Last post on Dec 06, 2013 at 5:47 PM
You are in the Chevrolet Cruze
What is this discussion about?
Chevrolet Cruze, Sedan
#480 of 905 Re: LS vs LT [steven39]
Dec 12, 2010 (9:14 am)
Thanks steven39 - yes I was banged around a bit by the crash, but maybe not so bad because I never heard any braking so I didn't have a chance to "brace" for the crash. It was just like my car suddenly exploded. The collision from behind drove my car into the car ahead of me at the traffic signal, but it happened so quickly that I was not aware of 2 separate crashes. I still have a stiff neck 13 days later, but its gradually diminishing.
The 09 subaru outback did its job to protect me by crumpling. Basically, the car sacrificed itself and protected the entire driver-passenger compartment. The car was totalled.
I considered getting another Subaru - but I preferred the 09 Outback greatly over the 2010-11 Outback. The 2010 Outback for example eliminated even folding side mirrors and turned their previously useful roofrack (which I used for a kayak) into something decorative rather than functional. The 09 was the last year of that generation and had sensible option packages. Mine was in perfect condition and excessively cared for & maintained and I know that I would not be able to find another one so perfect. The used ones I've seen on the lots are trashed - so I wonder how they were maintained. I know they were driven hard because I hear people describe low mpg on the same model car that I calculated 29.7 mpg (rated 20/26) when I drove it over its entire 39K lifespan. If they still sold the 09 new, yes, I would get another. The options packages on the new Outbacks inflate the price too high for the few little things I'd want - and they include things I don't want. The 2011 Forester is more tempting, because of the new engine, but a base model is $6K more than a Cruze and I would get about 10mpg less in driving my 110 mile commute. Its a matter of burning 3.9-4 gals a day with a Subaru vs 2.75 - 2.85 gals a day in a Cruze. I'm a big fan of Subaru, and posted a lot on the subaru forums, but they, like many others, especially VW, are losing their older traditional buyers by overloading their vehicles with foolish options packages and removing basic features that were useful in the past - like folding side mirrors and the roofracks.
I love the AWD of the Subaru, but the reality is that I must share the roads around here with homicidal maniacs. So, discretion means staying home rather than going out into conditions that I can handle just fine - but most other drivers here cannot handle at all. I saw three serious accidents, one requiring a medevac chopper just on my way home yesterday from the Chevy dealer where I drove the Cruze. I can sum it up - lack of attention (texting, etc.), speed far in excess for road conditions, combined with tailgating. In addition to the accidents, I saw two vehicles spin around on the highway when the lead vehicle chose to stand on his brakes for no apparent reason, causing the tailgater behind him to abruptly change lanes a few feet from another, all this at about 70 right in front of me. I see this nonsense everyday and don't think the AWD helps me much when the real danger is from fools rather than highway conditions that I can easily handle from 40 years and nearly 2 million miles of cautious driving experience.
The Cruze has all the airbags of the Outback. It doesn't have all discs, but the rear drums seem to stop it ok. In addition, it has new knee airbags, so maybe that will help next time in a lighter vehicle.
My commute has become an issue of not "if" I will get smashed into, but "when". Right now I think the Cruze will both protect me and save me about $1000 in fuel, compared to the Subaru over the course of 30K miles/year.
#481 of 905 Re: LS vs LT [morin2]
Dec 12, 2010 (9:19 am)
>It doesn't have all discs, but the rear drums seem to stop it ok.
The Cruze does have discs on the rear on some models. But I agree about drums on the rear being just fine. They've stopped me well in emergencies in my 1998 leSabre with 180,000 miles and all previous cars. I don't see the necessity of discs in rear.
#482 of 905 Re: LS vs LT [morin2]
Dec 12, 2010 (9:19 am)
" remember the GM fiasco when they went with a composite intake manifold on their venerable 3.8 and don't want to buy a future problem. "
Well I can't speak for the quality this time around either, but at least on an inline block it is not being bolted down unevenly. With a V block they get 'pulled apart' as they get bolted down. It is one of the reasons why inline engines are known to last longer and with fewer moving parts than V's. They use V's of course, cuz they can make them shorter front to back.
I can't find where I first read about the turbo mounting, but they touch on it here: http://www.chevroletcruzeforum.com/index.php?/topic/315-chevrolet-cruze-fuel-eff- icient-powertrain-offerings-led-by-technically-advanced-ecotec-14l-turbo/
here is an excerpt: "Integrated turbocharger and exhaust manifold: For lower weight, quicker throttle response and easier packaging in the Cruze, the Ecotec 1.4L turbo uses a unique, integrated turbocharger and exhaust manifold. The turbocharger size was chosen with an emphasis on low-speed torque and throttle response. Typically, turbochargers are mounted at the outlet of the exhaust manifold or farther downstream in the exhaust system, but this design incorporates the turbocharger's turbine housing into the exhaust manifold as a single component. It requires fewer parts, is lighter than a conventional system, helps lower engine compartment temperatures and helps the engine warm up faster. The faster warm-up benefits emissions performance, as it enables a close-coupled catalytic converter that promotes a quick “light off.”"
I find your comments interesting and of well thought out value and input to anyone considering the Cruze. Personally I love cruise. I even installed an electronic cruise on my bike. The only times I discourage cruise use if I am chatting with a 'new' driver (or an old one) is if they use it on slippery roads. Cruise should not be used even in heavy rain. Especially if you are on a highway with grooved wheel tracks that hold water and promote unannounced hydroplaning. Altho, todays electronics with ESC and TC etc I suppose they would catch it. Some of this new tech tho I do not agree with. Drivers should be more in tune with what is going on underneath them, not insulated from it. Altho, that said, I am after an exceptionally quiet interior. I am tired of road noise.
As for you and picking the 1.8 vs 1.4 (I haven't driven either yet cuz it hasn't quit snowing) but I suspect this: The 1.4 makes some impressive torque at very low revs. Very similar to turbo diesel low revs. Anyone who gets hung up on HP numbers might short change themselves of a very nice drivetrain combo in the Cruze turbo (except that I have heard the auto is a hunter with that engine, being too willing to throttle inputs and downshifting more than wanted) Interesting in a way, cuz usually hunting is associated with an underpowered engine. Not in this case tho I don't think. Anyway, I suspecct the biggest dif between these two engines, is the turbo will be a LOT more willing to merge or accelerate if you see a spot and a lane you want. It will burn some gas while you spool the turbo during that maneuver but then when coasting/Cruzing, ha, along you have the efficiency of a small displacement engine. Personally though, I think that since the Cruze can't really be considered a light-weight by anyone's estimation, they should have had at least a turbo'd 1.6 or 1.7 would be even better. That way you could end up with 175 to 190 ftlb of torque. A CRV, or Sportage or Rogue type vehicle has around 165 to 170 ftlb and they weigh only about 200 lb more than the Cruze. (some variables depending on Cruze trim and whether the others are AWD or FWD, but you get the point I'm making) I suspeccct that that is why some reviewers are saying that the Cruze could use some more urge, even with the turbo 1.4. That would suggest that the 1.8 (which has less torque and at a much higher rpm range) might be a bit of a slug in the Cruze. I think tho, that a buyer who is not much of a speeder and have inherent patience when commuting, travels mostly with either just themselves or one passenger, would likely be perfectly happy with the 1.8. It has less complexity one would assume. The turbo uses many extra sensors and such that the 1.8 doesn't require to the same degree. Some sensors last forever, others can be plagued with problems or the wire connections that link them all together shortly after wty. (Murphy's Law at work)
I am really looking forward to driving the two back-to-back. Oh ya...one thing that I find very frustrating is that if I like the manual tranny with the 1.4 then I have only one trim level choice that has that combo. Std tranny lovers run into this more and more. The Elantra and Sonata are a good examples. In the Sonata, you can't even have seat heaters unless you have an auto
#483 of 905 Re: LS vs LT [imidazol97]
Dec 12, 2010 (9:33 am)
I wholeheartedly agree. I was trying to portray the virtues of that combo on the Jetta forum to some guy. He was sold though on the fad of rear discs. One thing I will say tho, I suspect rear discs do work more seamlessly with stability control systems.
But for infrequent drivers especially, rear drums are easier to service and cost way less to maintain. Rear drums often outlast 4 or more front rotors. Most braking is done off the front wheels anyway. The rear just helps keep things in line as they assist.
I also prefer how the parking brake works on rear drums. Simple, costs less and less complex and even requires fewer adjustments.
I actually would prefer to have rear drums on my next car. Fortunately, if i choose the Cruze or Jetta/Golf, i will get my wish (but not if I choose the TDI). If it's an Elantra and most others, they have gone with the trendy sell.
#484 of 905 Re: LS mirrors [morin2]
Dec 12, 2010 (10:26 am)
Thanks for the info. I have grown used to power mirrors since getting a Civic LX in '88 and would like cruise because I do sometimes take the car on all-day trips, so it looks like the LS is a no-op for me. I did catch a glimpse of the two-tone LS interior at a dealer when I stopped to look at the 1LT on the showfloor, but the LS was almost entirely covered in snow so I didn't get a good look inside. But I noticed the two-tone treatment did seem to brighten up the interior vs. all black on the 1LT I sat in.
#485 of 905 Re:composite intake manifold [gimmestdtranny]
Dec 12, 2010 (11:31 am)
Found where I first read about the composite IM. They are claiming smooth interior finish for good flow. Makes sense, cuz to get that smooth a surface on cast iron or aluminum, it would have to go through an internal polish process.
"The intake manifold is a composite part. Katerberg says the advantages of the material are low mass and a good surface finish for air flow. The turbocharger is actually integrated into the exhaust manifold. As Katerberg puts it, "It was done primarily for packaging. Partly for weight. Most importantly, for emissions and performance." The turbocharger is sized for low-speed torque, not peak power—although it should be noted that as the 1.4-liter engine produces 138 hp, or about 100 hp per liter, the peak power number is certainly a respectable one. However, Katerberg points out that its 148 lb-ft of torque is reached at 1,850 rpm, then the torque curve is essentially flat."
#487 of 905 Re: LS vs LT [gimmestdtranny]
Dec 12, 2010 (9:10 pm)
Why do you say drums are easier to service than discs? You have to repack the bearings when taking the drum off and there are more steps to replacing the linings than replacing disc pads. Replacing pads takes 15 min whereas a drum takes much longer. Plus, a drum brake looses more braking capacity for much longer than a disc when it gets wet. A rotor needs to rotate only a few times before its dry and ready to provide max braking power whereas a drum takes many rotations to dry the linings. This can be dangerous for the unsuspecting driver who just hit a deep puddle. Drum linings do last much longer than pads and therefore require less service, but their braking performance suffers a little over a 4 wheel disc setup. I guarantee you that a Cruze with 4 wheel discs will stop quicker than one with drums. For the ease of changing pads, the better max braking performance, better wet weather performance, and better looks, I much prefer discs in the rear.
#488 of 905 Re: LS vs LT [carfreak09]
Dec 13, 2010 (5:47 am)
Discs have two advantages that I know of- less weight and better heat shedding for better fade resistance. Drums really dont hamper stopping distances. Most people dont do enough hard braking in a short period of time for the detriments of drum brakes to even be a factor in normal driving. At this point drums have been associated with "cheap" and thus they have disappeared from most cars. As recently has 5-6 years ago some midsize sedans like Malibu and Accord had drums on lower models.
#489 of 905 Re: LS vs LT [carfreak09]
Dec 13, 2010 (7:18 am)
I suppose if Chevy thought drums were so great, they'd be on the high-trim LTZ also instead of discs.