference in handling on my way back home with speeds ranging from 45-60 on the backroads and regularly hitting 90 on the highway, but mostly cruising around 80. Noticed no difference in mpg either. There's a chance that there might be a hair more road noise, but I was listening to the radio at the same level I usually do, 11, and didn't have any issues worth noting.

Yes, I was looking for a difference in handling, etc. having seen this thread. My only concerns are regarding durability which should be resolved when I see what they do with the shield on next year's models.

In short, the car's still a champ in my book... now to get the water pump leak resolved :uhh:

(should be noted I don't really track mileage, the average on the car over several thousand miles... since early June, is about 27mpg with 2 1200 mi road trips and the rest hard city driving... all on premium, tires at 37psi, 1 oil change, this recall)


----------



## amalmer71 (Apr 5, 2012)

bartonmd said:


> My point is that the variance in 1 tank is well more likely a fill variance than a DIC/computer variance.
> 
> Mine is within .3-.5mpg on long highway trips, but if you run it hard, it gets a little optimistic.
> 
> Mike


We recently took a trip about 380 miles away. We filled up instantly before we left, hit the highway, made two potty breaks, and never strayed more than 1 mile off the highway for the potty breaks. 

The car's MPG estimation said 38.5

When we reached our destination, I topped it off at the first click, plus 13 cents (to round up to the nearest 50 cents), and calculated 33.7 MPG.

"A little optimistic" is an understatement.

Now, it's not normally that far off. Usually 1-2 MPG at the most, but to be nearly 5 MPG over, what's the point of even having it?
It's like the other thread about the OLM. Why would it say 40% life left after 6,500 when the oil that is in the car breaks down before, or near 6,500 miles?

My advice is, trust the DIC about as much as a son-in-law.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

amalmer71 said:


> My advice is, trust the DIC about as much as a son-in-law.


Not sure about your son-in-law comment(sounds like you have other issues). Anyway my DIC is very consistently off, so its really easy to figure out actual before i get to the pump. range 2-6mpg high, average with 90%+ of my fill ups is 4mpg high. This seems very accurate & obviously exactly how it is calibrated, since it does not wildly change from reading low to high. 

On my fuelly.com account my last 4 fill ups I have started to add the DIC MPG readings in the notes. has been at right around 4mpg high everytime so far.


----------



## amalmer71 (Apr 5, 2012)

spacedout said:


> Not sure about your son-in-law comment(sounds like you have other issues).


It was a joke. Thanks anyway, Dr. Phil :sarcasm:


spacedout said:


> Anyway my DIC is very consistently off, so its really easy to figure out actual before i get to the pump. range 2-6mpg high, average with 90%+ of my fill ups is 4mpg high. This seems very accurate & obviously exactly how it is calibrated, since it does not wildly change from reading low to high.
> 
> On my fuelly.com account my last 4 fill ups I have started to add the DIC MPG readings in the notes. has been at right around 4mpg high everytime so far.


Consistent inaccuracy ≠ Accurate

Compensating for inaccuracies ≠ Accurate

Call it whatever you want, but calculating the MPG consistently and averaging the results is going to be as close to "accurate" as anyone can get.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

My ECO MT was very stable during high speed driving (75-90 MPH) and had almost no wandering as a result of cross winds. It was flat out the most stable car I had ever driven at 75 MPH. The only car I have driven that was more stable at higher speed was my Fiero GT and then only at speeds in excess of 100 MPH as a result of air flow forcing the car down on its suspension. At 90, the Fiero wasn't as stable as the Cruze ECO MT.

Post shield cut - My ECO MT now bounces around, but not dangerously so. You do have to pay more attention, though. It's still more stable than a Mitsubishi Lancer at 75-80 MPH. Passing acceleration to 90 MPH didn't seem to decrease stability. In addition, I didn't notice a any change in MPG - I drove to Capulin Volcano National Monument and back today with my cruze control set at 78 or 79 MPH most of the way. Average MPG (pump measured) was 45.9 and average speed was 59.9 MPH. First click off was less than 0.2 gallons more than the DIC reported.

I voted "YES" because I did notice a slight decrease in stability.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

obermd said:


> I voted "YES" because I did notice a slight decrease in stability.


Your description is exactly what I have experienced, only on one very windy section of road I can feel the difference at 65mph. this section of highway is on a high ridge & has constant but changing winds. From the limited miles I have driven since the shield mod(500+ so far), I actually have seen an increase in my MPG. Granted The average temps outside has dropped, I had my tires rotated & oil changed at same time so any of those could also account for the increase.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

obermd said:


> My ECO MT was very stable during high speed driving (75-90 MPH) and had almost no wandering as a result of cross winds. It was flat out the most stable car I had ever driven at 75 MPH. The only car I have driven that was more stable at higher speed was my Fiero GT and then only at speeds in excess of 100 MPH as a result of air flow forcing the car down on its suspension. At 90, the Fiero wasn't as stable as the Cruze ECO MT.
> 
> Post shield cut - My ECO MT now bounces around, but not dangerously so. You do have to pay more attention, though. It's still more stable than a Mitsubishi Lancer at 75-80 MPH. Passing acceleration to 90 MPH didn't seem to decrease stability. In addition, I didn't notice a any change in MPG - I drove to Capulin Volcano National Monument and back today with my cruze control set at 78 or 79 MPH most of the way. Average MPG (pump measured) was 45.9 and average speed was 59.9 MPH. First click off was less than 0.2 gallons more than the DIC reported.
> 
> I voted "YES" because I did notice a slight decrease in stability.


One other thing - I ran the A/C the entire time yesterday.


----------



## Patman (May 7, 2011)

I saw as per the map of states with MPH that Ohio is listed at 70 MPH. Where! I love in Ohio and in Cincinnati it is 55 on I 75 and I 71 but outside of Cinti it is 65. Indiana and Ky(south of the beltway) is 70. Ohio is one of those backward states! The Police won't touchc you till you are doing +15 MPH) but the speed limit is 65.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Patman said:


> I saw as per the map of states with MPH that Ohio is listed at 70 MPH. Where! I love in Ohio and in Cincinnati it is 55 on I 75 and I 71 but outside of Cinti it is 65. Indiana and Ky(south of the beltway) is 70. Ohio is one of those backward states! The Police won't touchc you till you are doing +15 MPH) but the speed limit is 65.


Sections of the Ohio Turnpike are 70. The rest of the state is limited to 65.


----------



## tjtenor4 (Mar 21, 2012)

I had the recall work done about a month ago. Since then, I have not gone over ~68mph, but I have noticed neither a change in stability nor any change in gas mileage (though I've only had about 3 fill-ups since then). I realize that I might not be driving fast enough to detect a change in stability, so I'm refraining from voting in the poll until I have had the chance to drive faster (probably in a couple of weeks).

For fuel economy comparison, see my fuelly here. I had the recall work done after the 23 July fill-up. My driving patterns are almost entirely highway. Note that before the summer in DC, I was averaging 41-42 mpg; once summer hit (and I started using max A/C on high for almost my entire commute), it dropped to ~38 mpg (with one anomalously good tank). The two tanks since then have not been significantly different from the previous summer fill-ups; I'll be filling up again today or tomorrow but I can tell from the DIC (which is always ~10% optimistic for me) that this tank will be right around 40mpg (so still consistent with no change since the recall work).

I am not thrilled with the sledgehammer-to-squash-an-ant method GM has used in this recall, either - but I think give the inherent subjectivity of each of our sensitivities to this issue (unless one of us has access to a wind tunnel and can get us some real data, anyway), we might be barking up the wrong tree here. I agree that less stability is a significant safety hazard, but it's also very difficult to prove. It seems to make more sense to stick to simpler and more concrete issues, such as the bottom of the engine now being exposed to road debris, and the inside of the engine bay now being exposed to significant splashing during rainstorms (for those of you who have had the fix done, and driven in moderate rain since then, take a look under the hood - you'll see what I mean). The latter is a particularly significant issue, considering all the markings inside the engine (and notations in the owners manual) specifically stating that we are not to get the interior of the engine bay wet / wash off the engine with water.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

tjtenor4 said:


> I am not thrilled with the sledgehammer-to-squash-an-ant method GM has used in this recall, either - but I think give the inherent subjectivity of each of our sensitivities to this issue (unless one of us has access to a wind tunnel and can get us some real data, anyway), we might be barking up the wrong tree here. I agree that less stability is a significant safety hazard, but it's also very difficult to prove. It seems to make more sense to stick to simpler and more concrete issues, such as the bottom of the engine now being exposed to road debris, and the inside of the engine bay now being exposed to significant splashing during rainstorms (for those of you who have had the fix done, and driven in moderate rain since then, take a look under the hood - you'll see what I mean). The latter is a particularly significant issue, considering all the markings inside the engine (and notations in the owners manual) specifically stating that we are not to get the interior of the engine bay wet / wash off the engine with water.


As I noted earlier in this thread, the burden of proof doesn't fall on our shoulders, but rather the shoulders of the NHTSA once enough people file complaints regarding highway instability. 

You can complain to GM about road debris until you're blue in the face, but they won't really feel compelled to do anything. However, they will respond to NHTSA barking up their own tree, which is why I've recommended that people file complaints. 

Where in the manual does it specifically state that we shouldn't wash the engine bay with water?


----------



## tjtenor4 (Mar 21, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Where in the manual does it specifically state that we shouldn't wash the engine bay with water?


The best I can quickly do is page 10-34, Vehicle Care, Engine Compartment Fuse Block:


> Notice: Spilling liquid on anyelectrical component on the
> vehicle may damage it. Always
> keep the covers on any electrical
> component.


If you open the hood, you'll note that the plastic cover to the engine fuse block, as well as a couple of other items under the hood, have a pictorial showing a hose/water spray, with a big "X" over it. When I purchased the vehicle, the dealer specifically told me it was a blanket statement not to spray any water under the hood.

I'm no expert mechanic, but I have been doing my own work on my cars since my early 20s; I am very familiar with the fact that certain components are more susceptible to damage from water exposure than others. But it seems pretty clear (from the multiple warnings GM has posted in the engine bay) that they are concerned with items in there being exposed to water, and that one of the main functions of the engine shield (before it was chopped out) was to protect the engine bay from such. And it's very easy to demonstrate to a dealer (by showing them the splatter that's now inside my engine bay) that the engine bay is now exposed to water spray from the elements.

If someone's fuse block were to short out as a result, and they lost electric steering (just for example) at highway speed, that's certainly as much of a stability concern as the altered aerodynamics, if not significantly moreso. And it's a lot easier to demonstrate.

These are my thoughts on the matter. I might not have posted much, but I have been reading the board for about 6 months (since shortly before buying my Cruze), and I'm aware of XR's reputation and significant contributions here. I'm not crossing XR, simply pointing out another perspective.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

If its true purpose is a splash shield what happens this winter when I drive through icy just above freezing water puddle & splash my super heated turbo/exhaust? Wonder if we will start seeing cracked turbos. 

The more I think about this the more I kinda wish I had not got this recall done.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

tjtenor4 said:


> The best I can quickly do is page 10-34, Vehicle Care, Engine Compartment Fuse Block:
> 
> If you open the hood, you'll note that the plastic cover to the engine fuse block, as well as a couple of other items under the hood, have a pictorial showing a hose/water spray, with a big "X" over it. When I purchased the vehicle, the dealer specifically told me it was a blanket statement not to spray any water under the hood.
> 
> ...


I know you're not trying to cross me, and whatever reputation I may have (I don't presume to speak on its behalf), I'm always open to be proven wrong and to learn. 

That said, I'll be brief about this since there are other threads on this very topic and I don't want to steer this one too far off-topic. The engine bay is rather specific. On the covers for the electrical fuse boxes and other components, there are crossed-out power washers.










To me, that basically means you need to be careful not to power wash that specific section, for the reasons you mentioned above. Power washing forces air at higher pressures and can force its way past the gaps in the plastic covers to get the internals of those wet where they wouldn't otherwise get wet with a simple hose-down. The rest of the engine bay is fair game, power washer or simple hose; just keep high pressure away from the electrical parts. 

I believe the engine bay was designed with much of this in mind, as electrical parts need to be weather-proof to prevent corrosion. A spray-down with a hose is not going to harm anything. 

I wouldn't be worried about the engine bay being exposed to water with regard to parts shorting out. Many GM vehicles prior to the Cruze did not incorporate an under-body shield, and I'm not even sure if the Sonic has one. What I would be worried about is salt getting in there during the winter months and causing things to corrode.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

spacedout said:


> If its true purpose is a splash shield what happens this winter when I drive through icy just above freezing water puddle & splash my super heated turbo/exhaust? Wonder if we will start seeing cracked turbos.
> 
> The more I think about this the more I kinda wish I had not got this recall done.


Absolutely nothing will happen. That's like shooting a bear with a BB gun. In order to cause enough of a temperature change to crack the steel on a turbo, you need a VERY rapid change in temperature that will not even be achieved by an instant submersion of the turbo in water. You'd have to submerge it in something akin to liquid nitrogen. You have to remember that at those temperatures, water will boil the instant it hits the turbo and will not have any consequential cooling effect. If you took a hot turbo and splashed a large mug of icy water on it, nothing will happen. You'll hear a sizzle and it will be evaporated before you can even take a look at it.

The turbo is also not in a location that will make it easily exposed to that much splash water.


----------



## rbtec (Feb 3, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Absolutely nothing will happen. That's like shooting a bear with a BB gun. In order to cause enough of a temperature change to crack the steel on a turbo, you need a VERY rapid change in temperature that will not even be achieved by an instant submersion of the turbo in water. You'd have to submerge it in something akin to liquid nitrogen. You have to remember that at those temperatures, water will boil the instant it hits the turbo and will not have any consequential cooling effect. If you took a hot turbo and splashed a large mug of icy water on it, nothing will happen. You'll hear a sizzle and it will be evaporated before you can even take a look at it.
> 
> The turbo is also not in a location that will make it easily exposed to that much splash water.


Remember that the original shield had a cutout in it, so some water was always getting into the engine bay.


Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


----------



## socalcruze (Aug 4, 2012)

rbtec said:


> Remember that the original shield had a cutout in it, so some water was always getting into the engine bay.


Not only that, but the water - and salt - that would inevitably get splashed above the shield would be (much) more difficult to thoroughly wash out with an underbody wash. Getting rid of a section of the shield may ultimately reduce problems by actually keeping the lower part of the engine cleaner.


----------



## cruzers (Dec 13, 2010)

Although, I agree water should be kept away from the engine bay area at all cost, I interpret then owners manual not to use a pressure washer when cleaning the engine around those areas. That's the picture they show.

Edit:

Sorry, I left the computer for a few hours without finishing the post I was writing, and since then 5 more posted. In a nutshell I'm repeating what XtremeRevolution said.


----------



## Starks8 (Jul 20, 2011)

I'm guessing the alternator should also be covered up to avoid it getting wet if one does decide to wash the engine bay area?


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Starks8 said:


> I'm guessing the alternator should also be covered up to avoid it getting wet if one does decide to wash the engine bay area?


If you don't, I'd at least wait until it's dried out a bit before firing the car up, but I suspect that that's also been thoroughly weather-proofed, especially given its proximity to the steering rack, which is right next to a big hole. 

I can't say I've ever had issues power washing engine bays when the alternator gets wet. The sensitive circuitry is sealed off from the rest of the unit, and a couple of drops aren't going to short out the 10 gauge or so coiled wire that's inside them.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Absolutely nothing will happen.


That is not true, super heated metal like an exhaust manifold, header or turbo will crack if you spray water on them... pretty sure we have been over this before. 

That's why you are NEVER suppose to wash a warm engine as any rapid change in metal temps can cause the metal to to rapidly expand/contract causing it to crack. Obviously thinner metals are more prone to this(like the pipe exiting the turbo).


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

spacedout said:


> That is not true, super heated metal like an exhaust manifold, header or turbo will crack if you spray water on them... pretty sure we have been over this before.
> 
> That's why you are NEVER suppose to wash a warm engine as any rapid change in metal temps can cause the metal to to rapidly expand/contract causing it to crack. Obviously thinner metals are more prone to this(like the pipe exiting the turbo).


Oh I remember we went over it, and you exited the thread without backing up your claims. You also convenintly ignored some key words I said. The only way parts will crack is if you cool them down at a very rapid rate. Key word is very rapid rate. Water will not achieve that rate on a turbo, especially with a heat shield preventing most water with the exception of a few drips. 

Let's make a wager if you're so sure. I'll cut off a decent chunk of pipe off the jag's old exhaist, heat it with a mapp gas or acetelyne torch or two until it's practically red hot, and drop it in a bucket of water. How much money do yo want to put on it to prove if it will or will not crack? I'll even take a video of it and post it on youtube. I'll give you a hint: you'll be funding my next mod. 

I've worked on exhausts before. I worked as a plumber before. This isn't news to me. You think ikermit's and silverls's exhausts and manifolds cracked when they drove through that water? 

The theory is correct, but not applicable. You cannot cool down an exhaust or a turbo fast enough with splashes of water to cause them to crack. 

Sent from my Bulletproof_Doubleshot using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

your test would prove nothing, metal that has been super heated & cooled many many times is much more prone to cracking than a piece of exhaust pipe. You know like the exaust manifold on a car, a header or a turbo. 

These are known facts that you NEVER spray water on these parts. hopefully others realize how wrong you are on quite a few things you post on the forum & take everything you say with a grain of salt. Might want to read up on thermal shock on google before you claim to be the all knowing about cars & pretty much everything in general. Obviously you know nothing about physics. 
Why water cracks hot exhaust manifold


Oh & the reason I left the other discussion about why this is bad is because talking with you is like arguing with a brick wall, you are very think headed & never change your mind even when more than one person points out you are in error.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

XtremeRevolution said:


> The theory is correct, but not applicable. You cannot cool down an exhaust or a turbo fast enough with splashes of water to cause them to crack.


splashes are worse than submerging & cooling the whole thing at once, imagine one spot gets cooled while the rest remains the same high temp. That spot contracts & the rest remains expanded. eventual or possible cause..... a crack.


----------



## amalmer71 (Apr 5, 2012)

spacedout said:


> That is not true, super heated metal like an exhaust manifold, header or turbo will crack if you spray water on them... pretty sure we have been over this before.


You'd have to completely submerge the turbo in the coldest water possible (0*C, 32*F) in order to get it to crack from a drastic temperature change.

If that happens, you got bigger problems than a cracked turbo.

From Squires Turbo Systems - FAQ about Turbo, Turbocharger, Wastegate, Horsepower, Torque, Turbo Kit, Garrett, TiAL, BOV, Turbo Lag, Boost, Intercooler



> *If water hits the hot turbo, will it crack?*
> Seems like it might when you first think about it, however, when I asked the Garrett engineers this questions they just laughed. There is a big difference in water splashing on a hot turbo and submerging it in enough water and fast enough to really cool it down fast. Both the new turbocharged Vette systems and the new Porsche systems sit the turbo down low and exposed to water and anything else that goes under a car.
> Plus, our turbos just don't get that hot and when weather conditions are such that there is a lot of water around, you can't push enough boost to get the turbo hot anyway because you'd just spin the tires.


I'd say if the engineers at Garrett laughed, it's a pretty slim chance it's gonna happen.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

spacedout said:


> your test would prove nothing, metal that has been super heated & cooled many many times is much more prone to cracking than a piece of exhaust pipe. You know like the exaust manifold on a car, a header or a turbo.
> 
> These are known facts that you NEVER spray water on these parts. hopefully others realize how wrong you are on quite a few things you post on the forum & take everything you say with a grain of salt. Might want to read up on thermal shock on google before you claim to be the all knowing about cars & pretty much everything in general. Obviously you know nothing about physics.
> Why water cracks hot exhaust manifold
> ...


Did you actually read that link you posted, or just assumed that there was enough technical information in there to go over someone's head that it wasn't actually worth investigating whether or not they actually proved something? The thread was created to discuss a wikipedia quote. The thread went on to discuss reasons why something like this are *possible*, not why they *did *happen, *could *happen, or definitely *will *happen. You've proven nothing by copy and pasting something out of a google search. 

I'm well aware of thermal shock. I never claimed to be an all knowing about cars and everything in general, although I make it a point to learn as much as I can, and you regurgitating that as if you have a hotkey for it is frankly annoying. You really should learn to debate something with someone without attacking them personally. It really is getting old. 

You seem to be the only one pointing me out "in error." Adam here pointed me out to be correct. Prove me wrong, and I'll stand corrected as I always have and always will. Your idea of pointing out that I'm in error is arguing with me with baseless claims that have no concrete evidence or proof, or rely on the limited analysis of others to support your opinion. 

I'm being serious here, provide some concrete proof, and I'll stand corrected and tell you that you were right all along. I have no problem doing that. However, if your "proof" includes the word "might, may, possibly, maybe, can," or any similar word used to relieve the author from any responsibility and resemblance of assurance, you might as well fly a kite. For example:

Owning a Cruze *can *make you an angry person. Studies have shown that Cruze owners are angry because *some might *have problems with their cars. These problems *can *make them frustrated, resulting in a possible ruining of one's day. We *can *safely assume that all Cruze owners *might *be like this as they *might *be exposed to these *seemingly *common issues at some point in the future. 

What have I said based on the above information? Absolutely nothing. It's pure BS. 



spacedout said:


> splashes are worse than submerging & cooling the whole thing at once, imagine one spot gets cooled while the rest remains the same high temp. That spot contracts & the rest remains expanded. eventual or *possible *cause..... a crack.


This whole "possibly" or "maybe" to me is effectively the same as saying that if you run your car for 500 miles past each oil change per the OLM, your engine might eventually fail because we know that running the oil too long depletes detergents and you've exceed the recommended OCI. 

If we take this one step further and add a dash of paranoia, we can probably start freaking out that every time we drive over a puddle with our engine shield removed, we're shortening the life of our exhaust components because they're getting splashed by water. You'd think the engineers accounted for this. Chances are, they probably did.


----------



## rbtec (Feb 3, 2012)

If water will cause metal to crack if it gets wet when it is hot, then every exhaust out there would be full of cracks because just about everybody has driven a car with a hot exhaust when it starts to rain.


----------



## OnlyTaurus (Mar 20, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> On the covers for the electrical fuse boxes and other components, there are crossed-out power washers.


As I stated in another thread.. "And all this time I thought they were informing you not to use a flamethrower." :th_coolio:


----------



## Hatje (Jun 23, 2011)

Drive the highway everyday NO difference 


Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


----------



## Kinmartin0789 (Feb 18, 2011)

OnlyTaurus said:


> As I stated in another thread.. "And all this time I thought they were informing you not to use a flamethrower." :th_coolio:


this made me happy, lol thank you sir for the laugh!


----------



## OnlyTaurus (Mar 20, 2012)

Kinmartin0789 said:


> this made me happy, lol thank you sir for the laugh!


Glad to be of assistance, lol! Just thought these last couple pages needed a 'loosening-up' ccasion14:


----------



## bartonmd (Jun 30, 2011)

So, uh... Does anybody think it would be a good idea to separate the real thread from the horrible, multi-page hi-jack about power-washing the engine?

Mike


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

bartonmd said:


> So, uh... Does anybody think it would be a good idea to separate the real thread from the horrible, multi-page hi-jack about power-washing the engine?
> 
> Mike


Wouldn't be a bad idea. Whatever moderator comes across this can feel free to do just that.


----------



## rubiconjp (Feb 10, 2012)

Just had a 500 mile trip at between 75-80 MPH after the shield recall. No noticeable change in handling. Car drove just fine.

Sent from Galaxy Nexus on Jelly Bean


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Is there any difference being reported between the lowered trims (ECO, RS package, etc.) and the non-lowered trims?


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

bartonmd said:


> So, uh... Does anybody think it would be a good idea to separate the real thread from the horrible, multi-page hi-jack about power-washing the engine?
> 
> Mike


I still say its relevant to this thread, They put the splash shield on the car to help stop water splatters from hitting the super heated metal this hack removes that protection. 

To the others that think the exhaust would be full of cracks if this was true, the exhaust on a car does not get to extreme temps like a turbo, header or exhaust manifold. exhaust is like 200-300degrees max, turbo, header or manifold 600-1000. 

Xtreme since you don't think this will do anything, I want you to go out & drip water daily on one spot of your turbo manifold. see what happens over time. When they build/test an exhaust manifold it is tested/designed to withstand some degree of thermal shock. Obviously without the lower splash shield in place this is going to cause more thermal stress on the super heated parts. 

This splash shield hack job will not cause immediate issues, I'm certain that it does cause cracks within the life of the car/shorten the turbo manifolds life. Thermal shock is a real contrary to what some of you seem to think. 
Thermal shock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

spacedout said:


> I still say its relevant to this thread, They put the splash shield on the car to help stop water splatters from hitting the super heated metal this hack removes that protection.
> 
> To the others that think the exhaust would be full of cracks if this was true, the exhaust on a car does not get to extreme temps like a turbo, header or exhaust manifold. exhaust is like 200-300degrees max, turbo, header or manifold 600-1000.
> 
> ...


Stop putting words into peoples' mouths. Nobody said thermal shock isn't real. They said it isn't relevant in this environment. 

I would gladly sit outside and drip water on my turbo every day, but quite frankly I have better things to do. That, and it's covered with a heat shield, which makes splashing more difficult. *Hmmm...*

How many cars are on the road right now with exhaust manifolds in wide open view from the underside of the car and ready to be splashed on? How are those exhaust manifolds holding up? That, and you missed this on the last page:



> If water hits the hot turbo, will it crack?
> Seems like it might when you first think about it, however, when I asked the Garrett engineers this questions they just laughed. There is a big difference in water splashing on a hot turbo and submerging it in enough water and fast enough to really cool it down fast. Both the new turbocharged Vette systems and the new Porsche systems sit the turbo down low and exposed to water and anything else that goes under a car.
> 
> Plus, our turbos just don't get that hot and when weather conditions are such that there is a lot of water around, you can't push enough boost to get the turbo hot anyway because you'd just spin the tires.
> Back to top


I have an idea. Let's create a running list of all of the turbocharged cars out there that don't have an under-body shield/panel.


----------



## Camcruse (Oct 4, 2011)

rubiconjp said:


> Just had a 500 mile trip at between 75-80 MPH after the shield recall. No noticeable change in handling. Car drove just fine.
> 
> Sent from Galaxy Nexus on Jelly Bean


Yeah, but was it raining with ice bouncing up through the hole in the shield...


----------



## rubiconjp (Feb 10, 2012)

Yes it was raining hard, causing the turbo to crack wide open like egg in microwave.. but still didn't notice change in handling.. 

Sent from Galaxy Nexus on Jelly Bean


----------



## Chris2298 (Aug 1, 2012)

I've logged several hundred highway miles since the recall "fix". I can't say I've noticed a handling difference in either my 6spd Eco, or the auto Eco they gave me as a loaner. I set the cruise at 77 on the highway go. I haven't tried anything faster. On another note, the auto vs. manual has HUGE real world mpg difference, and 15 gallons, WTH? 
On another note... I have found Xtreme's advice dead on and extremely helpful, as I think most of the readers have... I wouldn't go calling him out, especially with no data to back yourself up...


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I've taken a pressure washer to the hot engine after a highway drive on my Volvo.

Guess what!? Lots of steam, but nothing cracked...and that car gets a lot hotter under the hood than the Cruze's little hamster wheel motor does.

The hottest parts of your exhaust - the cat. converter and manifold - are exposed to water on most cars, as said 234987234792 times in this post.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

Commencement of repairs on my Cruze is today. I told them I do *NOT* want this procedure done to my car. They said "no problem sir, you have to signed that you declined the safety recall when you pick it up." Ahhhhh, got that off my chest.


----------



## GoldenCruze (Dec 18, 2011)

spacedout said:


> I still say its relevant to this thread, They put the splash shield on the car to help stop water splatters from hitting the super heated metal this hack removes that protection.
> 
> To the others that think the exhaust would be full of cracks if this was true, the exhaust on a car does not get to extreme temps like a turbo, header or exhaust manifold. exhaust is like 200-300degrees max, turbo, header or manifold 600-1000.


My understanding of the purpose of the splash shield is to protect some of the electronics under the hood. Nothing that I have come across suggests any kind thermal shock from water protection. The other benefit is aerodynamics.

I do know that with running machinery heat is continually being produced. Since the source of heat isn't turned off and still cooking the metal, the temperature never drops enough to cause the metal to fracture. Now that could happen if the engine was first stopped and then submerged into an ice bath. But only maybe. Blacksmiths use water baths to strengthen iron and steel while they are working it. Never fractures in that case.

There is a lot that goes into metallurgy that hasn't even been presented here. But a reasonable mind can come to the conclusion that after a century of motor vehicle development and manufacture, along with millions being made, we have reached the point where the machinery won't fracture simply because it got splashed on.


----------



## Camcruse (Oct 4, 2011)

ErikBEggs said:


> Commencement of repairs on my Cruze is today. I told them I do *NOT* want this procedure done to my car. They said "no problem sir, you have to signed that you declined the safety recall when you pick it up." Ahhhhh, got that off my chest.


You do realize that if by chance your engine does catch fire for any other reason, Chevy's going to say to bad.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Camcruse said:


> You do realize that if by chance your engine does catch fire for any other reason, Chevy's going to say to bad.


Incorrect. They have to prove it was the shield that caused the fire to deny a warranty claim.

Sent from my Bulletproof_Doubleshot using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## jsusanka (Jan 31, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Incorrect. They have to prove it was the shield that caused the fire to deny a warranty claim.
> 
> Sent from my Bulletproof_Doubleshot using AutoGuide.Com Free App


You know I have been thinking real hard about this because I have an appointment on the 28th to have this done. 

How can something plastic cause a fire. It was a careless oil change that caused the fire. So if you think about it the shield can never cause a fire. I would even go further and say even if you spill oil on the shield would it start a fire? IMO I think the filter or the oil drain plug or even the oil cap wasn't put on correctly and it was spitting hot oil out of the engine directly on the shield or some other part. 

I had the transmission pump gasket problem and the dealer told me there was transmission fluid on the shield and that is why I never saw it leaking on the ground. So why didn't that catch fire since I was driving around with transmission fluid sitting on the shield. 

I really don't think we are getting the full story from GM. But that just may be me over thinking again.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

You are definitely not alone in thinking we're not getting the full story from GM, or NHTSA. 

Sent from my Bulletproof_Doubleshot using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## upstater (Feb 22, 2011)

"I ran into a chiropractor's office on that same car and grabbed their fire extinguisher and was able to put out the fire before any serious damage ensued."


Wow, I think you were very lucky that running your car into the chiro's office didn't start the whole place on fire.


----------



## leeclark (Mar 25, 2012)

had it done drive highway everyday and havnt really noticed a difference.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I finally went to our Ft Morgan office. Set the cruze at 78/79 MPH. Morning was calm with no noticable impact on handling. Afternoon was driving into an oblique headwind. The car is definitely more sensitive to wind with the shield cut, but as I previously posted it's not dangerously so.


----------



## jaszypoo (Dec 1, 2011)

Drove it a couple of times at highway speed. Just a little more sensitive to wind but yes, I wouldn't classify it as dangerous.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

I'd say, based on the responses we've seen here, this isn't a real safety concern. Doesn't sound like an NHTSA complaint would really do anything of any consequence. I still think GM needs to make something better, but that's a different story.

If you're concerned about getting the recall done on account of these reports, just keep in mind that at the end of the day, it's not going to make your car unsafe to drive.

Sent from my Bulletproof_Doubleshot using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## Olwylee (Sep 7, 2012)

So I didn't yet vote in the poll but have just had the so-call fix done. I am thinking that from the respones so far, Cruze models with the RS package may not notice the handling issue as much as non-RS models.

I will certainly know if there is a difference next week when we leave to drive from Hope, BC to Toronto. We just bought a new 2011 Cruze LTZ loaded (no RS package) we found sitting at a dealer that was unable to sell it. The recall was done during our first oil change in preparation for the trip and I wouldn't have known the skid plate was just cut in half had I not looked under to inspect what they had done.

My concern is air buffeting up into the engine compartment and changing the aerodynamics and fuel economy. A friend has a 2012 LTZ RS and said he did notice the frontend seemed a little looser on one trip after the recall but thought it was just the wind that day.

We leave on the 14th and I will cast a vote on the 16th from Winnipeg.


----------



## CapitalTruck (Jun 12, 2012)

I appreciate the moderator for putting this poll up. I just have to say that I noticed less buffeting and propensity to wander when I put the newly purchased shield back on (to replace the "recalled" one). Was it dangerous, probably not. I'm just saying I noticed more noise and more instability, which is not what the car was like when my sister bought it (and I test drove it with her). This is the ECO model I'm discussing. I felt I would just do careful oil changes rather than deal with the changes in behavior (regardless of "safe" or not) and noise.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

CapitalTruck said:


> I appreciate the moderator for putting this poll up. I just have to say that I noticed less buffeting and propensity to wander when I put the newly purchased shield back on (to replace the "recalled" one). Was it dangerous, probably not. I'm just saying I noticed more noise and more instability, which is not what the car was like when my sister bought it (and I test drove it with her). This is the ECO model I'm discussing. I felt I would just do careful oil changes rather than deal with the changes in behavior (regardless of "safe" or not) and noise.


If I haven't yet welcomed you, welcome! 

I wasn't a moderator when I put this thread up (that happened in the last few days). 

I and many people here are in the same position as you are. Assuming GM has been truthful about the causes of these fires (sloppy oil changes as specifically stated in the recall documentation to both owners and dealerships), changing our own oil carefully should eliminate any fire hazard that may be related to this shield. I've always changed my own oil, and I am constantly reminded by horror stories I hear from people why it's so important to do it yourself, as mundane or silly as it may sound. I just don't trust anyone else to do it correctly.


----------



## CapitalTruck (Jun 12, 2012)

Thanks for the welcome. When I changed her oil this weekend I actually took the shield off to make sure nothing got on there. The drain plug is just a little too close to the edge of that shield for my comfort. So, like I do on my parents Mazda 3, I'll just take the shield off. With the extended drain intervals of the Cruze it isn't that big of a hassle.


----------



## Mustang Jim (Jul 28, 2012)

Capitatruck, where did you get the shield? I've been thinking about purchasing one since the dealer cut mine out. Is it the same as the old shield, or is it reengineered?


----------



## AutumnCruzeRS (Sep 10, 2012)

Has anyone thought of using Frams Sure Drain system to get past spilling oil onto shield at drain plug?


----------



## GoldenCruze (Dec 18, 2011)

I can see it now: Someone buys and installs a new shield. Then takes the car back to the dealer for service, where they hack the new shield! :wtf:


----------



## CapitalTruck (Jun 12, 2012)

I just bought it at a local GM dealership. Same old part, regardless of part number. They have not come up with a reengineered part yet. Of that I am sure. I ordered by part number so as not to solicit inquiries. All the description says is "shield" so I didnt get any hassle. I have been told that the part is on national backorder.


----------



## Ru5ty (Jun 20, 2012)

2012 rs 2lt no difference to report.


----------



## Olwylee (Sep 7, 2012)

Howdy All

So we took the car on a 10,000 k trip across country and I changed out the new shield for the hacked shield to do an honest test.

At speeds below 90kmh there is no significant difference in the handling of the vehicle, it is however noisier without the complete shield. At speeds over 90kmh there are differences in the way the car handles with the complete shield and the hacked shield.

While using the hacked shield the car seems looser on the front-end indicating the loss of down-force. I suspect this is the result of the air flowing under the car being able buffet under the hood and cause lift to occur. With the original shield and at speeds of 110kmh to 120kmh you can actually feel the nose being pulled to the ground resulting in a more stable ride with less roll in the corners.

I also tested the car with the shield entirely removed and found that having the choice between a hacked shield, or no shield (if you don't want to buy a new one and re&re it with every oil change), no shield is the better option as it allows all the air to move freely within the engine compartment.

In my opinion the shield provides the ability for the car to reach maximum down-force for its design and adds to the fun factor. The hacked shield or no shield in no way makes the car uncontrollable but unless you drive over 120KMH regularly, the average driver will never notice a difference..

There is one area where we did notice a difference. With the shield we were able to average 7.7lt/100km, without the shield or with the hacked shield fuel consumption went up to a maximum average of 7.9lt/100km.

Conclusion: If you bought the car for the fun factor, the recall has a negative impact, if you bought the car for practical reasons, the recall has little, if any, noticeable impact with the exception of noise. The car is noisier without the full shield.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Thanks for coming back to report that. Very good information.


----------



## Starks8 (Jul 20, 2011)

For those who want to buy the full shield, what is the part number for it? Is it the same shield and part number as the shield on the Verano? Also, if wanting to remove the full shield or put a full shield on the cruze, does this have to be done by jacking the car all the way up or can you just put the car up on ramps?


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Starks8 said:


> For those who want to buy the full shield, what is the part number for it? Is it the same shield and part number as the shield on the Verano? Also, if wanting to remove the full shield or put a full shield on the cruze, does this have to be done by jacking the car all the way up or can you just put the car up on ramps?


To remove the shield, all you need is ramps.


----------



## Camcruse (Oct 4, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> To remove the shield, all you need is ramps.



"Ramps? Klingons don't need no stink ramps" (Wolf)


----------



## Olwylee (Sep 7, 2012)

Removing the shield is relatively easy.

There are 8 5/16" or 8mm hex head fasteners and 8 plastic clips. 6 of the clips are simple center pull type clips and two are compression type.

It takes about 10 minutes or so to remove the shield. There are two center pull clips on each side accessible within the wheel-wells, all other attachment is under the vehicle. The two compression clips are at the rear of the shield and can be removed and reused if you are cautious with their removal but it might be prudent to have your dealer get you a set when you purchase the new shield. There are two steel fasteners in the same location of the compression clips and while you can get away without replacing the plastic clip if you break it, the shield will rattle without them. When putting the shield back on just be sure to place the front or leading edge of the shield back under the flaps to ensure the wind doesn't allow the shield to balloon.

I don't have the part number at the moment, invoice is in the car with my wife at the moment, but the new shield cost us about $125.00 plus taxes. The two clips that I broke the first time cost about 6 to 10 dollars each depending on who you get them from.

If the dealer threw away two of the steel fasteners, not needed as part of the recall fix, just purchase two 5/16" x 1" hex head self-tapping screws and two large washers.

If you are timid about re&re'ing parts on your new car, don't give this one much thought, if you can change a tire you can easily re&re the shield for oil changes.

I will post the shield part number for those that want it in a couple hours when my wife gets home.


----------



## jdb (Aug 27, 2012)

I just replaced the shield on my 2013 Eco. I ordered one to fit a 2012 Buick Verano, Part #95164334

Here's a pic of the hacked one next to a full shield...


----------



## Olwylee (Sep 7, 2012)

The Part Number for the deflector for the 2011 Cruze (is the same across model year 2012) is 95079891.


----------



## Jaycruze (Jul 11, 2011)

I had the recall done to my 2011 LS before this weekend and then had two road trips. I can honestly say that I can't feel/hear any difference when I'm driving.

The only thing I have noticed so far is the motor is a little louder if you stand infront of the car when it's just started up.

I did take a look under the car and noticed that the dealer didnt smooth out the edges after they made the cut, I can see plastic hanging all over it. 

Do you think I would be wasting my time if I took it back and asked them to clean it up?


----------



## Sunline Fan (Jul 29, 2012)

I've noticed mine wanders on the highway some, especially with concrete road surfaces that seem to be a little grooved. I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the shield or not, because I've never known it any other way than modified. My mom's MKX started wandering recently too, right after she got new tires on it (which were identical to the factory ones removed).

Granted it was really windy today, but it did it Monday as well and it wasn't nearly as windy then.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Sunline Fan said:


> I've noticed mine wanders on the highway some, especially with concrete road surfaces that seem to be a little grooved. I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the shield or not, because I've never known it any other way than modified. My mom's MKX started wandering recently too, right after she got new tires on it (which were identical to the factory ones removed).
> 
> Granted it was really windy today, but it did it Monday as well and it wasn't nearly as windy then.


I've noticed new tires have a tendency to wander a bit and give you light steering for a couple hundred miles until the outer coating is worn off.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------

