# Cruze vs Cobalt



## CHEVYCRUZE RS (Mar 29, 2011)

What do you guys think which is the more dominant car ? Which has the cooler features, the smoothest ride, the cleanest engine etc


----------



## luv2cruze (Dec 15, 2010)

There's no comparison, in my opinion. I mean, I loved my G5 (Pontiac's Cobalt), but the Cruze is a far superior vehicle. More standard safety features, better fuel economy, more "creature comforts", better interior and exterior styling. 

As far as a smooth ride goes, I'm personally still getting used to the engine. I love the feel of the ride, but sometimes it is jerky. I am used to a 4-speed 2.2L 4cl, and the 6-speed 1.4L turbo is just a bit different! But I do love the suspension.


----------



## fenix (Mar 30, 2011)

i agree the cruze is amazing the turbochaged four-banger takes a bit of getting use to but it has so many amazing other features


----------



## SummitCruze (Mar 29, 2011)

When bought our original car our 2009 HHR we had the choice of the Cobalt Olympic Version. I hated the way the cobalt felt the way it rode. 

When my wife brought up buying a cruze i was skeptical, it was to replace the cobalt after all. But after taking it for a test drive, i was sold! From the responsive way it handle to the solid ride and quietness of the cabin. The seats the way they hug you and the appearance of it looked mean.


----------



## 115 (Nov 12, 2010)

I had a G5 as well. The way I put it was:

The Cobalt/G5 is a good car, for the best price.
The Cruze is a great car, for a good price.

The Cruze just feels like it is actually on the road. It feels like they actually took the time to engineer this vehicle properly. Except for the electronics...


----------



## luv2cruze (Dec 15, 2010)

SummitCruze said:


> When my wife brought up buying a cruze i was skeptical, it was to replace the cobalt after all. But after taking it for a test drive, i was sold! From the responsive way it handle to the solid ride and quietness of the cabin. *The seats the way they hug you* and the appearance of it looked mean.


That is another good point. My dad lives 2.5 hours away, and halfway through the drive my back would be killing me. The seats had no contour/support. The seats in the Cruze are SO much better.

The quietness is also a big pro. I always thought I had a door/window open in my G5. It was awful.


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

As we've covered before, these two cars are not even remotely in the same class. There's no comparison, apples and oranges


----------



## VictoryRed08 (Feb 16, 2011)

shawn672 said:


> As we've covered before, these two cars are not even remotely in the same class. There's no comparison, apples and oranges


How so? They are both compact economy cars and compete in the same price bracket.


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

Oh man where to start... differences (not including the SS models):
Cobalt:
Glued together
No weather stripping
Loud
Base models do not have enough power/torque
Resale value is terrible (although we don't know about the cruze yet)
Steering is much more loose
It's "fuel economy" version the XFE is just a watered-down featureless model without Air Conditioning
Leather is not an option 
Stock sound system is worse
Hard seats, I always called the seats "made for fat people" because they're not even close to a "bucket" style seat
Less airbags
ABS/TC was not standard on base
TC on the higher models was crap - I skid lots of times even on dry pavement with TC on - also when TC did 'kick on' all it did was cut power to both wheels, it was poorly designed and implemented (only seemed to happen on Automatic models)
Rattle-box after 4k miles
Exterior appearance was not nearly as nice


When I get in my Cruze, I feel like I've just sat in a much higher-end European model. This does not feel, drive, handle, ride, look, or act anything like a Cobalt.

Now I say this all with a grain of salt. Let me explain myself:
I'm a die-hard loyal GM/Chevy fan. I've never driven anything else for long periods of time. I've owned:
05 Equinox
07 Cobalt 3LT with sports package
07 Cobalt SS/SC
09 Cobalt LS
11 Cruze

Going through 3 different model Cobalts and driven them for at least 90k miles combined. Not including all the rentals and other Cobalts owned by friends I've driven. I've experienced this problem in everything (some exception to the SS's obviously for power and seats, etc.)

I haven't found one Cobalt including SS's that didn't have a gap between the headlights and fascia... For 5 straight years they produced a car that didn't have some amount of gap - and they all varied, some worse than others. 

Again, take this with a grain of salt. I love GM and all Chevrolet's but please don't compare a Cruze to a Cobalt - I place the Cruze almost as a low-end/midrange Cadillac in some aspects.


----------



## VictoryRed08 (Feb 16, 2011)

shawn672 said:


> Oh man where to start... differences (not including the SS models):
> Cobalt:
> Glued together
> No weather stripping
> ...


I completely agree, my wife has a cobalt and the Cruze really is a head and shoulders above the cobalt. I feel like I'm driving a pseudo luxury vehicle.

I wasn't sure what you meant, you certainly can't compare the quality of the vehicles to one another. While the Cruze is still a compact economy car I found it interested that an older couple who was checking out some Buicks was lined up to test drive the Cruze after me.


----------



## gfxdave99 (Feb 26, 2011)

Please to all the cobalt owners i apologize ahead of time.

I have had two base rental cobalts in the past and i actually swapped it out the 2nd time cuz i hated the car. 

I bought a Cruze.

Need i say more?


----------



## 1angry_cichlid (Mar 27, 2011)

shawn672 said:


> Oh man where to start... differences (not including the SS models):
> Cobalt:
> Base models do not have enough power/torque


This is my biggest issue with your quote. My '09 has 155hp and 150lb of torque. I've test driven Corollas and Civics and Sentras with base engines and they were weak compared to my car. My LT is far from slow- idk what the heck you're talking about. The 2.2LAP is more than adequate for a base engine. Are you comparing it to a Mustang? I don't get where you're coming from.

You want boring? Drive a base model Corolla or Sentra. At least my car has zip- I wanted to sleep after driving those two cars.


----------



## 1angry_cichlid (Mar 27, 2011)

Don't forget too that the 'balt was a step up from the Cavalier/Sunfire.... and was impressive in that it managed to be a quieter, more refined car than it's predecessor. Not the Cruze is miles ahead of the 'balt. That's how cars evolve.


----------



## scaredpoet (Nov 29, 2010)

The irony is, if you go to the Cobalt forums, there are Cobalt owners there TRASHING the Cruze. Apparently some owners REALLY love their Cobalts.

I had the misfortune of owning a 2004 Cavalier. Worst car I've EVER driven, ended up getting rid of it after 18 months. I lost money on that trade, but I didn't care... the car was THAT bad, I couldn't stand another day sitting in it.

I never owned a Cobalt, but a friend of mine has one and I've also rented Cobalts a few times. It's not much better than the Cav was. Tolerable for short trips, but just barely. Long trips are brutal.

I almost didn't even _think_ about trying the Cruze, _because_ of how bad Cavalier and Cobalt were. It was the last car I test drove when I was in the market for a car. Now I'm glad I did.


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

1angry_cichlid said:


> This is my biggest issue with your quote. My '09 has 155hp and 150lb of torque. I've test driven Corollas and Civics and Sentras with base engines and they were weak compared to my car. My LT is far from slow- idk what the heck you're talking about. The 2.2LAP is more than adequate for a base engine. Are you comparing it to a Mustang? I don't get where you're coming from.


I'm not saying the Cobalt was any slower then the Civic/Corolla, I'm judging the Cobalt by itself. I do not have enough seat time in other compact models of that era to compare them to. The 2.2l ecotec in the Cobalt falls flat on it's face, it has no power band and even with FULL boltons is still stupid slow (reference earlier post from css.net where 2.2 owner got about 130whp with full boltons).




scaredpoet said:


> The irony is, if you go to the Cobalt forums, there are Cobalt owners there TRASHING the Cruze. Apparently some owners REALLY love their Cobalts.


Two things:
1. Cobaltss.net is really the only viable cobalt forum, every other one is a spin off from banned members for the most part
2. the SS models have several aspects including power and suspension that would blow away our Cruze's, however we'll best them at interior, seats (except the Recaros in early SS's), apperance, build quality, safety, resale value (possible)


----------



## 1angry_cichlid (Mar 27, 2011)

And you both wonder why there's so much hate for Cruze coming from Cobalt owners. It's this arrogant attitude people don't like. Not the car. When you slam the Cruze's predecessor you're going to get a response- and that will be funneled into hate for your car. It's probably a bit of jealousy too- I mean you just bought a brand new car. That comes off as arrogant when you can both afford a brand new car and slam the car it replaces.

Shawn I have no problem in terms of power. You just don't like the car- so it's not going to do anything right for you. The 2.2 LAP is the most powerful base engine up until now within the compact class. You're one sided- I don't know why but you are.

The Cruze is miles ahead of the Cobalt. That being said, I don't understand the smug attitude that permeates this site. I joined because I was going to get one (before I got laid off). You call my car essentially a pos I'm not going to stick around to try to defend it. If anything it's why I'm not going to stick around. I don't deal with the smug factor too well- either in the flesh or online.


----------



## sloaner (Mar 13, 2011)

shawn672 said:


> I'm not saying the Cobalt was any slower then the Civic/Corolla, I'm judging the Cobalt by itself. I do not have enough seat time in other compact models of that era to compare them to. The 2.2l ecotec in the Cobalt falls flat on it's face, it has no power band and even with FULL boltons is still stupid slow (reference earlier post from css.net where 2.2 owner got about 130whp with full boltons).
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So true. I was very close to getting like an 08 or 09 cobalt SS. But once I sat in my buddys Cruze I had a change of heart. Ya the SS has alot of power but I really wouldent get to use it all as I dont go to the track or anything like that. Plus the inside is the reason why people hate on north american cars, the Cruze shows that they can look nice inside and out. Not saying the cobalt sucks, my girlfriend has one and its a nice car. GM kept making changes for the good and I look forward to seeing what they come out with next.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

1angry_cichlid said:


> Shawn I have no problem in terms of power. You just don't like the car- so it's not going to do anything right for you. *The 2.2 LAP is the most powerful base engine up until now within the compact class.* You're one sided- I don't know why but you are.


False bold text is false.


----------



## 1angry_cichlid (Mar 27, 2011)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> False bold text is false.



Fail! And I said base engine.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

1angry_cichlid said:


> Fail! And I said base engine.


Not fail. Edit is win. Also just off the top of my head..

Acura RSX: 160HP
Mitsubishi Lancer: 168HP
Subaru Impreza: 260HP

All base models all in the compact class. There are more as well.


----------



## 1angry_cichlid (Mar 27, 2011)

Lancer is midsize and Acura is a luxury brand. The Impreza base engine is I think about 170 but I'd consider that a premium car given the price tag. The Cobalt is a standard compact- it's not even fair to compare it to the Cruze.


----------



## slecyk (Mar 12, 2011)

Who gives a doo doo....if you like your car then that is the end of the story.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

1angry_cichlid said:


> Lancer is midsize and Acura is a luxury brand. The Impreza base engine is I think about 170 but I'd consider that a premium car given the price tag. The Cobalt is a standard compact- it's not even fair to compare it to the Cruze.


The Cobalt is a compact car sold by Chevy. The Cruze is it's replacement. Also all the cars I listed were compacts. That's what your statement said. Acura's are not luxury cars. Nor do they claim to be. The Acura RSX base model sold at a compact car price. The Lancer is sold as a compact. Also the Impreza 2.5L is the base model motor which is rated at 260HP. 

Here was the compact car segment as of last year.

Chevy Cobalt
Dodge Caliber
Ford Focus
Honda Civic
Hyundai Elantra
Kia Forte
Mazda 3
Mitsubishi Lancer
Nissan Sentra
Subaru Impreza
Suzuki SX4
Toyota Corolla/Matrix
VW Golf
VW Jetta

You can tap dance around the facts all you want but the bottom line is that the 2.2L Ecotec *was not* the most powerful base model motor in it's class.


----------



## VictoryRed08 (Feb 16, 2011)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> Also the Impreza 2.5L is the base model motor which is rated at *260HP*.
> 
> Here was the compact car segment as of last year.
> 
> ...


The base Impreza is a 2.5L N/A engine rated at 170hp, see here: Introduction - 2011 Impreza - Subaru Canada

Out of that list of the compact segment, if we're talking about base models, I believe the only one that would be faster than the balt is the Mazda 3 (perhaps the civic? But I don't think so)


----------



## 1angry_cichlid (Mar 27, 2011)

Thank you.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

VictoryRed08 said:


> The base Impreza is a 2.5L N/A engine rated at 170hp, see here: Introduction - 2011 Impreza - Subaru Canada
> 
> Out of that list of the compact segment, if we're talking about base models, I believe the only one that would be faster than the balt is the Mazda 3 (perhaps the civic? But I don't think so)


We are talking power not speed. The argument is also not relative considering it's the compact segment. If you want to get into the sport subsection of the compact segment then the Cobalt(SS) is way up there on the list to buy. However the statement stands true about the 2.2 Ecotec. Power should not be a large factor in considering a compact A-B car. Most Americans considered this. Which explains the low volume sales for the balt.


----------



## 1angry_cichlid (Mar 27, 2011)

VictoryRed08 said:


> The base Impreza is a 2.5L N/A engine rated at 170hp, see here: Introduction - 2011 Impreza - Subaru Canada
> 
> Out of that list of the compact segment, if we're talking about base models, I believe the only one that would be faster than the balt is the Mazda 3 (perhaps the civic? But I don't think so)


My friend has an '08 Civic. It's nice but overrated. It has no more than 130bhp. Shawn might as well have been referencing the Corolla when he talked about "no power curve" and "falls flat on it's face" blah blah. That's alot of bs- I've driven many compacts and the one thing that sold me was the responsive engine. It's no slower than a Cruze. Both have good engines.


----------



## upstater (Feb 22, 2011)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> We are talking power not speed. The argument is also not relative considering it's the compact segment. If you want to get into the sport subsection of the compact segment then the Cobalt(SS) is way up there on the list to buy. However the statement stands true about the 2.2 Ecotec. Power should not be a large factor in considering a compact A-B car. Most Americans considered this. Which explains the low volume sales for the balt.


If you are talking "power" than please factor in the torque rating. Driving a vehicle with 5 less horsepower, bur 10 Lbs. more tq. would feel much better to me.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

upstater said:


> If you are talking "power" than please factor in the torque rating. Driving a vehicle with 5 less horsepower, bur 10 Lbs. more tq. would feel much better to me.


Yes torque you feel. No one is arguing that. But if the torque drops like a rock to soon in the RPM band then that's no fun either.






1angry_cichlid said:


> My friend has an '08 Civic. It's nice but overrated. It has no more than 130bhp. Shawn might as well have been referencing the Corolla when he talked about "no power curve" and "falls flat on it's face" blah blah. That's alot of bs- I've driven many compacts and the one thing that sold me was the responsive engine. It's no slower than a Cruze. Both have good engines.


It has well above 130bhp considering it did 138HP using the SAE J1349 net HP rating. Either way the point remains. You don't buy a base model compact for power. Certain cars like the Cruze 1.4L you could make somewhat of an argument for considering a simple reflash nets you close to 200WTQ.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...there'$ a _rea$on_ the lowe$t priced model$ are called the "ba$e" model.


----------



## 1angry_cichlid (Mar 27, 2011)

That's true of any car. I just noted the competitive advantage the 'balt had over some other popular compacts. I've test driven all of them.

The Cruze is just a beautiful package wrapped around a good engine. The Cobalt's issues were not the engine itself but the rest of the car. And the Civic, 'balt, and Cruze have better engines in terms of torque than alot of other compacts. None of these cars are super slow. The SS and Si are different kinds of cars anyway.

The new Focus, however, that's a peppy engine. What is it like 160hp? Not bad. How much torque?


----------



## CHEVYCRUZE RS (Mar 29, 2011)

Chevy did an amazing job on the Cobalt...period. However, the cruze is absoluetley incredible. From the outside to the interior, friggen amazing! 

The craftsmenship that went into the car is by far astonishing. The smooth ride seperates it far away from every other car in its class.

The interior room is neat and the engine is clean and simple. The turbo makes it really comfortable and affordable on gas. Especially with todays gas prices !!!!! 

Follow me on twitter for more chevy cruze mods and info....
@YUNGandBALLIN


----------



## luv2cruze (Dec 15, 2010)

I don't know, I have to disagree with the arguement that the 2.2 lacked power. Maybe it was just the way I trained the engine with my heavy foot, but I never once thought it was lacking. It was in no way a race car, but that thing was peppy as heck. 

Of course, once again, the Cruze is head and shoulders above the Cobalt/G5, but power was never one of my complaints with my G5. It was what it was.


----------



## usaalways (Mar 29, 2011)

Cobalt just looks like something grand parents drive.
Just no comparison with the Cruze.


----------



## buck95 (Jan 19, 2013)

luv2cruze said:


> I don't know, I have to disagree with the arguement that the 2.2 lacked power. Maybe it was just the way I trained the engine with my heavy foot, but I never once thought it was lacking. It was in no way a race car, but that thing was peppy as heck.
> 
> Of course, once again, the Cruze is head and shoulders above the Cobalt/G5, but power was never one of my complaints with my G5. It was what it was.


The base Cruze LS 10.5 seconds 60 MPH , 18 seconds 1/4 mile (Carsort). Base 2009 Cobalt's LS 8.5 seconds, 16.4 seconds 1/4 mile (Edmunds). 155 HP 2.2 base Cobalt is faster than 138 HP 1.8 base Cruze no mater what anyone tells you. The Cruze is a lot nicer car but don't have the Cobalt power.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

N/A Ecotects had no external reproductive organs IMO.


----------



## H3LLON3ARTH (Dec 16, 2011)

Aeroscout977 said:


> N/A Ecotects had no external reproductive organs IMO.


My 2.2 ecotec in my 03 caviler ran a 15.3 with exhaust and intake in the quarter mile. That had ballzz

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

The power achieved for the size of the motor was pretty dismal. At their peak the 2.2s were hitting 155hp. Toyotas 1.8 2ZZ motors were producing 180 up to 2005. GM isn't known for high output naturally aspirated motors when compared to their displacement.


----------

