# So all these reviews suck



## smorey78 (Apr 8, 2012)

Its like every review on the cruze is not so good. i think the best one i have read is that the interior is best in class!. Don't get me wrong i love my cruze! just spent 3 hours waxing it!
So here is what i am going to do...i looked at where the cruze finished in most of the reviews
Focus
Mazda 3
Jetta
Elantra
Some of the reviews said that cruze had a lot of brake fade! Ordered new rotors and better brake pads...fixed
some said the lowest power in class. Installed intake and soon Tune as well as exhaust...will be fixed
Not to bad in handling but. installed eibach's and strut tower braces...fixed
Tires were not grippey...ordered 18's with better tires...fixed. will be selling stock 16's with tires only have 3,000 miles on them
so why not just save the money and use it to by the other cars that finished better. Be cause i love chevy's and i really like the cruze and all my modes were done for under $2,000 so that with the price of the car would still make me $2500 short for buying the best car! o and i hate jetta's and elantra's and isn't a mazda basically a ford...hate them to. so imop i now have the best in class! haha


----------



## Bohdan (Apr 28, 2012)

I never go by Reviews its someones else opinion on a model . The Cruze is the Best in its class all over. My LTZ/RS is perfect with its brakes and 18" wheels and for the price it makes it happen.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

GM is notorious for having a zillion different combinations of engine tuning, transmission gearing/tuning, and suspension tuning. So somebody who complains their Cruze is an understeering dog might have an LS automatic with the non-sport suspension, while somebody who says the opposite might have an LT/RS with a manual and the sport suspension. 

It's the same way with fuel economy. The folks with the 2011 automatic transmission cars trash the Cruze for being a piggy at the pump, while the Eco manual transmission owners are almost universally thrilled with the fuel economy. The 2012 automatic owners are presenting a mixed picture. 

The point being, the picture presented of the Cruze in the big mags really only applies to that particular model.


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

I have always only been interested in the Cruze ECO rather than any Cruze with an AT and when I researched the ECO MT and studied reviews last year before buying, I read mostly positive reports. If I recall Autoweek and Car and Driver were enthusiastic about the ECO MT. Pluses were lighter weight, improved handling and acceleration and more driver involvement from what I remember.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

The other interesting thing about reviewers is that a lot of them are biased. What they will do is find one area where the car they don't want to show well doesn't do as well as the car they want to promote. Sometimes this is intentional and sometimes it's an unconcious bias.


----------



## fastdriver (Jan 7, 2011)

obermd said:


> The other interesting thing about reviewers is that a lot of them are biased. What they will do is find one area where the car they don't want to show well doesn't do as well as the car they want to promote. Sometimes this is intentional and sometimes it's an unconcious bias.



AND.....sometimes it all has to do with ADVERTISING $$$$$$$$ for that particular magazine!


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

fastdriver said:


> AND.....sometimes it all has to do with ADVERTISING $$$$$$$$ for that particular magazine!


Unfortunately true.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

blk88verde said:


> I have always only been interested in the Cruze ECO rather than any Cruze with an AT and when I researched the ECO MT and studied reviews last year before buying, I read mostly positive reports. If I recall Autoweek and Car and Driver were enthusiastic about the ECO MT. Pluses were lighter weight, improved handling and acceleration and more driver involvement from what I remember.


Same here. And, the positive magazine reviews helped sway my decision. The reviews of the Eco MT were pretty spot-on. It's far more of a driver's car than most of the other compact choices out there.


----------



## smorey78 (Apr 8, 2012)

yes i love the car..just today after i cleaned the cruze all up a lady sitting next to me with what looked to be a 2010 or 2011 acura TL wich is $10,000 or more than my cruze said "what a beautiful car" I said thank you with a burger king smile. it just looks some times that the "reviewers" have somthing against Chevy! I was so happy to see the Camaro zl1 kick the ^%$#@ out of the top mustang!


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

The reviews are bullshit.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

Oh... heres where I explain myself.

Theres some perceivable differences between trims.

I just rented a 2012 1LT and I own a 2011 LTZ so there are a few differences so reviews are going to be all over the place.

Brakes on the LTZ / 2LT are much more sensitive. I didn't notice fade on either trim. Braking is strong, but needs less pedal travel on the LTZ. I don't know where their "weak brakes" come from. Probably the strongest brakes I've driven on a compact car. They are comparable to my father's older infiniti.

Handling seems decent. Crisp as **** on the LTZ with sport suspension. *shrug*

Gas mileage in the reviews sucks. Yep, let's use our WOT track runs to test acceleration and fuel economy at the same time?!!! Yep, they do it. I had one review say some **** like "the Cruze returned the worst fuel economy out of our compacts during our time out on the track. Admittedly these were harder than average conditions. The Focus, however returned stellar fuel economy." Another was like "The Cruze is severely underpowered. What is the point of a 1.4 when you have to continuously floor it go keep pace?" AKA, I drive and review compact cars like they are Camaros and Mustangs than bitch about how we should by one of them instead because the compacts didn't get better fuel economy.

The funniest is when they compare aesthetics. Such an objective comparison huh? The Motor Trend fanboys said the Focus is just better looking all around than an LTZ RS. Everyone in real life laughs at the focus and admires the Cruze


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Whoever said the Cruze has the lowest power in the class needs to have their head checked. Seriously.


----------



## coinneach (Apr 10, 2012)

When I was shopping and narrowed my picks down to four, I ignored all the subjective crap as I'm quite capable of forming my own opinions. I looked at objective data: sticker price (I don't haggle on anything - if I don't like the price, I choose something else); whether the standard equipment for the base trims meets my needs and if not, how much would it cost to achieve; combined fuel economy as reported by EPA; and standard safety features and ratings. Reviews and other peoples' opinions mean exactly nothing to me. The Cruze LS has the perfect balance of performance, equipment, economy, and aesthetics _for me, _and that's all that matters.


----------



## gman19 (Apr 5, 2011)

coinneach said:


> Reviews and other peoples' opinions mean exactly nothing to me. The Cruze LS has the perfect balance of performance, equipment, economy, and aesthetics _for me, _and that's all that matters.


Well said.....


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...when the automotive writers concentrate of the *10% problems*, that leaves the *90% non-problems *without written coverage, so people gotta learn about "good" stuff by themselves instead of finding out about them from the proverbial_ "...Good, Bad & Ugly..." _magazine articles!

...and, *that* makes forums like THIS all the more informative _and_ valuable!


----------



## Arcticat (Feb 16, 2012)

Smorey78, you shouldn't have had to do all of those things just because some reviews said so. I have 2012 ECO A/T. While the car is not perfect I don't see any problems with the things you mentioned.--Mike


----------



## The Wolf Wagon (Mar 5, 2012)

Most reviews I read are from actual owners and NOT mags that get paid to publish some of this crap. When I did my research before making my purchase, I got a lot of owner info from sites like MSNBC cars and similar locations. I have never looked back after buying my Cruze. I drive a ton of miles (car is 3 months old and ready to turn 13K in miles) so I needed a dependable car as well as an economical one. I got BOTH with the ECO! Screw the haters!


----------



## smorey78 (Apr 8, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Whoever said the Cruze has the lowest power in the class needs to have their head checked. Seriously.[/QUOT E]
> 
> Ford Focus sel 160 hp @ 6500 rpm
> Jetta Sel 170hp @ 6500 rpm
> ...


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

smorey78 said:


> XtremeRevolution said:
> 
> 
> > Whoever said the Cruze has the lowest power in the class needs to have their head checked. Seriously.[/QUOT E]
> ...


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

Agreed, having all the torques available at 1900 RPM is awesome. No wringing out the engine to move, it just goes. If I wanted to wring out the engine to move, I'd get a low-displacement Honda. Oh wait, there's one in the driveway.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

obermd said:


> smorey78 said:
> 
> 
> > There's more to power than peak horsepower. Torque is just as critical. The Cruze's 1.4T engine provides peak torque from 1850 to 4900 RPM. This provides a huge benefit when you need passing or climbing power.
> ...


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> obermd said:
> 
> 
> > Full-throttle passing, no. But it makes the Cruze extremely peppy around town.
> ...


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

obermd said:


> jblackburn said:
> 
> 
> > I can't speak for the automatics, but my manual transmission cruze has no problem building up passing speed.
> ...


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

sciphi,
Is that fit Sport a manual? I almost got one of those in 09, but decided to go for the better deal and bought another vehicle. They just would not move at all on price and was not thrilled with the color that was available on the one sitting there.
Some reviews have the Fit Sport manual getting better 0-30, 0-60, 45-65, and QT mile times than the fastest automatic Cruze. I know, not a fair comparison. Of course many sub-compact's and most compacts are about the same or faster than the Cruze. But the Cruze is larger, possibly safer, quieter and has a better ride than most.
As much as I like torque down low, the Cruze really is not showing itself in performance numbers without a tune compared to many naturally aspirated engines that it is competing against. The turbo is just basically making it act more like a 1.8l engine, which brings up an interesting paradox. They basically have two engines getting very similar performance in most numbers with most of the models. 
Not sure why they offer both. Drop one, produce more of other and lower it's operational manufacturing costs, and pass it along to the consumer.
If GM would develop a more competitive 1.8, I am not sure there is a need for a smaller displacement turbo engine, and the additional costs, manufacturer's and owner's. The exception is the ECO manual that seems to, in the right hands, perform wonderfully putting out great mpg numbers.


----------



## smorey78 (Apr 8, 2012)

i bought the car before i looked at the reviews. it was after making the first payment that i started to notice the reviews did not have nice things to say about the cruze. i would not trade it for any of the other cars. and yes i love the low end tq. and yes it in most cases is more important than peak horse power! I did not do the mods to the car to fight the bad reviews...i did them cause i like the look and feel of the mods! it just so happens that the things i did were improvements over the things the reviews were saying the cruze lacked!


----------



## NYCruze2012 (Jan 16, 2012)

Reviews to me do not mean anything. What's important to me is how I feel about my car. If I treat my car like a piece of garbage then it will be a piece of garbage. I also do admit that there are some really bad automobiles out there but this is also not the eighty's anymore nor the beginning of the front wheel drive. We have made plenty of advances in durability in all areas. 

Sent from my DROID3


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

zr1000a1 said:


> sciphi,
> Is that fit Sport a manual? I almost got one of those in 09, but decided to go for the better deal and bought another vehicle. They just would not move at all on price and was not thrilled with the color that was available on the one sitting there.
> Some reviews have the Fit Sport manual getting better 0-30, 0-60, 45-65, and QT mile times than the fastest automatic Cruze. I know, not a fair comparison. Of course many sub-compact's and most compacts are about the same or faster than the Cruze. But the Cruze is larger, possibly safer, quieter and has a better ride than most.
> As much as I like torque down low, the Cruze really is not showing itself in performance numbers without a tune compared to many naturally aspirated engines that it is competing against. The turbo is just basically making it act more like a 1.8l engine, which brings up an interesting paradox. They basically have two engines getting very similar performance in most numbers with most of the models.
> ...


Hence, where the misinformation is. The 1.4T is the same power on paper, but has more torque... 23 lb-ft to be exact. It has the same torque number (148) as it's "quickest" competitor (focus) and more than the Elantra, Corolla, Civic, and others. In addition to more torque, the torque is available at just 1850 RPMs vs. 4,000+ for all the other cars. Since you typically won't rev your engine that high in every day driving, the Cruze feels "quicker" and acceleration is "more satisfying" around town. The 1.4T actually acts more like a 2.2L engine torque wise, as turbo-charged engines offer torque than consitent to N/A engines 60% larger. Hence, the 1.8L Cruze engine is dog slow compared to the 1.4T. The 0-60 difference is over a second (8.0 vs. 9.4) in stock form. Give it a tune and it is a wash.


----------



## RoadRage (May 19, 2012)

I was looking at the specs on the new Dodge Dart and I would like a comparison between the Cruze with a Trifecta Tune and a Dar R/T. They are both utilizing similar engines (1.4T) and similar power (when compared to a tuned Cruze). If Chevy hadnt kept a conservative tune on the Cruze, I believe the reviewers would of had the Cruze ranked top 2.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

RoadRage said:


> I was looking at the specs on the new Dodge Dart and I would like a comparison between the Cruze with a Trifecta Tune and a Dar R/T. They are both utilizing similar engines (1.4T) and similar power (when compared to a tuned Cruze). If Chevy hadnt kept a conservative tune on the Cruze, I believe the reviewers would of had the Cruze ranked top 2.


Not if the reviewer is CR. As far as I can tell CR's method for ranking GM is to put them at the bottom with an occasional good review just to appear fair and unbiased. I don't know what CR said about the Fieros, but they panned both my Pontiac mini-vans, gave rave reviews on my wife's Dodge Intrepid ES, liked the Mitsubishi (not top reviews, but fair), and hate the Cruze. We didn't look when my wife replaced the Intrepid with a Toyota Solara Convertable SEL.

The mini-vans both lasted over 10 years and didn't have major problems until they reached the 10 year point. The Intrepid ES was a lemon from day one with the transmission and rack & pinon both being replaced around 40,000 miles. The Mitsubisi was OK, but Mitsubishi doesn't stand behind their warranty - the clutch would slip and stink running on cruise control and they claimed it was driver error. The verdict is still out on my Cruze ECO MT and Cruze LS MT, but they both feel far more solid and reliable than the Mitsubishi ever did, even when brand new. I only bought the Mitsubishi because GM didn't have anything worth driving at the time and the Fords manual transmissions in the same price range had such poor handling and acceleration I felt they were unsafe for a teen driver. My son drove the Montana after he got his license to reduce insurance costs.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> Hence, where the misinformation is. The 1.4T is the same power on paper, but has more torque... 23 lb-ft to be exact. It has the same torque number (148) as it's "quickest" competitor (focus) and more than the Elantra, Corolla, Civic, and others. In addition to more torque, the torque is available at just 1850 RPMs vs. 4,000+ for all the other cars. Since you typically won't rev your engine that high in every day driving, the Cruze feels "quicker" and acceleration is "more satisfying" around town. The 1.4T actually acts more like a 2.2L engine torque wise, as turbo-charged engines offer torque than consitent to N/A engines 60% larger. Hence, the 1.8L Cruze engine is dog slow compared to the 1.4T. The 0-60 difference is over a second (8.0 vs. 9.4) in stock form. Give it a tune and it is a wash.


ErikBEggs, I appreciate your thoughts,


Yes, I probably should of compared it more to the 2.0 Focus, but since most of the competition is the 1.8, including the other engine offered in the Cruze, I chose a broad comparison. Yes, It has a nice flat torque curve that hits it's peak at 1850rpm's in the automatic equipped Cruze's. The Manual equipped Cruze's, by the way, does not reach peak until around 2500rpm. The somewhat undersquare long stroke design, cam profile, and turbo does a good job with torque, but not an engine to ring out to the redline. To be fair, the reason the good torque of this engine is not translating to performance gains over the competition is the weight of the Cruze. 
The lighter and smaller Sonic with this engine looks to be a fun little ride.

You have to take the C&D performance numbers with a grain of salt. The automatic Cruze bought off a dealer's show room running stock will never come close to an 8.0 second 0-60 or a 16.4 second 1/4 QT. Motortrend seems a little more down to earth, but who knows which ringer cars are going around the publisher's circuit or which cars were massaged. The 1.4turbo probably was, but the 1.8 might have actually been stock.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

zr1000a1 said:


> ErikBEggs, I appreciate your thoughts,
> 
> 
> Yes, I probably should of compared it more to the 2.0 Focus, but since most of the competition is the 1.8, including the other engine offered in the Cruze, I chose a broad comparison. Yes, It has a nice flat torque curve that hits it's peak at 1850rpm's in the automatic equipped Cruze's. The Manual equipped Cruze's, by the way, does not reach peak until around 2500rpm. The somewhat undersquare long stroke design, cam profile, and turbo does a good job with torque, but not an engine to ring out to the redline. To be fair, the reason the good torque of this engine is not translating to performance gains over the competition is the weight of the Cruze.
> ...


8.0 in 0-60 does not seem too farfetched but the 16.4 1/4 mile time is way quicker than it actually can get. I know high 16s are possible, but with Trifecta Intelliboost I was running 16.1-16.4 with fluctuating boost on my data log between 16-22 psi (stock is flat 16). So maybe C/D just really likes the Cruze engine or something


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

smorey78 said:


> Its like every review on the cruze is not so good. i think the best one i have read is that the interior is best in class!. Don't get me wrong i love my cruze! just spent 3 hours waxing it!
> So here is what i am going to do...i looked at where the cruze finished in most of the reviews
> Focus
> Mazda 3
> ...


1. I don't personally find the brake fade in my own Cruze but who knows.
2. Lowest power in class- sure, but the 6sp more than makes up for it. I have a 1.8 LS MT and there is always a gear to go into, never have trouble passing, power is never a problem for me.
3. Handles well for a $20k A to B car
4. I do not have a problem with grip on the tires, **** its everything the car has just to chirp 2nd gear. I could see this on the ECO models with those low friction tires, but its all about Gas mileage on those, so you lose some to gain some.

These are all horrible points made by reviewers, unless they gave more details, as I just did to justify them. If not they shouldn't be reviewing cars.


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

zr1000a1 said:


> Not sure why they offer both. Drop one, produce more of other and lower it's operational manufacturing costs, and pass it along to the consumer.
> If GM would develop a more competitive 1.8, I am not sure there is a need for a smaller displacement turbo engine, and the additional costs, manufacturer's and owner's. The exception is the ECO manual that seems to, in the right hands, perform wonderfully putting out great mpg numbers.


There is reason for having the 1.4T and 1.8 and its good reason. My 1.8 liter is great, but the gas mileage it generates is nothing compares to a little 1.4liter. On the other hand the 1.4 liter does not put out enough power to push the car when you really need it. So for a great gas mileage vehicle the 1.4T comes into play. so when you just driving around town or cruise control on the highway you can get those amazing 1.4 MPG numbers, and when you need some power, the turbo spools up and makes it act like the 1.8 motor.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

silverls,

I just looked at your sig. Can you run the dyno before and after regapping so we can see if there is a measurable difference other than our butt dynos? Thanks.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

silverls said:


> 1. I don't personally find the brake fade in my own Cruze but who knows.
> 2. Lowest power in class- sure, but the 6sp more than makes up for it. I have a 1.8 LS MT and there is always a gear to go into, never have trouble passing, power is never a problem for me.
> 3. Handles well for a $20k A to B car
> 4. I do not have a problem with grip on the tires, **** its everything the car has just to chirp 2nd gear. I could see this on the ECO models with those low friction tires, but its all about Gas mileage on those, so you lose some to gain some.


1. Any car with drum brakes will encounter brake fade with repeated hard and/or long stops. All wheel disc brakes don't fade nearly as much. If you're not towing and you have the MT you'll probably never encounter the brake fade except driving down from the top of Pike's Peak or Mt Evans.
2. Same goes for the ECO MT. I always have a gear and the turbo is the reason. Without the turbo the 1.4 is the "little engine that couldn't". It definitely takes some practice to know which gear. CR tested automatics, so this may or may not have been an issue. We need someone with the ECO AT to chime in for this one.
3. My ECO is extremely comfortable for long trips and isn't easily blown around by wind. Some other cars in this price range get blown all over the road.
4. The LRR tires on the ECO MT handle dry road very well. They handle wet conditions well as well. Snow is iffy - dry snow is fine, wet snow apparantly not so good. I have yet to chirp my tires. Other ECO owners have reported traction loss, but I haven't had any yet.

I wonder what the spark plug gaps on the CR tested Cruze was. If they were as off as some of the CT member reports, it's no wonder the car didn't accelerate as well.



silverls said:


> These are all horrible points made by reviewers, unless they gave more details, as I just did to justify them. If not they shouldn't be reviewing cars.


It's Consumer (mis)Reports - nuff said.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

This engine might bring some spice to the Cruze.
GM Europe Announces All-New 1.6L Turbo Engine Range For Opel/Vauxhall | GM Authority

[url]http://media.opel.com/media/intl/en/opel/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/intl/en/2012/opel/05_14_New_generation_1_6_turbo.html
[/URL]


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Another thing to consider, as Trifecta has shown us, is that there's a lot more GM can do to the little 1.4T engine to bump up performance to stay competitive with the rest of the market, while keeping gas mileage there as well.

Car manufacturers are constantly tweaking iterations of engines for more and more HP year by year. Honda, just as an example I know well, took their 2.4 and kept it mostly unchanged through the years, from 150 HP in 2005, to 160 in 2006, 166 in 2007, to 177/190 in the new Accords, and 201 HP in the Civic SI and Acura TSX. Just by messing with small things here and there - engine management programming, headers, exhaust.

A turbocharged engine gives much, much more room to play with in the tuning department than an NA engine - just by programming alone. I'm sure Chevy has a few tricks up their sleeve for making these cars competitive on into the future (one would hope 'New GM' does at least, rather than continuing on with outdated engines like they have in the past with the 3100, 3400, and 3800 series way past their lifetimes in the auto market). Possibilities for future models of these cars include:
-Increasing boost or turbo response characteristics via ECU remapping.
-Wideband O2 sensor for better fuel management. Toyota has been doing this since the early 2000's.
-Use a different turbocharger (though I'm sure they put a lot of research into this already).
-Direct injection!


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

obermd said:


> silverls,
> 
> I just looked at your sig. Can you run the dyno before and after regapping so we can see if there is a measurable difference other than our butt dynos? Thanks.


Of course i can. I don't know how much the intake will interfere with the results though. We at least can get something to reference.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------

