# Cruze Reliability: Consumer Reports



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...r-reports-cruze-reliability-dec-11-issue.html was discussion about it.

If you think CR's reliability ratings are worthless or crap, then you have nothing to worry about. If they have some credibility, in your book, then you ought to steer clear of the Cruze in favor of more reliable vehicles, esp. from brands which consistently have better reliability ratings, year over year.


----------



## tecollins1 (Nov 6, 2011)

I hate consumer reports. Sometimes it makes you wonder if the editor is bias towards certain manufactures. I just laugh when they give something I like a low score.


----------



## Patman (May 7, 2011)

Find the big discussion about the CR reliability ratings. They contradict themselves. They say the Cruze does well in 10 out of 11 items and then say the car gets a poor rating over all. Why probably since it does not have a long track record for CR to look back on. I take all of CR ratings with a grain of salt. Did the company being reviewed pay them for good ratings? Go back thru the threads and find the discussion about said ratings. 

I have no problems with my Cruze. But did they ask any of us?:angry:


----------



## iCruze2 (Dec 16, 2011)

I've only had cosmetic issues. Mechanically, PERFECT and VERY reliable.


----------



## chrisholland03 (Oct 13, 2011)

'12 Cruze Eco manual, 3500 miles in 4 months, no issues. I've been a subscriber for 20+ years. The best and worst part of their reliability survey is relying on its subscribers for data. I have several theories about how 'subscriber misconceptions' skew the data. In short, the data they are reporting is 'accurate' in the sense that they are reporting the data collected from the subscribers. They diligently try to define the survey parameters in the survey, yet there is still a lot of room for interpretation by the subscribers. There really isn't a better way for CR to report short of requiring everyone to submit repair bills for every problem reported -- and that's never going to happen as it would require the subscribers to take an exorbitant amount of work and CR excessive staff to evaluate.

It's a tool, perhaps the best tool available, but not necessarily a good tool.


----------



## cruzeman (Mar 13, 2011)

I trust consumer reports just because every car I have owned has been spot on with their ratings. I totally agree with them giving the Cruze a big black circle for reliability, mine has been in shop since last Tuesday and no signs of it coming back anytime soon. Ive been without my car for approx 15 days since last april.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

FTW, here's my take on the CR assessment. IIRC, they looked at a 2011 model and nearly all of the problems reported here and on other forums have been related to that model year production. Personally, I would never purchase a first year production car (from any manufacturer) and I would not have purchased a first model year car from the Lordstown facility (given their history). I'd like to see CR review a 2012 model and I'd bet the review would be different, if they discounted the 2011's history. That's not likely to happen, though. I'm still on to order a Cruze when the time comes, and I'm relying on my research and not CR's. I keep my cars for a long time, so I choose carefully.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

Patman said:


> Find the big discussion about the CR reliability ratings. They contradict themselves. They say the Cruze does well in 10 out of 11 items and then say the car gets a poor rating over all. Why probably since it does not have a long track record for CR to look back on. I take all of CR ratings with a grain of salt. Did the company being reviewed pay them for good ratings? Go back thru the threads and find the discussion about said ratings.
> 
> I have no problems with my Cruze. But did they ask any of us?:angry:


Sigh... you misread the reliability ratings. You and the OP can go back and re-read my posts about how you and many others there were misreading them. You can them compare to some other cars that got average reliability ratings, which I also posted. You'll then conclude from the ratings on the various systems of the '11 Cruze that the much worse than average predicted reliability is correct.

If you subscribed to CR and you could've given them your answer in their annual survey.

As for "did the company being reviewed pay them?" Well, unlike virtually all car magazines, CR accepts no advertising and is a non-profit. They buy their own cars for review from dealers rather than accept cars from the manufacturer. I trust them to be not influenced by any sort of payment/bribery by manufacturers.

Personally, I've found their reliability ratings and problem spots to be reasonably accurate for cars that my parents and I have owned. For cars that I've owned and/or follow closely, I've also seen a correlation between esp. problematic spots they point out vs. what I've seen on message boards.


----------



## eagleco (May 3, 2011)

Jim Frye said:


> Personally, I would never purchase a first year production car (from any manufacturer) and I would not have purchased a first model year car from the Lordstown facility (given their history).


Well, just be glad some of us were willing to take a chance and bought 2011's. It would be tough to make the '12's if nobody bought any Cruzes the first year. I have had only one minor problem so far and have been enjoying my '11 Eco for eight months now, and was able to get it for 2k below MSRP. So, although you make a good point, I have no regrets buying my 2011 Cruze.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...speaking as the "*Devil's Advocate*" _somebody_ HAD to buy those *2011 Cruzes *(and suffer through all the poor reliability and problems) or there would NOT have been any *2012 Cruzes *for "luckier-than-thou" buyers to be happy about.


----------



## RichBogrow (Jan 9, 2012)

I have a 2012 LT2 with about 1700 miles on it so far. The only issue I have had is wind noise from the mirrors (this issue is addressed in another thread), that the dealer took care of. This car has big shoes to fill, as it is replacing a 2008 Honda Civic with 108,000 miles on it (have had no issues with the Civic) that I gave to my son. I wanted to get back to an 'American' car, and I really like the looks of the Cruze. One thing that I like about the Cruze was the 5yr/100,000 mile powertrain warranty, as I put about 30,000 miles/yr on my car.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

cwerdna said:


> Sigh... you misread the reliability ratings. You and the OP can go back and re-read my posts about how you and many others there were misreading them. You can them compare to some other cars that got average reliability ratings, which I also posted. You'll then conclude from the ratings on the various systems of the '11 Cruze that the much worse than average predicted reliability is correct.
> 
> If you subscribed to CR and you could've given them your answer in their annual survey.
> 
> ...


I think I remember you from that thread. Aren't you the guy who doesn't even own a Cruze and appear to be here only to troll this forum? Nobody's even sure why you continue to post. 

These ratings are bullshit, plain and simple. How exactly someone is expected to know how reliable a new car will be is beyond me. All speculation aside, there's no proof, and they have no place or purpose to even attempt to predict the reliability of the Cruze. 

Again, all of the detailed ratings were good, yet they gave it a bad reliability rating based on a previous track record that GM had. I'm not buying a single bit of it. 

If you care to know more of where I'm coming from, feel free to take the next 10+ minutes to read the following, as there's zero purpose for me re-phrasing it all:

Statistical problems of Consumer Reports auto ratings

I expect my Cruze to be quite reliable over the next 10 years, and expect to have minor issues such as ball joints, tie rods, brakes, wheel bearings, and the occasional ABS sensor, which is something just about any car can have issues with.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I think I remember you from that thread. Aren't you the guy who doesn't even own a Cruze and appear to be here only to troll this forum? Nobody's even sure why you continue to post.
> 
> These ratings are bullshit, plain and simple. How exactly someone is expected to know how reliable a new car will be is beyond me. All speculation aside, there's no proof, and they have no place or purpose to even attempt to predict the reliability of the Cruze.
> 
> ...


No, I don't own a Cruze and I already posted about why I post here at http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/27-f...ims-grab-headlines-miss-mark-5.html#post55558. I have no obligation to justify to you why I'm here.

You sound like someone who's in denial. I don't buy your statement that "yet they gave it a bad reliability rating based on a previous track record that GM had". There are some GM vehicles that had better than average and in some cases, much better than average reliability (e.g. Volt). In the past, some GM vehicles have also done well in CR reliability surveys (e.g. Saturns in its early days).

Yep, even CR themselves in a print issue (I wish I had the exact quotes) pointed out how some folks might consider a car "reliable" which CR would consider unreliable. The example was some guy w/a Corvette who wrote that his Corvette was the most reliable car he ever owned, yet during the timespan (IIRC, it was <6 years and 60K miles), he'd replaced the AC compressor and a whole bunch of other things. CR concluded the based on the things he replaced, they wouldn't call it reliable.

I can understand your link's complaints about maintenance and I've heard similar bogus defenses from VW fanboys. When owners of known problematic VWs have problems like interior bits breaking, window clips failing (leading to falling windows), electrical gremlins, peeling interiors, etc., that has nothing to do w/maintenance. What are the maintenance items on those? When I see people here on Cruzetalk needing new engines, having coolant leaks, bad thermostats, spiking speedometers, problematic transmissions, etc., that's not due to maintenance either, given they couldn't be any older than ~1.5 years.

Buying any car is a gamble in terms of its reliability. If you buy a car, w/o looking at ratings or getting data from a large sample size (asking a few people here and there is not equal to surveying 100+ people w/the same model and model year), you don't know how reliable it will be. However, if you look at a model and a company and see how it has done in the past over time and how consistent it has been, that at least gives you a sense of the odds of whether your car will be reliable.

Let's look at this way: which has the higher likelihood of being reliable, over the long term? 
car A: brand and parent company has almost all vehicles w/above average reliability across all its models and model years
car B: brand and parent company is all over the map in terms of reliability, but w/many w/below average reliability and few w/above average reliability

Between my parents and myself, we've owned 3 GM products and not had a good reliability experience w/any of them. They weren't horrible lemons (I've seen some interesting horror stories of various makes, including non-GM), but weren't great. The Toyotas we've have and had have been far better in terms of reliability but none were perfect. Our Nissans have been better but definitely inferior to Toyota. 

I don't know what you base your expectations on. Sounds like "gut feel" more than anything else.

Since you call their ratings bullshit, I guess you won't bother reading http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...orts-carreliability-faq_ov/overview/index.htm.

As I said in my reply to the OP:


> If you think CR's reliability ratings are worthless or crap, then you have nothing to worry about.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...speaking as the "*Devil's Advocate*" _somebody_ HAD to buy those *2011 Cruzes *(and suffer through all the poor reliability and problems) or there would NOT have been any *2012 Cruzes *for "luckier-than-thou" buyers to be happy about.


Sorry. I wasn't intending to rub salt.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

Time will tell if the 2012's ironed out the bugs in the 2011's. Having owned GM cars in the past, I can say with some authority that the engine will keep running like a top well after the rest of the car's ready to scrap. Also, it'll be the electrical and interior things that go bad first, followed by the body rusting out in the rocker panels since just about no GM car has rockers that survive salt worth a darn, then the wheel bearings, then an alternator or two, then finally somebody gets tired of tossing money into it and scraps it with a fine-running engine.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Responses in red



cwerdna said:


> No, I don't own a Cruze and I already posted about why I post here at http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/27-f...ims-grab-headlines-miss-mark-5.html#post55558. I have no obligation to justify to you why I'm here
> 
> funny how whenever someone questions why you're here, you simply have no obligation to justify yourself. Lets consider the facts. You don't own a Cruze. You post in other threads and piss off other Cruze owners, and you talk about Toyota as if they're the best car company on the planet. Why are you here? Let me explain it to you. You're a troll. Please google the term if you're not sure what I'm talking about.
> 
> ...


My expectations are that GM did better with this car than they did with other cars, but even if they did just as well with this car as they did with my last two GM cars, I'd be happy. My 95 Regal was my first car and took me from 61k miles to its current 248k miles. I overheated the engine and blew a lifter, so I swapped in a supercharged one at 217k miles. Can't complain. There's a 2000 Buick Regal GSE in my garage as well with 160k miles, bone stock, and all I've had to do on it since I bought it are brakes, tie rods, ball joints, and one wheel bearing, all of which are considered wear items on ANY car. 

I'm not going to read a rebuttal against consummerreports *written by consumerreports.* Find me a 3rd party site if you care to disagree, not that very site's FAQ. 

Now, I'm going to speak for everyone else since you didn't get the hint in the last thread. Your Toyota elitism is not welcome here. You going around trolling every thread you can and telling people these cars are unreliable with absolutely NO factual evidence is unwelcome here. 

I can't tell you to stop, but I can promise you that I will be reporting your posts if it continues.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Oh, and before I leave. 

Should You Trust Consumer Reports? - AutoSpies Auto News



> Consumer Reports, the publication of Consumer’s Union, has long been accused of a bias toward imported cars, particularly those made by Japanese brand manufacturers, and against anything built by a Detroit automaker.
> http://www.autospies.com/news/Should-You-Trust-Consumer-Reports-18905/
> 
> 
> ...





​http://forums.motortrend.com/70/8551685/the-general-forum/is-consumer-reports-biased/index.html

Readers defend, deride Consumer Reports - Business - Consumer news - msnbc.com


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Now, I'm going to speak for everyone else since you didn't get the hint in the last thread. Your Toyota elitism is not welcome here. You going around trolling every thread you can and telling people these cars are unreliable with absolutely NO factual evidence is unwelcome here.


Ok, it pisses off some users here, namely you, it seems. There are some unlucky Cruze owners here, including a moderator who are in agreement about CR's reliability ratings of the Cruze. I find it interesting that you're so vehemently attacking me and CR.

No factual evidence? You choose to disbelieve it. I've already given plenty, which came from data for at least 100 Cruze owners who responded to their survey. You should blame GM and blame them.

I didn't start this thread. The OP can choose to believe or not believe CR's findings based upon this thread and the other thread. If he doesn't believe CR's results, he can look at forums of other cars which have received good reliability ratings and compare the relative amount, type and severity of problems experienced by owners w/vehicles of similar age, or even older.

There are non-Toyota brands/automakers which have vehicles where the vast majority of their products and model years also have above average reliability in CR. But then again, that doesn't matter to you.

As for "Exactly where is the issue if these are all covered under the warranty?" It is an issue because it's a matter of wasted time and inconvenience to keep having to go back to get things fixed. In some cases, they won't have the part in stock and need to order it, requiring another trip and more wasted time. In the process of attempting to fix things, the problem might not be fixed or they can cause new problems or make things worse, necessitating possibly another trip. 

It's an issue after the warranty expires as it then also costs money. 

Certain other issues can be a nuisance to deal with. For example, on my former 04 Nissan 350Z, both power windows quit working (dealer said the motors and regulators on both sides failed) and both were stuck in the partly down position. Great! What does that mean if I have to park outside? So, I had to get it fixed pronto. Fortunately, it was fixed under warranty and it wasn't during a rainy season.

Guess what? CR's ratings at the time for my 04 Z were bad for either body hardware or power equipment and it was commonly reported on my350z.com too.

Luckily, I had a garage at home, but I'd be concerned about bugs and rodents getting in.

Re: first model year reliability, many automakers have pulled off above average reliability for the first model year. The Chevy Volt was one of them. The Ford Fusion (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...usion-hybrid-first-drive.htm?loginMethod=auto) was another example.

But yes, first model years tend to have a higher % of problems than subsequent model years, even on Toyotas.

Toyota's SUA fiasco has nothing to do w/reliability but yes, Toyota's not perfect. During the whole SUA fiasco that seriously damaged Toyota's reputation and which the media blew out of proportion, some folks actually put the safety complaints into perspective such as at Toyota Ranks 17th for NHTSA Customer Complaints, Edmunds.com Analysis Shows - AutoObserver.

What a bunch of BS regarding "You mean the same Toyota that has made every single effort possible to hide every recall they possibly can". Please provide a reputable source.

Re: FE numbers, it wasn't that I didn't "like the way GM reported fuel economy numbers", it's more a matter of how they advertised them or used them in advertising or PR material. This isn't GM specific though.

It ought to be illegal for any automaker to only emphasize or report the highest number. The choices out to be: list and mention all 3 numbers (city/highway/combined) in equal prominence or if only mentioning one, it MUST be combined.

FWIW, I don't bash everything that is GM and have tried hard to avoid behavior here that would seem trollish (it seems that I've failed with you). Even though I'm not a Volt fan and would be highly unlikely to buy one, I was pleasantly surprised when I test drove one before they became available. I posted my impressions at http://priuschat.com/forums/chevrol...october-thru-november-2010-a.html#post1194704.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> Ok, it pisses off some users here, namely you, it seems. There are some unlucky Cruze owners here, including a moderator who are in agreement about CR's reliability ratings of the Cruze. I find it interesting that you're so vehemently attacking me and CR.
> 
> No factual evidence? You choose to disbelieve it. I've already given plenty, which came from data for at least 100 Cruze owners who responded to their survey. You should blame GM and blame them.


Nah, I agree with him. Clinging to CR on a 1 year old model for reliability is bullshit. To be honest, I think your other thread about current brand preference based of the CR study actually proves the point I'm about to make. It is very rare at this day and age that a car made will be a "piece of ****" because of how hotly contested the market is and every automaker fighting desperately for position in safety, quality, fuel economy, etc. If you buy a car and it breaks down early.. it is most likely the car you bought and not the entire model itself. Automakers are very good now about serious breakdowns and issue recalls immediately. 

And those 100 people bitching about their Cruze are 100 out of.... 213,000?? Care to compute that percent?

To the OP. 12,000 miles. One problem and its minor aesthetic. The small plastic "cap" that sits where the inside door handle is on my passenger side. Its little connector clip broke.. which is probably one of my stupid passengers and will be fixed with warranty of course. Ohhh.. and another time a passenger got my passenger side floormat lodged under the dash..

Mechanical problems that I've had to spend money on? Zilch. Zero. Nada. Runs exactly like it should. I had to get trifecta to fix the poor 2011 transmission programming.. but Vince fixed that 100% and gave the turbo more juice .


----------



## RichBogrow (Jan 9, 2012)

It is also true that when responding to surveys, people that have had problems tend to respond more than people that have not had any issues, thus skewing the results.


----------



## weimerrj (Dec 4, 2011)

My beef with CR is that the specific categories are the ones that are surveyed, not the "Overall Predicted Reliability". That is a guess - an educated one, based upon experience, sure; but it is merely an opinion of the editors and not specifically surveyed. It's also one they _never used to give out for first model year cars _until recently. And recent Toyota reliability issues burned them, but they still do it.

So yes, there is a bias - Japanese cars as a whole have been more reliable than American cars for the past 40 years or so. Cars built at Lordstown have a bad reputation even for GM. So they have to earn it back. Noted.

And cwerdna, you do annoy many of us. It's not that the information you present isn't useful, it's that you're quite patronizing about it. Jumping right in with a preson who is thinking of buying it and basically saying "you just might want to move along" before he can engage actual owners with their experiences (even CRUZEMAN)? Pretty jerk move there, IMO. It looks like you're here to steer folks away. 

FWIW, my '12 Eco at 2 months and 5200 miles I have no problems to speak of. And my fuel economy regularly _beats_ the EPA estimate (actual, not DIC), at 70+ mph.


----------



## cruzeman (Mar 13, 2011)

my car has been at the dealer since last tuesday and the fourth time since november. There is nothing wrong with warning people that are looking to buy a Cruze. People come here to see how owners like their Cruze to get a feel if the car is will be right for them. Again, if Weimerrj or anybody here for that matter starts having alot of issues their tune would change towards the Cruze just like mine did and would want to let people know the problems they have with it.


----------



## doc03 (May 18, 2011)

cwerdna: Where in CR do they mention that every Toyota Tacoma from 2004 back to 1995 was recalled for rusting frames? I watched hundreds of them pass my house on the way to the crusher the last three years. If you drive behind our local Toyota dealers shop there is always a stack of rusted frames sitting there! The Tacoma has always been a CR Best Buy and still is, hum? Every time CR reports put any American product up against a foreign import the import consistently comes out on top. I ask the same question if you admittedly don't own a Cruze and don't like them why are you on a Cruze forum. Could it be you sell imported cars? 
Look at the latest Consumer Digest report on new cars, the Cruze is a Best Buy!!!


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

cruzeman said:


> my car has been at the dealer since last tuesday and the fourth time since november. There is nothing wrong with warning people that are looking to buy a Cruze. People come here to see how owners like their Cruze to get a feel if the car is will be right for them. Again, if Weimerrj or anybody here for that matter starts having alot of issues their tune would change towards the Cruze just like mine did and would want to let people know the problems they have with it.


You have every right to share your experience, but you need to acknowledge that you are not the norm with your issues. It could be a shitty dealership, a defect in that particular car, or you could have a lemon. GM is not the only manufacturer that has ever left lemons leave their dealer lots. 

However, a few things might be worth noting. 

A. you have a 2011, which so far have been known to have some issues that the 2012 does not
B. the fact that your car has been at the dealer so long may indicate that your dealer has an incompetent service department, which has nothing to do with your actual car

No, there is nothing wrong with sharing your experience.



doc03 said:


> cwerdna: Where in CR do they mention that every Toyota Tacoma from 2004 back to 1995 was recalled for rusting frames? I watched hundreds of them pass my house on the way to the crusher the last three years. If you drive behind our local Toyota dealers shop there is always a stack of rusted frames sitting there! The Tacoma has always been a CR Best Buy and still is, hum? Every time CR reports put any American product up against a foreign import the import consistently comes out on top. I ask the same question if you admittedly don't own a Cruze and don't like them why are you on a Cruze forum. Could it be you sell imported cars?
> Look at the latest Consumer Digest report on new cars, the Cruze is a Best Buy!!!


They don't. Where in CR did they mention the other Toyotas affecting millions of cars with the sticky acceleration issues?

Toyota Sudden Acceleration Timeline |

In 2009:


> Toyota announces plans to reconfigure the accelerator pedal on 3.8 million vehicles going back to the 2004 model year. Other fixes include modifying the floor area around the pedal and in _some_ models, installing a brake-to-idle override that allows the driver to quickly stop a vehicle in an unintended acceleration incident and newly-designed replacement driver- and front-passenger side all-weather mats.
> 
> The recalled vehicles include:
> 
> ...


Keep in mind, how long did it take them to *announce plans*? 2-5 years, depending on the vehicle you're looking at. 



> *November 27*
> 
> 
> NHTSA receives anonymous tip from a Kentucky city that just happens to be the home of a Toyota-owned supplier of throttle bodies to check out the probability that cracked throttle body shafts are causing SUA. *“Concerned Citizen” says Toyota management knows about the problem, but has remained silent.*




Again, Toyota knew about these issues and remained silent, hid the fact to try to protect themselves. Now, there's a huge difference between a GM that tries to avoid a recall on a defective clutch and a Toyota that tries to avoid a recall on an issue that has threatened and ended peoples' lives. Big difference there. There's more proof of this debacle on the internet if you know how to use google. I am disgusted by the mentality some people have that Toyota can do no wrong. 

Since cwerdna seems to have gobs of free time to post on a Cruze forum without owning a cruze, I'm sure he'll also have enough time to read the proof he was asking for:

http://www.safetyresearch.net/2012/...and-toyota-unintended-acceleration-continues/

Back to the conversation, this fellow sounds like a Toyota salesman or someone working in a Toyota office, who spends a few free moments every day trolling the competition's websites to try to steer people away. A quick IP address check would clarify that for sure. Of course, that is a speculation, but if it isn't the case, one really has to wonder why he's been posting on a Cruze forum for so long when he flagrantly opposes the car and will never buy one. To me it just sounds like a colossal waste of time.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

For the first year debate...

I've bought a first year car. My 06 Civic was the first year of the 8th generation and I've had no issues and a great experience. My other car was the "first year" for the 3.6L G6 GTPs and had no issues. So my experience with them has been positive. Although the argument of waiting makes perfect sense, my decisions have had no negative consequences.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Aeroscout977 said:


> For the first year debate...
> 
> I've bought a first year car. My 06 Civic was the first year of the 8th generation and I've had no issues and a great experience. My other car was the "first year" for the 3.6L G6 GTPs and had no issues. So my experience with them has been positive. Although the argument of waiting makes perfect sense, my decisions have had no negative consequences.


Wasn't the 3.6L in the G6 on the GXP trim? The GTP used a 3.9L motor...

I do fully acknowledge that the Honda Civics are generally reliable. While _I_ consider them bland, boring, and uncomfortable (which is only my opinion), they are consistently reliable. However, the 06 Civic was the 8th generation of civic. 

By contrast, the 2011 Cruze is the 1st year for the 1st generation of this car in the US. That's not exactly apples to apples.


----------



## weimerrj (Dec 4, 2011)

cruzeman said:


> my car has been at the dealer since last tuesday and the fourth time since november. There is nothing wrong with warning people that are looking to buy a Cruze. People come here to see how owners like their Cruze to get a feel if the car is will be right for them. Again, if Weimerrj or anybody here for that matter starts having alot of issues their tune would change towards the Cruze just like mine did and would want to let people know the problems they have with it.


I have no problem with a prospective owner discussing the problems you have with you, a Cruze owner. It's the reason he came here and asked the question. And yes, if I were to have the same problems in the same frequency, I too would complain and not recommend the Cruze. 

It's the breezy dismissal a non-owner has - by definition without experience with our car - that frankly rankles. That he elides past the documented reliability portion (which seems to show good to very good across the spectrum) and points only to the *best guess* prediction is the best evidence of that.


----------



## Vetterin (Mar 27, 2011)

Check out this site if you want some REAL feedback.
2011 Chevrolet Cruze Problems and Repair Histories


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

weimerrj said:


> That he elides past the documented reliability portion (which seems to show good to very good across the spectrum) and points only to the *best guess* prediction is the best evidence of that.


The reliability details for the Cruze are NOT good to very good across the spectrum. You've again misread the charts. Please see the other thread. I'd also posted others w/average and above average predicted reliability, for comparison


doc03 said:


> cwerdna: Where in CR do they mention that every Toyota Tacoma from 2004 back to 1995 was recalled for rusting frames? I watched hundreds of them pass my house on the way to the crusher the last three years. If you drive behind our local Toyota dealers shop there is always a stack of rusted frames sitting there! The Tacoma has always been a CR Best Buy and still is, hum? *Every time CR reports put any American product up against a foreign import the import consistently comes out on top*. I ask the same question if you admittedly don't own a Cruze and don't like them why are you on a Cruze forum. Could it be you sell imported cars?
> Look at the latest Consumer Digest report on new cars, the Cruze is a Best Buy!!!


Nope, I do not and have never worked for any auto company nor any dealership nor anything in any way related to auto sales.

As for the Tacoma issue, I'm unaware of it since I don't follow trucks. That said, I checked on Home | Safercar -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on Tacomas from 02-04 and see no such recall. However, I do see Toyota extends rust warranty on older Tacoma pickups to 15 years and had to use the Wayback Machine to retrieve TOYOTA OPEN ROAD BLOG: Living Up to Our Commitment, which says it's not a recall. I can't defend the Tacoma since I know nothing about it.

As for Consumer's Digest, does their recommendation taking into account reliability results? Do they even provide any reliability data?

As for your claims that about CR, that's not true. There have been PLENTY of "imports" they don't recommend and they do recommend some American models (What country builds the most, recommended cars?). There are plenty of BMWs and VWs they don't recommend due to reliability, for example. There are Japanese cars that they don't recommend despite their reliability since they score too low in their tests (e.g. Toyota Yaris, Honda Insight, '12 Honda Civic, etc.) They don't recommend the Nissan 370Z since it did very badly in their reliability tests and as I pointed out in the other thread, at a time the Infiniti QX56, Nissan Quest, Armadas and Titans did HORRIBLY in terms of reliability.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

cwerdna said:


> The reliability details for the Cruze are NOT good to very good across the spectrum. You've again misread the charts. Please see the other thread. I'd also posted others w/average and above average predicted reliability, for comparison
> 
> Nope, I have never worked for any auto company nor any dealership nor anything in any way related to auto sales.
> 
> ...


Amazing how everyone here is misreading the charts, and I mean EVERYONE. Everyone is some level of stupid because only you can read them correctly. 

Its not a Tacoma, its a Tundra. The reason why there isn't a recall is because Toyota doesn't want to claim responsibility for it. Just because they don't admit it, doesn't mean there isn't a huge problem. The truck in the two pictures I posted was not rusted.

Edited to be more polite...


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Amazing how everyone here is misreading the charts, and I mean EVERYONE. Everyone is some level of stupid because only you can read them correctly. Funny how that works, isn't it?
> 
> Its not a Tacoma, its a Tundra. I thought as a Toyota fanboy, you'd have been able to tell the two apart. The reason why there isn't a recall is because Toyota doesn't want to claim responsibility for it. Just because they don't admit it, doesn't mean there isn't a huge problem. The truck in the two pictures I posted was not rusted.


Sigh... please see the other thread for how to properly interpret the data and LOOK at the charts for cars that received average and above average reliability, for comparison. You'll then see why the Cruze was given far below average predicted reliability.

I'll point them out *again*. Focus on the '11 model years on all of these to start with.

http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...r-reports-cruze-reliability-dec-11-issue.html - a bunch of cars, Cruze and two cars w/much better than average

http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...cruze-reliability-dec-11-issue.html#post61912 - examples of average and above average cars. Notice for for '11, they did better than the Cruze?

http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...cruze-reliability-dec-11-issue.html#post61917 - a worse than average example

http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...uze-reliability-dec-11-issue-2.html#post61927 - read the explanation there




doc03 said:


> cwerdna: Where in CR do they mention that every Toyota *Tacoma *from 2004 back to 1995 was recalled for rusting frames? I watched hundreds of them pass my house on the way to the crusher the last three years. If you drive behind our local Toyota dealers shop there is always a stack of rusted frames sitting there! The *Tacoma *has always been a CR Best Buy and still is, hum?


I don't follow trucks. I have never had any interest in buying a truck from any company. I was responding doc03's post who referred to the Tacoma.

Sucks for your friend w/the truck. I sure hope Toyota gave him decent compensation (e.g. buyback, replacement, etc.) and hope he filed a safety complaint w/NHTSA on it.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

"Never wrestle with a pig....You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it."


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

cwerdna said:


> I don't follow trucks. I have never had any interest in buying a truck from any company. I was responding doc03's post who referred to the Tacoma.
> 
> Sucks for your friend w/the truck. I sure hope Toyota gave him decent compensation (e.g. buyback, replacement, etc.) and hope he filed a safety complaint w/NHTSA on it.


My friend's dad was given the shaft. The dealer told him he's out of luck and its not covered, nor will they give him any reimbursement as a result. He bought another Tundra at full price. Yeah, it certainly sucked to be him. You can bet everyone within 100 miles of me would know about it if that happened to my car. 

For the record, my dad drives a 2010 Tacoma 4x4, which he bought brand new. I fully supported his decision as GM doesn't make anything to compete with it.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

Jim Frye said:


> "Never wrestle with a pig....You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it."


...George Benard Shaw [1856-1950]


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...George Benard Shaw [1856-1950]


Wow! I have only seen it as a cartoon, many years ago. Thanks. Today is a success, I learned something.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...my college literature class has been vindicated...well, at least those parts I remember (ha,ha).


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> My friend's dad was given the shaft. The dealer told him he's out of luck and its not covered, nor will they give him any reimbursement as a result. He bought another Tundra at full price. Yeah, it certainly sucked to be him. You can bet everyone within 100 miles of me would know about it if that happened to my car.


Ouch! Assuming it wasn't user error/abuse, I hope he sent an angry mail to Toyota Motor Sales about that. If I had that happen, I wouldn't buy another Toyota truck...


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

As my teenage daughter would say, Consumers Report Magazine sucks, that is all I have to say about them.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Wasn't the 3.6L in the G6 on the GXP trim? The GTP used a 3.9L motor...
> 
> I do fully acknowledge that the Honda Civics are generally reliable. While _I_ consider them bland, boring, and uncomfortable (which is only my opinion), they are consistently reliable. However, the 06 Civic was the 8th generation of civic.
> 
> By contrast, the 2011 Cruze is the 1st year for the 1st generation of this car in the US. That's not exactly apples to apples.


Nah the 3.9L was in the GTP trim for 06 only. They switched to the 3.6L in 07 and changed to GXP when they offered a more aggressive visual package in 09. Performance wise everything was the same. As far as comparing my two in reliability I'm happy with both fairly equally. The Honda sucks when it comes to brakes/rotors longevity. And the Pontiac gave me power steering problems but that's about it. Performance wise I like the Honda. It didn't take much to get putting as much power to the ground as the GTP. The aftermarket world sucks for the LY7 motors sadly. On long trips I do prefer the Pontiac. The ride is better and they both average just over 30 MPG.


----------



## tourbus1 (May 12, 2011)

I've had my 2011 Cruze LT for a almost a year now. I love this little car. Love the performance of the little turbo, gives you the performance feel of a v6. I do find the mileage very low in the winter city driving, but once on the highway it gives decent mileage. this car looks good,feels good,performs good, and I recommend it to everyone looking for a compact car. I've worked in the car business for years and every Honda or Toyota service centre is filled with their cars needing repairs too. Buy what u like, to **** with other people opinions are, especially non owners of the vehicles your considering. Just saying.


----------



## everjeff (Apr 23, 2011)

I bought my 2011 Cruze LS in April, I'm at about 23,000km now and I haven't had a single problem. My car runs smoothly, is fun to drive, and I love it. I'd highly recommend it to anyone thinking about buying one. Also getting about 29.4 mpg (8.0L/100km), and I don't by any means drive it gently.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

*newsletter*

I find it rather dismaying and annoying that the staff decided to include misinformation in their link from the newsletter to this thread that came from an early reply.


> Find the big discussion about the CR reliability ratings. They contradict themselves. They say the Cruze does well in 10 out of 11 items and then say the car gets a poor rating over all. Why probably since it does not have a long track record for CR to look back on.


 The above is flat out wrong. I'd have been totally fine if they said something like: 
The Cruze earned a poor reliability rating in CR. There's a big discussion about these ratings and controversy over their accuracy, biases and validity. 

For convenience, I've attached the overall chart and reliability ratings of some cars roughly in order from best to worst (same ones I pointed out at http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...reliability-consumer-reports-4.html#post68930). I've also added the Chevy Volt, which did *much better than average*, despite having *no *"long track record for CR to look back on".

Please notice what it takes to earn well above average, above average, average, below average and much below average. 

And from my earlier post at http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...ze-reliability-dec-11-issue-2.html#post61927: (emphasis added is mine)


> You keep misinterpreting the meanings of the circles for the individual systems. Apparently, for newer cars, they do NOT represent average, above average, below average, etc. for systems/trouble areas.
> ...
> Perhaps the better explanation is at Consumer Reports Car Reliability FAQ | Answers to Reliability Questions - Consumer Reports under "4.3. How has this approach differed from the way it was done in previous years?CR has changed the way it presents reliability data, beginning with the 2005 survey.... "
> 
> ...


 Unfortunately, the above CR link appears to have moved. I found the above passage at Consumer Reports Car Reliability FAQ | Answers to Reliability Questions - Consumer Reports. 

However, how to read all these ratings, what they mean, etc. are all moot if one believes they are invalid, "bullshit", subject to significant biases, etc., as some in this thread have asserted.


----------



## Disbeliever (Dec 31, 2010)

My Cruze LT diesel 150 bhp auto for the past 20 months & 17000 miles has been 100% reliable no warranty claims and has the best roadholding of the 42 previous cars I have owned. However I have many complaints the ride on UK roads is poor, so is the fuel consumption average combined only 29 mpg. It is impossible to read the instruments in strong sunlight or when travelling fast, has useless stupid annoying features, auto lights , rainsensing wipers while essential features are missing, e.g. tyre pressure monitor, powered foldback door mirrors, separate trip odometer, compass, readable instruments should be black on white background, centrally placed speedo with smaller rev counter all found on my previous Dodge Caliber.


----------

