# Reliability of the 1.8 L engine with manual transmission.



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

Nobody has that kind of mileage on a Cruze yet, at least the North American version. The most some folks have is about 40-50k miles at this point, and that's on the 1.4 turbo engines. 

For 200k miles in 5 years, or 40k miles a year, an Eco manual transmission with the 1.4 turbo engine will more than repay the higher purchase price with gas savings. Change the oil at 20% on the oil life monitor with full synthetic 5w30, and the 1.4 turbo engine has every indication that it'll go very far. 

Also, the 1.8 needs a timing belt change every 80k miles or so. The 1.4T has a timing chain.


----------



## Kat (Jun 19, 2012)

Are both the 1.8 and the 1.4T new with the Cruze? I thought they'd been used since at least 2008. Are there other vehicles that have used these engines? Or are any modifications minor enough that past reliability could still be determined on average?


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

FWIW (I know someone's going to bash me), 299,999+ Mile Club | Page 30 | PriusChat (2 fas 4 u, not usbseawolf2000) had ~465K miles (!!!) on his 09 Prius before he traded it in for a '12 Prius v wagon recently. A bit more about his service history at 299,999+ Mile Club | Page 27 | PriusChat.

There are some other examples of high mileage Priuses, some in a short timespan at Lifespan/Operating costs - Prius Wiki. Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity - Hybrid Electric Vehicles has some links to service histories of bunch of vehicles w/160K miles in a short time span (e.g. 2.5 years).

Seriously, if you're concerned about reliability, I'd get a vehicle from automakers which have mostly above average reliability cars across all model years and models in Consumer Reports. I posted the Cruze's results at http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...r-reports-cruze-reliability-dec-11-issue.html and yeah, yeah, a bunch of people misinterpreted the charts besides attacking the messenger (me) and CR. FWIW, I've found their reliability reports to be generally on the mark.

CR had some recommendations that I posted at http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...turning-into-another-gm-bomb-5.html#post55512. 

Although I don't trust JDPA very much and don't find their VDS studies to be long term enough (only 3 years), see:
http://businesscenter.jdpower.com/news/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2012008
http://businesscenter.jdpower.com/news/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2011029
http://businesscenter.jdpower.com/news/pressrelease.aspx?id=2010034
http://businesscenter.jdpower.com/news/pressrelease.aspx?id=2009043
http://businesscenter.jdpower.com/news/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2008115

Judging by some of the threads here, I'd be more concerned about how many clutches you'll be going thru in 200K miles than the engine...


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Not this crap again. Seriously, stop posting these consumer reports links. There's a big thread just for that very purpose where Consumer Reports' review has been bashed endlessly. All you're doing here is trolling. Someone came in asking about the longevity, and you responded that they should be looking at other cars that CR reviewed well, as if CR was even an authority. You don't even own a Cruze, why are you even posting in this thread?

To the OP, with that kind of mileage, grab the Cruze Eco as sciphi recommended. The 1.4T and 1.8L are the only engines ever offered in the Cruze in the US. I believe the Saturn Astra also used the 1.8L motor.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Ignore cwerdna when it comes to Consumer Reports. My personal experience with cars is exactly opposite of what CR has said. CR is so bad, in fact, that instead of retesting/re-reviewing the Cruze for 2012 they simply state "based on the previous year's model ...." I know - I looked. Basically if it's a GM vehicle, CR will almost always give it below average ratings.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

I'm not surprised when it comes to the above reactions...

One can read the threads I referred to for the arguments for and against CR's reliability findings, whether they're crap, invalid, etc. As I stated in my post at http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...uze-reliability-dec-11-issue-6.html#post64830 


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


Not to turn this into a political discussion (as I'm not political) but the study cited at Partisan Psychology: Why Do People Choose Political Loyalties Over Facts? : It's All Politics : NPR is essentially the same idea...


> When pollsters ask Republicans and Democrats whether the president can do anything about high gas prices, the answers reflect the usual partisan divisions in the country. About two-thirds of Republicans say the president can do something about high gas prices, and about two-thirds of Democrats say he can't.
> 
> But six years ago, with a Republican president in the White House, the numbers were reversed: Three-fourths of Democrats said President Bush could do something about high gas prices, while the majority of Republicans said gas prices were clearly outside the president's control.
> 
> ...


I'm not going rehash/redo the argument about CR's results again. I'm done w/that. One can look at the thread to see what/who is more believable. Remember, other owners of the vehicles in question responded to CR's surveys.

Let's forget CR. Assume their results are crap. I provided several other results of general reliability data of 3 year old cars (at the time) from another source.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

cw does have a valid point. If somebody is looking for a totally dead-nuts reliable car for high mileage, a Prius is an excellent car to rack up many miles in between service stops while getting mid 40's to mid 50's fuel economy. If taxi services couldn't kill a Prius despite lots of trying, they've got to be doing something right with the car. 

Time to test-drive, and weigh the pros/cons of each car. The Prius will get one to 200k miles without breaking a sweat, or the bank. The con is that without a bunch of handling upgrades it's not terribly exciting to drive. The Cruze Eco MT is definitely more of a "driver's car". The verdict is still out on long-term reliability and things like clutch durability.


----------



## Beaker (Mar 21, 2012)

cwerdna said:


> I'm not surprised when it comes to the above reactions...
> 
> One can read the threads I referred to for the arguments for and against CR's reliability findings, whether they're crap, invalid, etc. As I stated in my post at http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...uze-reliability-dec-11-issue-6.html#post64830
> 
> ...


First off, I don't blame Presidents directly for how high or low gas goes. That said, Democrats criticism of Bush for gas prices was purely political. Bush was in favor of low gas prices. He acted as such. High demand though created high prices with everything else that was going on in the world. When Bush left office, gas prices were extremely low (around $1.90/gallon average) because the world wide economy was complete crap and demand was far lower coupled with high production.

Things have rebounded a little so prices have gone back up. The diminishing value of the dollar doesn't help either. They spike especially when there is thought that a conflict in an oil producing nation might occur. Especially with all the tension around Iran and what happened in Libya. They've gone back down recently because the economy is still poor and in Europe, its getting worse by the week, again causing demand to go down. Another factor is that higher prices have made people more conscious of the price of gas so they're buying more efficient vehicles if they can to save money. 

The difference between Bush and Obama is that Obama is in favor of us using less and using higher gas prices to force that on us. He can say all he wants now, but before he was President and even still some today, he has said and continues to say that we shouldn't be using as much resources we do. His Secretary of Energy is completely in favor of us paying European prices for gas. Why do I think that? Because he's on video saying it. Obama is also on video saying that energy prices should be higher. Much higher. All in the name of "saving the environment".

The only time I criticize Obama when it comes to gas prices is when he does things that do not help them go down or at least stay the same. The rejection of the Key Stone Pipeline was nothing but a political move to appease his environmental wacko constituency. Even unions hated him for it. Plus no new drilling permits have been issued in years. All the greater drilling has come from permits issued under the Bush administration. Not to mention they've once again banned offshore drilling except in areas oil companies already largely know there isn't any oil. 

Yes. There are people who are partisan and will criticize the side they don't like on something they wouldn't have criticized someone they do like on. But for me, I look at what I think they actually believe (not just what they tell us when they're trying to get our vote) based on audio and video from before they were on the national stage. And Obama is definitely anti-cheap energy. It's all about solar and wind and electric vehicles. Two of which aren't cheap or reliable. The other of which is expensive and just trades one rare resource for many even rarer resources.

Bio-diesel is the true future that makes sense. We can already essentially grow it. And its clean since any carbon emitted when burning it, came from the environment to begin with. But hardcore liberals/environmentalists hate the internal combustion engine and the freedom it gives people.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

My personal experience with CR's reviews of cars is basically this - every car my wife or I has owned that CR gave high reliability ratings to had major engine/transmission problems shortly after the 36,000 mile point and any car CR gave low ratings was very, very reliable to well over 150,000 miles. This, combined with statements like "based on last year's model..." (found in the 2012 car review issue under the Chevy Cruze), is why I can't give CR any credit for car reviews. I don't generally worry about resale/trade value for my cars. Onetime I came close to having to pay a dealership to take a trade as it was going to cost them more to send it to the scrap yard than it was worth.

sciphi is dead on - if you looking for something with high mileage that is rock solid, go with a Prius. Just don't expect it to be fun to drive. There are a few Cruzen pushing 40 or 50 thousand miles, but not many yet, simply because most people don't drive 30,000 miles in a year, so the long term reliability of the Cruze's power train is still an unknown. The medium term (4 years) reliability of the Cruze as a platform for the power train is good as this platform has been running around overseas since 2009.


----------



## Kinmartin0789 (Feb 18, 2011)

what the **** has happened to this forum. the question posed needed no response other than do you think it will make 200k miles. my answer absolutely. My family and i have owned all types of american cars and not a single one has not lasted us 240k miles or more. The only thing we do is normal maintenance on the vehicles. the only cars we needed to change parts on (which all work we do ourselves) was a starter and alternator on 2001 chevy lumina and 2003 sun fire. i have put 30k miles on my 1.8l cruze and ive only had it for 1 year 4 months. thats just how much i drive. as to the person who said the timing belt needed to be changed at 80k im surious where you got that info? i was told closer to 100k for that. either way timing belt is easy to change yourself on this car.


----------



## Kinmartin0789 (Feb 18, 2011)

one caveat to my post is i didnt say the cars electronics werent crapping out on some! But id say this car and gms new lineup is a huge step to get rid of that.


----------



## Kat (Jun 19, 2012)

Thanks for the advice. I also have had personal experience that doesn't match reviews. I had a 3-cyl Geo Metro that went 245,000 miles while giving me 50 mpg and no trouble. I had a Dodge Neon that went almost 300,000. I'm sure neither of them was probably rated very high, while the Honda Accord I had didn't go very far past 200,000 and gave me lots of trouble. I spent no more than $2000 for any used car. The problem started with my most recent used car purchase which was a Ford Focus, usually considered by reviews to be a good car. I had it 5 months (almost 20,000 miles) and it only had 90,000 on it to start. It ran great until the valve seat came off in one of the cylinders. My mechanic then told me that even though it isn't common, Ford Focus' had that problem more than others and that there's nothing I could have done to have prevented it. I discovered another woman at work had the exact same problem. I am now freaked out about engines. I am looking at new cars for the first time since 1985 but know that they only come with 100K warranty on the powertrain, which will be half way through my payment plan. I learned one thing in this: I'm going to ask anyone I can about the options I'm considering, which is why I came to this forum. My mechanic said he hasn't seen problems (at least so far) with the 1.8L but says the turbo can sometimes be a problem and expensive to fix. I talked to my brother-in-law who works at the Chevy Tech Center and has the 1.4T Cruze for his wife (my sister) and they are happy but are only leasing it and not putting very many miles on it. He thinks however that both engines are well-made and will be reliable.

I have no problem with replacing a clutch if needed. After 35 years of manual transmission cars, I've never had to replace the transmission and only once a clutch. The 3 automatics I've had in my life ALL required replacement of the transmission. I now refuse to buy anything but a manual, which is one of several reasons I will not look at a Prius (comes only with CVT.)

The dealer I'm working with finally found a manual cruze and sonic in another state so I'll finally have a chance to test-drive them. Although I don't have to have a "fun" car to drive (I get my fun with horses, much less horsepower but lots more fun) I do spend alot of time in one and need some amount of comfort, another problem with the Prius. 

Thanks again for the advice --Kat.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Kat said:


> I learned one thing in this: I'm going to ask anyone I can about the options I'm considering, which is why I came to this forum. My mechanic said he hasn't seen problems (at least so far) with the 1.8L but says the turbo can sometimes be a problem and expensive to fix. I talked to my brother-in-law who works at the Chevy Tech Center and has the 1.4T Cruze for his wife (my sister) and they are happy but are only leasing it and not putting very many miles on it. He thinks however that both engines are well-made and will be reliable.
> 
> I have no problem with replacing a clutch if needed. After 35 years of manual transmission cars, I've never had to replace the transmission and only once a clutch. The 3 automatics I've had in my life ALL required replacement of the transmission. I now refuse to buy anything but a manual, which is one of several reasons I will not look at a Prius (comes only with CVT.)
> 
> ...


While it is true that the turbo can cause problems, I believe it was fairly well designed in this case. Lubricated with engine oil that is at least a synthetic blend, and water cooled, it should be fairly reliable for years to come, especially with a whole lot of highway or rural driving. They went to quite some effort to ensure reliability of this motor. The biggest widespread issue that anyone has come in contact with on this motor is the spark plug gaps being out of spec from the factory. Minor caveat really. 

I'm with you on the manual transmissions 100%. The Cruze Eco MT is my first manual transmission car, and reliability as well as cost of maintenance was very high on the list of reasons why I bought it. 

The Prius will indeed get you better gas mileage (maybe about 10mpg on a good day on the highway), but its hybrid tech will start to mean very little if you're not doing a lot of city driving. By contrast, the Cruze Eco is over $4,000 cheaper and is an excellent driver's car. Test drive both and you'll understand exactly what I mean. The Prius is about as exciting as a pile of bricks.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

GM has all of Saab's turbo experience, and the engineers did a decent job of making the turbo engine. 

Doing all highway, you'll be easy on the turbo and harder on the rest of the car. Use full synthetic 5w-30 oil, and it should get 200k miles easily. 

FWIW, I'm at 23k in 9 months, and no major problems yet, even with a tune.


----------



## Patman (May 7, 2011)

I have a 2011 LS with the 1.8 manual transmission have had no problems in 21000 miles and do not foresee any. As I stated before in other posts, its a 1.8 manual transmission, not a lot can go wrong with it!!!!! The only thing I plan on doing is oil and plugs and a clutch maybe @100,000 mi. I plan on this car being workhorse like my 2.2 Aleros and 250 Nova and will probably run "forever". I hope! Hope that helps.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I'm with you on the manual transmissions 100%. The Cruze Eco MT is my first manual transmission car, and reliability as well as cost of maintenance was very high on the list of reasons why I bought it. The Prius will indeed get you better gas mileage (maybe about 10mpg on a good day on the highway), but its hybrid tech will start to mean very little if you're not doing a lot of city driving. By contrast, the Cruze Eco is over $4,000 cheaper and is an excellent driver's car. Test drive both and you'll understand exactly what I mean. The Prius is about as exciting as a pile of bricks.


 Reliability doesn't seem to be one of GM's nor the Cruze's strong suits... 

I will agree the Prius is not a fun car to drive. It's merely adequate. Some folks come up with their own form of "fun" w/the Prius (e.g. hypermilling techniques like pulse and glide).

There is also the smaller Prius c (The Toyota Prius c models and prices) which has an MSRP very close to the Cruze Eco. However, it's smaller than the Cruze in terms of interior volume and thus is classified as a compact vs. the midsized Cruze and Prius (liftback). Also, FWIW, Consumer Reports didn't like the Prius c and scored it too low to recommend... 

As for the OP's aversion to CVTs, the Prius' power split device is nothing like belt and cone CVT systems. It's a very simple design w/2 motor/generators and a single planetary gearset. There are no internal clutches, bands, shift solenoids nor a torque converter. See Toyota Prius - Power Split Device and https://picasaweb.google.com/105684...authkey=Gv1sRgCILH8tvp-8_pjQE&feat=directlink. Compare pics of automatic transmissions I took pics of at What is "MG"? | PriusChat. I've attached a pic of a FWD manual transmission that I took. Hope it's readable. 

Priuses have no alternators, no dedicated starter motors. All current members of the Prius family (model year 2010+) have no belts either. 

As I've posted before, between myself and my parents, we've owned 3 GM products before. None were reliable (but also weren't horrible lemons that I've read about). We don't buy GM anymore. It's Toyotas and Nissans for us now and they've all been a lot more reliable. 

That said, if the OP ends up getting a Cruze w/manual, from the type of miles they're planning to put on, I would be very curious to hear status reports periodically...


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

cwerdna said:


> Reliability doesn't seem to be one of GM's nor the Cruze's strong suits...
> 
> I will agree the Prius is not a fun car to drive. It's merely adequate. Some folks come up with their own form of "fun" w/the Prius (e.g. hypermilling techniques like pulse and glide).
> 
> ...


Reliability does seem to be one of the Cruze's strong points. So far, the issues that do occur are minor and vendor related. Considering the same vendors make parts for other vehicles, I don't see this as being a valid indicator. 

That is, unless of course you think that online forums are a valid representation of the consumer base, at which point many here would be more than happy to dispel that notion. 

The biggest reason why people argue with you is because you tout Consumer Reports as THE superior authority despite having been proven it isn't in a particular thread in question. 

Now, I must ask publicly, what exactly is your purpose here? You seem to adamantly discourage others from buying a Cruze and you yourself don't own one. The only discussions in which you decide to be involved are similar to this one, and few (if any) of your entrnaces to a thread don't have something significant to do with Consumer Reports' "review" of the 2011 Cruze, which has been validly argued as questionable at best.

Sent from my Bulletproof_Doubleshot using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Water-cooled Turbos nowadays can last a very long time (well over 200K) if not stressed to their full potential (e.g. "street racer" cars like Subaru WRX and Mitsubishi Evo). The Honeywell turbo in the Cruze is owned by the company that bought Garrett turbos if i remember correctly, and they have been around for a very long time. 

Back in the 80s, there were few turbocharged cars (a few Nissans, Supras, Volvos, and Saabs). Most turbochargers were only oil cooled, and they were lucky to get 100K before needing replacement. 

After owning a car that broke something every few months, I wouldn't have bought a Cruze that I didn't think was going to be reliable. Everything seems to be very well built, especially for a cheap-ish, high MPG car. 

If you want hands-down reliability, buy a Corolla. It's about as exciting as a toaster, but, basically unchanged since 1997, the power train is absolutely bulletproof. Next step up would be a Camry or Camry Hybrid - way more exciting than a Prius, and the 2012 is actually very nice - worlds above the 2011. 

People tout Hondas as reliable, and I really have no idea why. Their transmissions explode left and right, and I had nothing but problems with one I had for 5 years. They used to be fun to drive many years ago. Not anymore. 


Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> Cruze that I didn't think was going to be reliable. Everything seems to be very well built, especially for a cheap-ish, high MPG car.
> 
> If you want hands-down reliability, buy a Corolla. It's about as exciting as a toaster, but, basically unchanged since 1997, the power train is absolutely bulletproof. Next step up would be a Camry or Camry Hybrid - way more exciting than a Prius, and the 2012 is actually very nice - worlds above the 2011.
> 
> ...


Even my in-laws' 97 Accord that they're trying to sell isn't particularly problem-free, but at least Hondas don't move you forward uncontrollably, lol. 

Nine Recalls, Ten Investigations and Toyota Unintended Acceleration Continues |

We have that Accord and a Camry sitting in the yard. They haven't really moved in a few years, as they're two of 9 cars on this property that nobody wants to drive. ****, even my 87 V12 Jag probably got more run time with a blown head gasket and 2 gallons of coolant dumped in the crank case over the past 3 years.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

If people lose control of a car, they're just idiots. I really don't think these cars are just accelerating on their own and people are just blaming the cars for their own incompetence. Yet, like the Cruzes that keep catching on fire from oil changes done by incompetent mechanics, they're being forced to look into them. 

Oh hey, a floor mat MAY in a 1:1838393772 chance get stuck on the accelerator pedal. Let's recall all of them!

I had a V10 Uhaul truck once that kept surging to 2000 RPM (thats a lotta power!) at stoplights while in drive. A foot on the brake kept me from hitting anybody. 

My girlfriend has owned a 2002 Camry since new, and has done nothing to it but change the oil, a timing belt, and a valve cover gasket. Its not an exciting car at all, but I can only hope that the Cruze will be that reliable for 10 years. Corolla/Camry owners will generally tell you the same story - never spent a dime on repairs for cars they've owned for many, many years. 


Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> If people lose control of a car, they're just idiots. I really don't think these cars are just accelerating on their own and people are just blaming the cars for their own incompetence. Yet, like the Cruzes that keep catching on fire from oil changes done by incompetent mechanics, they're being forced to look into them.
> 
> Oh hey, a floor mat MAY in a 1:1838393772 chance get stuck on the accelerator pedal. Let's recall all of them!
> 
> ...


Well, there is some degree of stupidity in those accelerations, but they did find a gummy pedal assembly that was a vendor defect, among other issues not related to floormats. Its not so much that they randomly accelerate, but that the pedal gets stuck. These are real recalls, not just wive's tales. Even the floor mats could be reproduced repeatedly.

Most people won't admit to it, but they'll leave out convenient details like brake jobs, ball joint and tie rod replacements, wheel bearing replacements, and other wear items. In many peoples' eyes, if it happens to a GM, it's an unreliable car (except for the brakes), whereas if it happens to an import, it's standard maintenance. They complained about window regulators on 2nd gen w-bodies, as if Maximas weren't chewing through those as well, just to name one example.

Then you have ignorance. "Wait, you're saying my front end wobbles on the highway?" How many men here have to drive their wives' cars occasionally to make sure there isn't anything wrong here? My wife knows more than some guys on this board about cars after my constant babbling, but if it doesn't pull to the side, pop, or creak loudly, she won't notice it.

Wheel bearings, brakes, and front end suspension components are expected wear items and can't be used against a car to give it bad reliability marks unless these consistently fail prematurely. If the Cruze started blowing head gaskets or throwing turbo bearings, a case could be made against its reliability, but so long as no large issues come up, mechanical or electrical, I'd put it right next to a Corolla for reliability, and if I have to replace a few wheel bearings or balljoints in the time I own it, I chalk it up as the replacement of wear items, not "annoying repairs."

Sent from my Bulletproof_Doubleshot using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> If people lose control of a car, they're just idiots. I really don't think these cars are just accelerating on their own and people are just blaming the cars for their own incompetence. Yet, like the Cruzes that keep catching on fire from oil changes done by incompetent mechanics, they're being forced to look into them.
> 
> Oh hey, a floor mat MAY in a 1:1838393772 chance get stuck on the accelerator pedal. Let's recall all of them!
> 
> ...


My mom's 96 Camry (bought new in 96) had virtually no trouble before it was totaled in the beginning of 08. My 04 Nissan 350Z (bought new in 03) had far more trouble during the time I had it (sold it on 2011).

As for people losing control of their cars, yeah, there were some people who used the wrong pedal. Smart pedals won is also insightful as to some of the causes. However, Toyota DID have issues w/potentially sticky gas pedals from CTS (not Denso ones). Toyota put in a metal shim (I can find a video of the repair procedure, if someone's curious) to alleviate the issue. Exclusive: TTAC Takes Apart Both Toyota Gas Pedals | The Truth About Cars and Toyota Gas Pedal Fix Explained – With Exclusive Photos | The Truth About Cars has more.

They also did have issues w/floor mat entrapment and in the case of infamous Lexus Saylor crash (they were driving a loaner Lexus ES), the wrong floor mat was in the car and entrapped the pedal. Who know why they didn't shift to neutral? But, they were probably unfamiliar w/having to push and hold the power button down to do an emergency shutdown.

Since all of the above fixes have been applied and all the media frenzy has long died down, notice how we don't see (at least not in the media) Toyota SUA paranoia/reports anymore?


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Reliability does seem to be one of the Cruze's strong points. So far, the issues that do occur are minor and vendor related. Considering the same vendors make parts for other vehicles, I don't see this as being a valid indicator.
> 
> That is, unless of course you think that online forums are a valid representation of the consumer base, at which point many here would be more than happy to dispel that notion.
> 
> ...


Really??? Minor? Coolant smell in cars? Speedometer spiking? Front end noises? Premature clutch wear? Brake failure? Coolant consumption/leaks? Climate control issues? Bad thermostats? Lots of repeat visits to the shop? These are things I can think of off the top of my head.

As for "the same vendors make parts for other vehicles", that doesn't mean that mean they're made in the same plants nor of equal quality, design and lifetime across everyone and every car they supply to. 

Some/many of the parts may have been designed by the automakers itself and definitely underwent some testing regimen at the automaker to some specified lifetime w/some acceptable failure rate and defect rate. (LONG ago, GM used to stop testing parts at mileage warranty expiration. I saw an Autoweek article (long gone) saying GM changed to test until part failure.)

As I posted at http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...uze-reliability-dec-11-issue-6.html#post64768


> Another item as food for thought from http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2003-10-16-toyota-cover_x.htm:
> 
> 
> > "We have some concerns about sustaining high quality," allows Atsushi "Art" Niimi, CEO of Toyota Motor Manufacturing North America, in large measure because North American parts suppliers average 500 defects per million parts vs. 15 per million in Japan. But if it works, and Lexuses made here are equivalent to those from Japan, Toyota will have exported a major upgrade of its already respected production system.
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/19/b...-lesson-from-japan.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm might be insightful. Supplier relations also likely plays a role (http://www.autoblog.com/2012/05/15/toyota-honda-top-supplier-survey-with-lower-results-gm-and-chr/). 

Cruzeman's sent me a PM before relating to how much trouble he's had w/his Cruze vs. that of all his other previous NUMMI built combined. He's also posted about it at http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...uze-reliability-dec-11-issue-8.html#post65356.

Then, think about assembly, about the processes and standards in place. I watched http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9hBmlWRjEc long ago and at first, I thought, "what a dumb test". Then I thought about it more and realized, well, if doors are tough to close, customers are going to complain --> warranty work and warranty costs. Then, extend this SPC methodology and testing to other systems/parts on a car. 

Go browse Priuschat from ~May 09 (beginning of the 3rd gen Prius (2010 model year Prius) and go forward the # of years the Cruze has been shipping. Look at the type and severity of problems encountered by owners there.

But you're right, looking at forums alone w/anecdotal reports isn't a really valid representation. 

You poo-poo CR despite their sample size of at least 100 for each model year and engine and claim the Cruze is reliable yet I've heard no proof that the Cruze is reliable (or at least above average in reliability) from anything w/sufficiently large sample size.

I've already posted my purpose here a bunch of times.

As I said, people will attack stuff they disagree w/for whatever reason, in this case CR's reliability ratings of the Cruze. Would you guys be doing the same if it got great reliability ratings?

Over on Priuschat, a bunch of people are crying bloody murder over CR's panning (scoring it too low to recommend) of the Prius c. I wonder why??? I have insufficient seat time in the c to agree/disagree w/their review but will admit it's a budget car from an interior quality POV.


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> If people lose control of a car, they're just idiots. I really don't think these cars are just accelerating on their own and people are just blaming the cars for their own incompetence. Yet, like the Cruzes that keep catching on fire from oil changes done by incompetent mechanics, they're being forced to look into them.


I can't agree. I have one elderly customer with a Corolla that had 2 incidents with sudden acceleration. First one, the car went through her fence and a neighbours fence before stopping. Second one happened in a parking lot. And this was before all the media attention as well. 

She didn't have any problems like that with her Lumina before it and after the second incident, the Corolla was written off. She bought a Focus and hasn't had it happen in 2 years since.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

cwerdna said:


> You poo-poo CR despite their sample size of at least 100 for each model year and engine and claim the Cruze is reliable yet I've heard no proof that the Cruze is reliable (or at least above average in reliability) from anything w/sufficiently large sample size.
> 
> As I said, people will attack stuff they disagree w/for whatever reason, in this case CR's reliability ratings of the Cruze. Would you guys be doing the same if it got great reliability ratings?


You do realize they CR obviously does NOT test every model year car right? CR is basing their 2012 cruze review on last years results, even though there were hundreds of small tweaks & changes between the model years. How is that not biased to not even test again between model years? EVERY car will have minor changes & should be retested yearly to get accurate results. 

I could care less about CR reliability ratings, all that really matters is my real world experiences. My real issue is they have not backed up their so called data with ANYTHING. If your data is real you should be able to show how you came to a conclusion.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Kat said:


> I am considering buying a new car but am concerned about longevity of the engine. I will need to put on at least 200,000 miles onto the powertrain before I finally make the last payment 5 years from now. Has anyone out there had those kind of miles on this engine?


Buy the 1.4T, it uses a timing chain that should never require service. The 1.8 uses a timing belt that needs to be replaced at 97,000miles. This hidden maintenance cost more than pays for upgrading to a nicer car & getting the 1.4T.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

CR recommended the Jeep Liberty and my dad bought one based off that recommendation. It puts up with a lot of abuse (towing/hauling lots of things), but it just feels like it's falling apart. I have no respect for CR either, but some people here are and will find ANYTHING to bash them over.

I'm going to hold the Cruze to the same standard that most of the parts on my Saab/Volvo held up to. While electrical things happened every now and then, the drivetrains were absolutely bulletproof and suspension components never gave me trouble. Everything that wasn't over-engineered (like the stupid climate control and cheap "environmentally friendly" glues and plastics) held up VERY well. Both had well over 200K before changing struts or even ball joints. I have changed one wheel bearing EVER on a FWD car - if the Cruze blows through wheel bearings at the rate Nissans do, it'll piss me off. If it goes through brake rotors like Hondas do, that'll piss me off. If automatic transmissions drop like they do in Civics, or if I have to change the clutch before 100K...that's crap.

*"Reliability" can mean different things to different people. * I wouldn't consider my old car reliable, but the important thing is it's still on the road and will probably outlast most cars out there with a few minor parts thrown at it here and there. Not once in 5 1/2 years of ownership (and at an old age) did it not get me to work or leave me stranded anywhere.

As far as driving through fences - my grandpa drove through his carport and into his house in his old Buick. Had it in neutral when he thought it was in reverse; then panicked and hit the gas instead of the brake. Wasn't the car's fault.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

spacedout said:


> You do realize they CR obviously does NOT test every model year car right? CR is basing their 2012 cruze review on last years results, even though there were hundreds of small tweaks & changes between the model years. How is that not biased to not even test again between model years? EVERY car will have minor changes & should be retested yearly to get accurate results.


They definitely do not test every model year of every car. 

They do receive reliability and owner satisfaction responses from CR readers to their survey. For reliability, they do not publish results for a given make and model year unless there are at least 100 responses for that model year.

There are at least three criteria on whether their recommend a car: how it did on the road test, how it does on crash tests, and reliability. I believe the Cruze did well enough on their road test to be recommended, if it had at least average reliability. But, it doesn't have the latter. 

Some cars have good reliability results but score too low to recommend (e.g. Toyota Yaris, Honda Insight). In the past, there have been some that did too poorly on crash tests or weren't available w/certain safety features, so they couldn't recommend it.


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

cwerdna said:


> They definitely do not test every model year of every car.
> 
> They do receive reliability and owner satisfaction responses from CR readers to their survey. For reliability, they do not publish results for a given make and model year unless there are at least 100 responses for that model year.


If they don't get 100 responses, they still give "predicted" reliability. 

2010 Consumer Reports Survey Analysis: Part One: Insufficient Data | The Truth About Cars

This may have worked years ago but it doesn't now. If I showed you the number of issues cropping up with new Camry's like leaking struts, seperated control arm bushings it'd make you wonder what happened compared to 10-15 years ago.


----------

