Chevrolet Cruze
Sponsored links:
The Chevy Volt gets all the press, but there’s a new small Chevy that’s far more important to the future of General Motors. That’s the 2011 Chevrolet Cruze.
2011 Chevrolet Cruze
The Cruze went on sale in Asia and parts of Europe in March 2009, and will launch in the States roughly a year after that. The subcompact Cruze replaces the aging Chevrolet Cobalt, a US-only model, for the 2011 model year. For the first time, US buyers will have access to a version of the same car that GM sells worldwide.
First Direct Injection for US
In the States, the Chevy Cruze will use a 1.4-liter turbocharged and direct-injected four-cylinder engine, the first such engine offered here by GM. Direct-injection engines are smaller than regular ones, but they put out the same power—providing a fuel economy boost at a lower cost than gas-electric or pure electric technologies. The Volt will use the same 1.4-liter engine to power its onboard electric generator, although that installation does without the turbocharger. At 140 horsepower—hitting the magic 100 horsepower-per-liter mark—GM says this engine will generate the same power and performance as the 2.2-liter conventional engine now used in the Cobalt.
Both manual and automatic transmissions offer six speeds, a major advance over earlier subcompacts that made do with four-speed automatics and four or five gears. Unsurprisingly, the Cruze is front-wheel-drive.
No specifications have been released for the US powertrain, but Chevrolet executives have hinted more than once that the fuel economy will be better than buyers expect—which would put the Chevy Cruze into 35-mpg territory or better.
Styling and Interior
The roofline of the Chevrolet Cruze swoops from its high point to the beltline, shortening the trunk lid and lengthening the cabin. The sides mix knife-edge accent lines and gentle curves, and overall the car looks longer and more substantial than its size would indicate.
2011 Chevrolet Cruze
Inside, the Chevy Cruze has something of a twin-cockpit effect, with three slightly overlapping circular instruments in the arched pod in front of the driver. The arch is echoed for the front-seat passenger. In between, the center stack has gentle angles rather than square corners, housing the display screen, sound equipment, climate controls, and other controls.
The Cruze interior is clearly related to the well-received interior design of the 2009 Chevrolet Malibu, which set new standards for materials, fit, and finish in the midsize segment. The company apparently intends to repeat that in the compact segment.
The Chevy Cruze has been well received in Europe. Autoweek magazine tested the European version and called it fully competitive with European and Asian offerings. The Cruze was “stable and composed in high-speed corners,” the magazine said, and can “hustle along a European back road with gusto.”
Designed in Korea, Launched in Paris
The Chevrolet Cruze was largely designed in Korea by the GM-Daewoo group, though much of the handling and suspension development was done in Europe. It made its first public appearance at the Paris Motor Show in October 2008, and it’s the first of up to a dozen models based on GM’s new “global subcompact” platform—including, surprisingly enough, the Volt itself.
The US version, though, will likely have better performance, more equipment, and a lower price than those offered to buyers elsewhere. That’s the nature of the US market, the world’s most competitive, where subcompacts stretch to reach a price of $20,000.
While GM continues its media blitz for the Chevy Volt, the company has so far released few details of the US version of the Chevy Cruze, though it has shown the car at auto shows in Detroit, New York, and elsewhere. At less than half the price of the Volt, but with mileage approaching hybrid territory, could the Cruze upstage the Volt as its high-efficiency high-volume hit?
-
n/a MPG n/a L/100km
-
BODY TYPE:
Sedan
-
TECHNOLOGY:
Small Car
-
BASE MSRP:
n/a
Chevrolet Cruze Photos
What does this have to do with Hybrid cars? Nothing. I think it is a sad state of affairs when a Chevy press release (this is not a real article) has to brag about being designed in Korea. Its like saying, GM didn't have much to do with this car, you might consider buying it. Welcome to the new world.
I agree...why do web sites with a focus keeping posting nonsense? if I wanted that I would just troll Digg.
What a disastrous looking model. Another loser from GM ...
I like the car. Its a nice article to bost up a company that needs some support.
I think GM bashers are bad folks who are negitive and really poor quality. Letterman reciently just bashed the volt on tv for some reason and this car will get us off oil.
Something is wrong with you folks.
Good article.!!!
Geeze guys give GM a break. I don't think it's such a bad lookiing car - actually seems kind of classy for a sub compact. You could call the turbo charged direct injection engine something of a hybrid (maybe a pre-hybrid :-D). Anyway if it is Korean made like the latest Hyundais and not like the Aveo it might be better than most of what GM produces these days in terms of quality and reliability for a reasonable price.
Alright guys.
So this car is not a hybrid.
But, you DO all know the title of this websites' main page, right?
Alternative, ***FUEL EFFICIENT*** Hybrid vehicles and autombiles. This means not just hybrids but fuel efficient vehicles as well. Hybrids are the main stories here, but there are other vehicles that Hybridcars.com talk about to! The cruze may end up being more fuel efficent than the cobalt.... its not a hybrid, but at the very least its a step in a better direction.
And don't forget, Chevy will be releasing its Volt - (though sadly) in about two years. So at ( least ) they are trying to take initiative.
-Adrian
Sorry, but when the site says 'hybrid', and that does not mean another iteration of an internal combustion engine, but a essentially two power sources (or more) working symbiotically to propel the vehicle.
Maybe I'm wrong in assuming this, but to me hybrids are a means to wean ourselves away from ICE based vehicles altogether.
If the site was named www.AlternativeCars.com, then focusing on other fuel based systems would be acceptable, but it is not.
GM has had plenty of breaks already.. let them follow Chrysler to Chapter 11 and be done with it.
Heck if we're dumping so much taxpayer money to keep them afloat, why am I not getting any shares in the company? Nuff said ;)
Hey, give 'em a break. Frankly at 35MPG (especially if this is the "new" combined average) this car will get as good or better mileage than most hybrids on the market. This is not a bad looking car - a far cry better than anything they have put out in the last several years. Frankly I think the interior has hints of Lexus and BMW an the interior stack just screams of Infiniti and Acura. If this car had a Mercedeces badge on it, a leather interior and cost $20,000 more I think a lot of people would be talking about what a great car it is but why can't the cost come down.
Guys.. the site is what it is. If you're really upset about the content, please email the editors. I'm just sick of this.
The car is outstanding! This many features, this gas mileage, this size, etc for under $20 K is so good for us! This will certainly heat up the competition in the compact segment.
For those of you that don't like GM.. just realize.. if they go away, the price of cars in most segments in the US will go up. Many of GM's offerings compete rather well with any company (Malibu, CTS, Sierra with the best gas mileage and hybrid option, the "aging" Cobalt, etc). And, they tend to be thousands less. If you don't want the Cruz, then certainly thank GM for lowering the price and increasing the features of whatever you do buy.
Where is the criticism when this site has stories on the environment, politics (fuel standards or legislation), TDI's or biofuel? Those are not always true "hybrid car stores".
Question does this car directly compete with the Civic/Corolla car segment?
What I think some are failing to connect here is the 1.4-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine. In the past some turbocharge systems wasted more gas and was a waste of money for some consumers. If successful on a mass scale this could help create fast changes in fuel mileage in some non hybrid cars. Also a great point, is this model will be made from a global platform. That is HUGE in the ability to cut costs and I hope someday GM can invest in the latest production facilities to be able to adjust in days not months to changes in consumer buying habits.
A step in the right direction anyway.
Just some sad feeling that some guys with bad vision leading GM into this and then said bye bye with a golden handshake, leaving the company in deep sh**.
Yay! GM comes out with a boring car that is smaller than a Civic Hybrid but gets much worse gas mileage! This is great! I can't contain my emotions.
Thank goodness, I was afraid we'd have to hear about another new, fuel effiicient hybrid. Now we can get back to the same old garbage that we've had for the past 100 years.
Sorry Brad, if you've noticed I'm not paying as much attention to this site as I did in the past.
Let's look toward the future. I don't have time for this old junk.
GM makes safe cars
Honda and Toyota don't really make safety.
The cruz is heavy to be safer. It might suffer from millage like some say but 35 mpg is fine if it saves you a few days in the emergency room.
The prius my friend owns is so cheap that he hit a small deer at 10 mph and it totaled the car.
I would hate to see what happened if a SUV hits one.
bill,
Are you bill cosworth under another name?
Your friend's prius written off but saved your friend. An SUV may be OK outside but the driver may never walk out of the car.
Your statements re GM, Honda and Toyota do not contain any facts, only fiction.
Buyers are not stupid. They don't buy H and T cars for no safety and avoid GM because they built safer cars.
Gee, this is a real tough crowd!! Remind me not invite you guys to my stand up comedy routine...you will kill me!!! So, let's gleen what we can from the information. First, we will get a chance to see what the volt gas engine will look like. Second, since it is going to be a direct injection engine, we might be looking at a trend for future small ICE fuel injected engines...direct injection. Now, although I think that direct injection has distinct advantages over intake or throttle body injection, the cost of the fuel system is much more expensive to install because the injector must be able to endure combustion chamber pressures and temperatures. This means you can forget about the injector running around 35 to 55 PSI using a small lift pump to build pressure. I am guessing here, now, but I suspect that the direct injectors will be poppet type that builds the pressure right in the injector to around 1500 to 2500 psi and is timed by the ECU. Again, this all adds cost to the engine, but does allow for more accurate metering and fuel/air ratios. So, this article gives us some more information about the Chevy Volt by virtue of its information. As far as the naturally aspirated verses the turbo charged version, I vote for a turbo charged version in the Volt, too. The naturally aspirated engine will last longer in the Volt if they use the same Stellite or sodium valves instead of the cheaper valves (and seats) required for non-turbocharged engines. So, all in all, we did learn something new about the coming Volt here. Now, if they will only give us the run time cycles of the Volt ICE engine this will tell us how long that little 1.4 engine will last in the Volt. Since we already know that it will not power the car, it will be easy to figure the life expectancy of the ICE in the Volt...something GM already knows.
Despite the criticisms on this page, the one thing that everyone needs to realize is that hybrids are still very expensive. It is unbelievably important that there be a low cost, high mileage alternative that the average Joe can buy. This is exactly what that car is - and it looks like it'll more than do the job.
A six-speed manual transmission option!!! Yeah!!
I wonder why they are waiting another year if the car is already selling in other parts of the world? But it looks like it'll be a really good small car.
This car is commendable by the standards of GM, but I don't think we should be awed, since GM is in the remedial class on fuel economy. This car's stats are only a bit better than those of a Corolla, depending on whether "35 MPG" refers to city/highway or just highway, and what exactly the price will be.
Still, it's welcome.
Honda invests more in safety, and has the largest safety research lab, of any car maker. Period.
The myth of bigger means safer is a joke as well. SUVs can roll over at the drop of a hat. Hondas are built very well and survive crashes well. You really should do the research before spouting nationalistic nonsense like that.
"The myth of bigger means safer is a joke as well"
Hogwash. In most (not all) cases, bigger means safer.
Let's duel. The weapons are a Civic and a Suburban. We'll run into each other head on at a high rate of speed. Will you choose the Civic? I hope so, because if I don't get the Suburban, I'm not going to play.
On your tombstone, we'll have them print "He really loved small cars"!
This article has much to do with hybrid cars as this model will be sold as a bi-fuel (liquified gas + petrol) version too.
Or at least it'll be so in Italy.
I find it strange that people in the US can see cars with over 35mpg as a miricle or something that is difficult to achieve, yet these kind of vehicles are being offered in Europe and other continants for quite some time.
I drive a car produced by GM and suprise suprise it does more than 35 mpg, infact it does 48 mpg combined. In the UK almost everyone drives a car that is 1. something, mainly because fuel prices are 95-96 pence a litre but also because people realise that having a car with a big engine is completely pointless. My 1.2 liter GM car can manage 0-60 in about 11 seconds, and does up to 110 mph.
People in the US need to understand that sitting in a trafic jam with a 3, 4, 5 liter engine will not help you get to work faster, not make the government increase the speed limit over 70 and that you will never use ur SUV for anything but a shopping cart.
The common misconception that cars which are smaller are unsafe, not true. My car is a reasonably old model, first launched in 98 but my model is 05, scored a 4 out of 5 rating on the NCAP test.
Although this is also down to US car makers, if they only offered small engined cars then you could only buy small engined cars.
With all due respect, driving environments in the US are much different than in Europe. Americans are not impressed with small vehicles that provide less protection on the roads. It is a fact that for many years, even Mercedes had to reinforce their door panels with Z supports for cars that they sell in the USA, as had the Asian models. Typical speeds in the US are much higher than in Europe, (we know about the Autoban, it's one road). The distances people drive in the US are greater and Americans typically average hauling more weight. So, this is one reason why models that might work in Europe will not work in the USA. Also, the government here has been hostile to diesels. In California, for example no state owned truck, bus or car can be powered by diesel because the state will not finance it. So there are some diffferences that are systemic. That being said, there is much that can apply to both. However, to force Americans to buy cars with small engines and small passenger compartments by making automakers produce only those cars is, well...Un American.
DDT,
Imperial Gallon = 1.2 x U.S. Gallon
In other words, where it ways 35 mpg (U.S.), substitute 42 mpg (Imperial). In the U.S., we would call your 48 mpg GM product '40 mpg'.
Just to properly focus the dangerous/safe debate about large vs. small cars. Most people who think guns are dangerous don't think that they pose a danger to the possessor of the gun. Guns are considered dangerous because they pose a risk to others. We should consider large and small cars in a similar manner.
The safety of occupants is just one of several things to consider when speaking of vehicle safety. While the ability of large cars to protect occupants is debatable, the fact that large cars pose a greater risk to others is indisputable.
Large SUVs due to their increased mass, will always strike other objects with more momentum than a small car (mass x velocity = momentum) travelling at the same speed. Momentum is what causes most of the damage to things in a crash.
Large SUVs impede the visions of other drivers, making it harder for them to react to things going on in front of them.
Drivers of large SUVs also have impaired vision of things both immediately in front of and behind their vehicles, (where things are most likely to be run over.. like their own children).
Bumpers of Large SUVs are also often at the wrong height, meaning that instead of hitting the bumpers of other vehicles, they hit higher, striking parts of vehicles less suitable for absorbing force.
Additionally, the false sense of security that people have when driving them both in good and bad weather, often leads to careless driving unbefitting the conditions. I have seen more SUVs spun out and in accidents in bad weather than sedans and coupes. 4 wheel drive does not help braking, nor does additional mass.
And yes, they do turn over more often, sometimes shearing off the roof and heads of occupants. As a former fatal accident investigator for 3 years I have seen the results of many SUV rollovers, as opposed to zero car rollovers.
Finally, the danger SUVs pose to all due to their increased CO2 emissions? If you believe in artificial climate change, that should be factored in as well.
So again.. which is safer? Small or big?
"In the States, the Chevy Cruze will use a 1.4-liter turbocharged and direct-injected four-cylinder engine, the first such engine offered here by GM"
You'd think they would at least use correct information. My 2008 Chevy HHR "SS" has a 2.0L, direct injected, turbocharged Ecotec engine that actually has been around since 2007 when it was first available in the Solstice. It not only has great power but gets exceptional fuel economy........but it still is not a hybrid.
Ugly, ugly, ugly...why do GMs cars continue to look like they were designed in the 1980s.....? Please, file for bankruptcy and restaff with some new blood!!
Да уж. Иногда такое бывает, что хоть стой хоть падай.
Очень даже замечательно. В особенности первая.
WELL in my opinion the car the company made looks pretty good but the horsepower should b more than 160 da size of car is bigger than they gave it da litre capacity also look at ford focus have 145 hp whats the difference between these 2 only the size ford focuss should be praised in all about this I would like 2 say the cars which da company is manufacturing is though as liked by youngsters but they should make engines of car like this cruze about 200 hp 2.0 litre engine
Post a new comment