Edmunds Spies 2011 Cruze

[FierySolstice]

Good looking car, stupid name. Should of been Corvair, Chevette, Vega, or Nova. Any word if Pontiac will get a version to replace the awful G5? It would be cool if this came in hatch form too, just for Pontiac. It would compete well next to the Jetta/Rabbit/GTI. I would consider a G4!!!

[prototype66]

Need it now.

[HotCarNut]

Is the torsion beam setup lighter than IRS? If fuel economy is the goal of this vehicle, and the average person wouldn't notice the difference, then a lighter setup would be preferable. Just a hypothesis. Can anybody confirm?

I can't remember where I read it, but I read somewhere that the new GM 6AT was actually cheaper to produce and used fewer parts than their old 4AT. Anybody know if this is true?

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by HotCarNut

Is the torsion beam setup lighter than IRS? If fuel economy is the goal of this vehicle, and the average person wouldn't notice the difference, then a lighter setup would be preferable. Just a hypothesis. Can anybody confirm?

I can't remember where I read it, but I read somewhere that the new GM 6AT was actually cheaper to produce and used fewer parts than their old 4AT. Anybody know if this is true?

Yes, a T/B rear suspension is lighter than most IRSs. The IRS on a Saturn SC2 consists of 4 lateral links, 2 trailing links, an anti-roll bar, 2 links for said anti-roll bar, 2 struts and 2 springs. A T/B generally consists of a beam with 2 trailing arms welded to it, 2 springs and 2 shocks...if you wanna get fancy, you can weld an anti-roll bar inside the main lateral beam. It's lighter, leaves more trunk space, easier to maintain, inexpensive to make, alignment-free and 90% of the population couldn't care less. Fully IRS belongs on a Porsche, a Corvette or a Ferrari...on a compact economy car, it's pretty much bragging rights, marketing and additional unnecessary expense.

[usa1]

Before everyone rationalizes why a torsion rear suspension is "just fine", consider that none of the WORLD CLASS competition uses torsion rear suspensions any more. A torsion rear suspension is inferior to a independent rear suspension if you want to make an industry leading product. GM is telling the world that "good enough" is OK.

I can understand GM's decision, they want to make money, but as a customer, I can't help but consider this as a ding against the Cruze.

Mark

[Olds88]

Originally Posted by usa1

Before everyone rationalizes why a torsion rear suspension is "just fine", consider that none of the WORLD CLASS competition uses torsion rear suspensions any more. A torsion rear suspension is inferior to a independent rear suspension if you want to make an industry leading product. GM is telling the world that "good enough" is OK.

I can understand GM's decision, they want to make money, but as a customer, I can't help but consider this as a ding against the Cruze.

Mark

Explain how its inferior. Or did we forget the the Cobalt SS is the fastest FWD production compact on the face of the earth? Its ring time was better than the all-hallowed and very overpriced 335i.

[Chaz_23]

Knowing that American consumers buy their cars solely based on what CR says, why does GM give the media this sort of amunition. What else, does it have a 4-speed auto? Rear drum brakes? Radio without AUX input? Looks like the beancounters are still firmly in command of the sinking ship.

[vanshmack]

T/B rear suspension is no big deal. I doubt most drivers could tell the difference in driving T/B and fully independent back-to-back. As long as the rest of the car is good, this is a non-issue.

As a side note, my wife had a 2WD 2000 Grand Cherokee about 5 years ago, and I was mortified, but not shocked, when I discovered that it had a straight-axle in the FRONT. I always knew it had a choppy ride, but I assumed it had poser off-road tuning. I didn't expect to see a solid front axle, but that's what it had.

[Olds88]

Originally Posted by vanshmack

T/B rear suspension is no big deal. I doubt most drivers could tell the difference in driving T/B and fully independent back-to-back. As long as the rest of the car is good, this is a non-issue.

As a side note, my wife had a 2WD 2000 Grand Cherokee about 5 years ago, and I was mortified, but not shocked, when I discovered that it had a straight-axle in the FRONT. I always knew it had a choppy ride, but I assumed it had poser off-road tuning. I didn't expect to see a solid front axle, but that's what it had.

Any offroader worth mentioning will have solid axles in front and rear. The GC's suspension wasn't posing, it was a real offroading setup.

[vanshmack]

Originally Posted by Olds88

Any offroader worth mentioning will have solid axles in front and rear. The GC's suspension wasn't posing, it was a real offroading setup.

I understand a TRUE off-roader having solid front axles, but this was a 2WD GC. Totally different front-end than a 4x4. I would have expected IND on a non-4x4, that's all.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by usa1

Before everyone rationalizes why a torsion rear suspension is "just fine", consider that none of the WORLD CLASS competition uses torsion rear suspensions any more. A torsion rear suspension is inferior to a independent rear suspension if you want to make an industry leading product. GM is telling the world that "good enough" is OK.

I can understand GM's decision, they want to make money, but as a customer, I can't help but consider this as a ding against the Cruze.

Mark

Honda uses a T/B in Europe, it's only a ding to the American ego. None of the world class competition? Honda isn't world class? Toyota isn't? How about VW? Nissan? Fiat? Alfa Romeo? Citroen/Peugeot? They all use T/B rear suspensions, NOW. On current cars. On expensive, brand new cars like the Alfa MiTo ($21K, USD, for a subcompact). Who, exactly, is 'world class' if not the rest of the world market? As a potential Cruze buyer, I could care less. If it's good enough for the fastest compact car around the 'Ring (Cobalt SS/TC) then it's good enough to haul my fat butt back and forth to work. If equipping the Cruze with a T/B saves GM enough money to put a world-class interior in this car and get it to market at a decent price, it's a sacrifice I am willing to make. More than willing. My ego can handle not having a complicated rear axle on an economy car, especially considering it keeps Americans working if I buy one.

[HotCarNut]

Originally Posted by vanshmack

I understand a TRUE off-roader having solid front axles, but this was a 2WD GC. Totally different front-end than a 4x4. I would have expected IND on a non-4x4, that's all.

Too expensive to design 2 completely different setups for the 2WD and 4WD variants. As a big Jeep fan my argument has always been that Jeep should ban 2WD and make only 4WD or AWD vehicles. They would be the SUV equivalent of Subaru.

[HotCarNut]

Originally Posted by Saturn69

Honda uses a T/B in Europe, it's only a ding to the American ego. None of the world class competition? Honda isn't world class? Toyota isn't? How about VW? Nissan? Fiat? Alfa Romeo? Citroen/Peugeot? They all use T/B rear suspensions, NOW. On current cars. On expensive, brand new cars like the Alfa MiTo ($21K, USD, for a subcompact). Who, exactly, is 'world class' if not the rest of the world market? As a potential Cruze buyer, I could care less. If it's good enough for the fastest compact car around the 'Ring (Cobalt SS/TC) then it's good enough to haul my fat butt back and forth to work. If equipping the Cruze with a T/B saves GM enough money to put a world-class interior in this car and get it to market at a decent price, it's a sacrifice I am willing to make. More than willing. My ego can handle not having a complicated rear axle on an economy car, especially considering it keeps Americans working if I buy one.

Not only that, but the T/B setup is lighter which saves weight and increases fuel economy - which is the biggest consideration in a car in this class.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by Olds88

Explain how its inferior. Or did we forget the the Cobalt SS is the fastest FWD production compact on the face of the earth? Its ring time was better than the all-hallowed and very overpriced 335i.

Dude, facts mean squat to those who allow their cars suspension design to determine their manliness and sense of self-worth. J/K I didn't know the Cobalt SS/TC was faster than a 335i...that's way cool! With a frakin' T/B rear axle no less! That should be all the proof people need that a T/B is perfectly fine.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by Chaz_23

Knowing that American consumers buy their cars solely based on what CR says, why does GM give the media this sort of amunition. What else, does it have a 4-speed auto? Rear drum brakes? Radio without AUX input? Looks like the beancounters are still firmly in command of the sinking ship.

Not this American consumer. I think for myself and I don't listen to review magazines.

Yes, we should not wait until we can actually sit it and drive this car, we should just jump on board and say that it is a steaming pile! We don't KNOW crap about this car, except that it's coming. 99% of what we're arguing about is speculation and internet gossip (in other words, wonky B.S.). I'll reserve judgment until I can take one on a test drive, but so far, I'm in...based on looks alone and the 1.4L engine.