Chevy Cruze

[GoCougs]

SYNC (FoMoCo exclusive) and class-exclusive automatic parallel parking aren't special or noteworthy?

The Cruze has analogous tech (OnStar, bluetooth) to SYNC and the parallel parking thing IMO isn't too noteworthy as a differentiator to the class.

Have you happened to look at the pricing on the Cruze?  It's not appreciably less expensive than the Focus.  And the tiny turbo engine in lieu of a larger, NA motor isn't exactly the type of powerplant American buyers normally flock to.

But it's more car than the Focus. Buyers have shied from turbo motors primarily because they were in niche(ish) performance cars (i.e., buyers shied away from the cars not the motors).

[3.0L V6]

It'll be interesting to see which piece of Detroit high-tech tarnishes its maker first by failing in a spectacular manner. Will it be the Cruze's turbo motor, or the Ford's gearbox? Since Ford is putting the gearbox in every Focus, they're most at risk if the transmission is a flop and Car and Driver had some reservations about the performance of the transmission in their testing. At least Chevy's hedging their bets by putting the conventional and proven 1.8L in the base models, which probably outsell the higher trim models.

Every time each automaker has put out a new small car with a pile of high tech, the car usually has an Achilles heel. When they've stayed with known quantities, they've done better.

Cougs - of course GM is able to introduce models in a shorter timeframe than Ford - the wonders of a taxpayer funded bailout on your product investment budget would help any company. But there are still signs of old GM - they seem to have a bad problem with stretching timing chains on the 3.6L engine.  I like Ford because they didn't go to the public trough for money, albeit for selfish reasons.

[SVT666]

Funny.  When Ford started putting turbo motors in their cars Cougs slammed them for it, but when GM does it he praises them.  Oh and OnStar is not comparable to SYNC...and if you think it is, then you don't know what either of them actually are.  They are nothing alike.  That and OnStar has to be subscribed to.

[GoCougs]

The PLS (product line strategy) of any organization is a very chronic and involved process; all of what we're seeing today from any automaker was cemented before the bailouts.

But I agree in the implication. Usually the first thing to go when tightening corporate belts is product development.

[the Teuton]

I've driven the new Focus, and I thought it felt like a quality car. I disliked the steering and hated the ride, though. I think the Fiesta is a better car.

[Schadenfreude]

It'll be interesting to see which piece of Detroit high-tech tarnishes its maker first by failing in a spectacular manner. Will it be the Cruze's turbo motor, or the Ford's gearbox? Since Ford is putting the gearbox in every Focus, they're most at risk if the transmission is a flop and Car and Driver had some reservations about the performance of the transmission in their testing. At least Chevy's hedging their bets by putting the conventional and proven 1.8L in the base models, which probably outsell the higher trim models.

Every time each automaker has put out a new small car with a pile of high tech, the car usually has an Achilles heel. When they've stayed with known quantities, they've done better.

Cougs - of course GM is able to introduce models in a shorter timeframe than Ford - the wonders of a taxpayer funded bailout on your product investment budget would help any company. But there are still signs of old GM - they seem to have a bad problem with stretching timing chains on the 3.6L engine.  I like Ford because they didn't go to the public trough for money, albeit for selfish reasons.

There was a recent recall on the 3.6 for this issue; it's supposed to be corrected in new revisions of the engine. (So says GM Powertrain).

[Madman]

The new Focus is very ugly, and hasn't had great reviews.  Not sure why you guys are raving about it.

If you knew how miserable the old US-Focus was you'd understand why the new one is so well-received over here.

[cawimmer430]

If you knew how miserable the old US-Focus was you'd understand why the new one is so well-received over here.

[2o6]

If you knew how miserable the old US-Focus was you'd understand why the new one is so well-received over here.

I don't think it was miserable. In fact, I give ford props for keeping an old car so relevant.

[2o6]

Their last gen Focus was a better car.

Reviews are mixed on that prospect.


They also think the new Golf VI is a great car, when really it's the old car with a new face.

[68_427]

Reviews are mixed on that prospect.


They also think the new Golf VI is a great car, when really it's the old car with a new face.

The Golf V was a good car.  The Golf VI is even better.

[WookieOnRitalin]

Reviews are mixed on that prospect.


They also think the new Golf VI is a great car, when really it's the old car with a new face.

How is it not a great car? Better sheetmetal. More refinement. It was always well put together. Great engine choices.

[2o6]

How is it not a great car? Better sheetmetal. More refinement. It was always well put together. Great engine choices.

I think it's overpriced, and the 2.5L is a terrible engine.

[WookieOnRitalin]

I think it's overpriced, and the 2.5L is a terrible engine.

It's hardly terrible. Plebian? Yes. It's nothing spectacular. The Turbo and the TDI are what make the Golf special. It really is not overpriced considering the base engine and its competitors at that price range.

Golf 2.5L Base: 19.8k, 170 hp, 24/31
Matrix 2.4L Base: 20.5k, 158hp, 21/29
Mazda3 2.5L Base: 20k, 167 hp, 20/28
Impreza 5-Door 2.5L Base: 18k, 170 hp, 20/27
Lancer Sportback GTS (2.4): 19.9k, 168 hp, 22/31
Forte SX 5 Door 2.4L: 18.4k, 173 hp, 22/32

It's priced right about average, frugal, and offering one of the strongest engines in class.

[GoCougs]

Funny.  When Ford started putting turbo motors in their cars Cougs slammed them for it, but when GM does it he praises them.  Oh and OnStar is not comparable to SYNC...and if you think it is, then you don't know what either of them actually are.  They are nothing alike.  That and OnStar has to be subscribed to.

You are so insecure when it comes to ANYTHING Ford it's just painful to watch. Literally painful.

[cawimmer430]

All Volkswagen products have some amazing engine options in Europe. There's enough to suit everyones needs and individual tastes. This choice is lacking in North America.

The American VW products get literally no engine options. You have a lame base engine, some average mid-sized engine and a performance engine. No choice.

[2o6]

It's hardly terrible. Plebian? Yes. It's nothing spectacular. The Turbo and the TDI are what make the Golf special. It really is not overpriced considering the base engine and its competitors at that price range.

Golf 2.5L Base: 19.8k, 170 hp, 24/31
Matrix 2.4L Base: 20.5k, 158hp, 21/29
Mazda3 2.5L Base: 20k, 167 hp, 20/28
Impreza 5-Door 2.5L Base: 18k, 170 hp, 20/27
Lancer Sportback GTS (2.4): 19.9k, 168 hp, 22/31
Forte SX 5 Door 2.4L: 18.4k, 173 hp, 22/32

It's priced right about average, frugal, and offering one of the strongest engines in class.

It's rough, and all of those cars are at the back of the pack in terms of competitiveness. Even so, the Mazda 3 gets new engines for next(?) year making 40MPG possible.

IIRC, a basic Golf is not equipped as well, either.


TDI getting 42MPG is IMO very pathetic. Turbo motor I guess is special, but honestly, the GTI is a whole different ball game.

[WookieOnRitalin]

It's rough, and all of those cars are at the back of the pack in terms of competitiveness. Even so, the Mazda 3 gets new engines for next(?) year making 40MPG possible.

IIRC, a basic Golf is not equipped as well, either.


TDI getting 42MPG is IMO very pathetic. Turbo motor I guess is special, but honestly, the GTI is a whole different ball game.

Those are the only the competitors that the Golf has for what it is. No one else offers a Hatch 5-door with a similar displacement. The 40 mpg Mazda3 possibility is coming from a smaller displacement and likely limited in the power department and will likely be limited to the 4-Door (like the 2.0). The TDI is good for what it is and I've heard no one griping about its lack of frugalness. The problem I have with the TDI is that for the price (23-24k) versus an Elantra, Cruze, Focus, why would you get a TDI that costs thousands more up front AND will cost you more at the pump without saving you much on gas? Also, VW has better diesels, but getting them certified here would cost VW buku dollars. The current engine is refined, well mannered, and a pleasant powerplant to have. Most TDI drivers absolutely love their cars. I also think you're exaggerating a bit on the 2.5. It's not that rough.

[ifcar]

I don't know why you're restricting the comparisons to cars with high displacement. Restrict it to cars with the same performance...which is pretty much all base-engine small cars.

24/31 is good for a midsize car, not a compact car.

[WookieOnRitalin]

I don't know why you're restricting the comparisons to cars with high displacement. Restrict it to cars with the same performance...which is pretty much all base-engine small cars.

24/31 is good for a midsize car, not a compact car.

Because its apples to apples. 5 Door Hatch Backs with Big 4 Bangers. How does that not make sense? Plus, who offers a higher displacement engine in a compact car and manages to get GREAT fuel economy? The main reason most manufacturers don't is because of this very reason. Between Midsize and Compact with the same engine, the fuel economy difference is MARGINAL at best if not worse in some cases and the price difference also becomes marginal.

The argument was whether or not the Golf was overpriced. It's not and its competitive compared to its direct rivals that are similar cars with similar displacements.

[ifcar]

Why limit it to big-displacement engines when competitors do just as well with small displacement? You might as well say nothing's wrong with the fuel economy because no competing five-cylinder does better -- an artificial limitation.

[2o6]

Because its apples to apples. 5 Door Hatch Backs with Big 4 Bangers. How does that not make sense? Plus, who offers a higher displacement engine in a compact car and manages to get GREAT fuel economy? The main reason most manufacturers don't is because of this very reason. Between Midsize and Compact with the same engine, the fuel economy difference is MARGINAL at best if not worse in some cases and the price difference also becomes marginal.

The argument was whether or not the Golf was overpriced. It's not and its competitive compared to its direct rivals that are similar cars with similar displacements.

By this logic, a Sonata 2.0 and Malibu 2.4 or Altima 2.5 are not competitors.


Golf 2.5 is 0-60 in 8 seconds. Other cars are just as fast and far better on gas, and built just as well.

[WookieOnRitalin]

Why limit it to big-displacement engines when competitors do just as well with small displacement? You might as well say nothing's wrong with the fuel economy because no competing five-cylinder does better -- an artificial limitation.

I put the numbers up there to show that no direct competitor does better with fuel economy at that displacement. The base price for the Golf is commanded by the higher displacement. So why would I compare a 1.8L Cruze to a 2.5L Golf? I compared similarly priced/spec'd 5 doors showing that for what the Golf is that it is just as competitive as the rest of the field.

By this logic, a Sonata 2.0 and Malibu 2.4 or Altima 2.5 are not competitors.


Golf 2.5 is 0-60 in 8 seconds. Other cars are just as fast and far better on gas, and built just as well.

Um, duh?

[2o6]

I put the numbers up there to show that no direct competitor does better with fuel economy at that displacement. The base price for the Golf is commanded by the higher displacement. So why would I compare a 1.8L Cruze to a 2.5L Golf? I compared similarly priced/spec'd 5 doors showing that for what the Golf is that it is just as competitive as the rest of the field.

Um, duh?

No it isn't.


A 2.5 Golf isn't all that fast or frugal. Just because the other cars have big engines don't make them fast or frugal, either. A smaller engined compact will accelerate just as fast, return better MPG's and for cheaper.

[SVT666]

You are so insecure when it comes to ANYTHING Ford it's just painful to watch. Literally painful.

Not at all.  I'm just pointing out that your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[SVT666]

Hypocrisy at its best.  You think the turbo motor in the Cruze is great, but you could only criticize Ford for doing it less than a year ago:

Turbos are essentially a maintenance item on big rigs but such rigs carry out their value (if not their utility) far longer I imagine than the average retail automobile. Who will want to put $2,500 worth of new turbos onto a $2,500 Taurus that is probably having all sorts of other problems? (Not many I imagine.)

[AltinD]

class-exclusive automatic parallel parking aren't special or noteworthy?

Maybe in North America, but in Europe and elsewhere, other Automakers had that option since 2007.

[MX793]

Maybe in North America, but in Europe and elsewhere, other Automakers had that option since 2007.

In C-segment cars?  Other automakers have offered automatic parallel parking in the US as well, but up until the new Focus it has been a feature that is exclusive to larger and more premium vehicles (Lincolns, Lexuses, etc).  I think the Prius is the only other non-premium vehicle in America to offer the feature, but that's not technically in the same segment as the Focus.

[ifcar]

In C-segment cars?  Other automakers have offered automatic parallel parking in the US as well, but up until the new Focus it has been a feature that is exclusive to larger and more premium vehicles (Lincolns, Lexuses, etc).  I think the Prius is the only other non-premium vehicle in America to offer the feature, but that's not technically in the same segment as the Focus.

When did the Prius launch an automated parking system? I must have missed that.

[MX793]

By this logic, a Sonata 2.0 and Malibu 2.4 or Altima 2.5 are not competitors.


Golf 2.5 is 0-60 in 8 seconds. Other cars are just as fast and far better on gas, and built just as well.

The base Sonata is a 2.4, not a 2.0.

And the 2.5 Golf runs 0-60 in the low to mid 7s (C&D got 7.3 in the last one they tested).