Chevy Prices Cruze: $16,995 for Base 1.8, $22,695 for LTZ

by Edward Niedermeyer

Published: June 3rd, 2010

chevy prices cruze 16 995 for base 1 8 22 695 for ltz

GM has announced pricing on its next small thing, the Cobalt-replacing Cruze compact, and the new price of entry is $16,995. That’s about a $2,000 premium over the base Cobalt (which starts at $14,990), a price hike that is justified by Chevy’s high expectations for the Cruze. As Chevy’s Jim Campbell puts it

For the price of a compact car, Cruze offers the styling, safety features, roominess, amenities, and refinement of a much more expensive car.

Base prices for the Cruze’s main competitors are $16,200 for a Corolla, $16,415 for a Civic, $16,095 for a Mazda3, $16,170 for a Sentra, $17,040 for a Focus, $178,485 for a Jetta, $14,865 for an Elantra, and $14,390 for a Forte (including typical destination fees).

Chevy is highlighting the base Cruze’s value proposition, with the following comparison between the Cruze LS and the Honda Civic DX

But given the poor reviews that the base Cruze’s 1.8 liter engine has garnered abroad, the 1.4 liter turbocharged version is the one to get. That engine is available starting at $18,895, which is the entry point for both the LT trim level, and the high-efficiency “Eco” version. From there, the prices just keep going up. With LTZ models starting at an eye-popping $22,695, there will be some nice-looking Cruze models on dealer lots, but it begs the question: with loaded Chevy compacts headed into $25k (aka mid-sized sedan) territory, how much is Buick planning on charging for its forthcoming “premium” compact sedan? And will buyers overcome Chevy’s “perception gap” to pay a premium over competing Honda and Toyota models? Given that GM has essentially staked its entire compact car legacy (such as it is) on the Cruze, these issues simply can not be ignored…

#Chevrolet #Cruze #GM #Marketing #Pricing

Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 61 comments

DweezilSFV on Jun 04, 2010

I was at a customer clinic a couple of years ago that featured the Cruze. Good looking. Lots of room in the back seat.Price was targeted at that time at about the same as announced here, with the turbo and high MPG engine. Sitting in the Cruze was "familiar". I at first thought it was a heavily reworked ION/Cobalt from the aspect of seat height, width, headroom and visibilty from the driver's seat. It was the "hit" of the clinic for me and I liked it. I thought it was a ridiculous price, though. And that was long before the GM melt down. And the story is much as before: Cobalt was supposed to be GM's "premium" compact and was priced accordingly.Too high. GM has no credibility here. The didn't with the Cobalt. Or the Astra. And their past is littered with Citations, Chevettes, Vegas, Monzas, J Cars,etc. Not going there. My past experience with the Cobalt intro the dealer stocked perhaps 5 at most ; all overloaded and overpriced at 3-4 months after intro, still flogging their SUVs which were innumerable on their sales lot. I went and bought essentially the same car in the Saturn ION for $3-4000 less. I had a 99 Cavalier that had been perfectly reliable and I liked before it was totalled and had to be replaced.The Cobalt seemed a logical choice. The ION proved that GM's quality had back slid since 99. Saturn introduced the Astra with a 1.8 that was underpowered, used a timing belt, had a fussier maintenance schedule etc etc and cost more than Saturn buyers were used to seeing for their entry level car and image. It worked out so well for them. Why not use that business model on Chevrolet and their next small car ??? Thankfully I am not and will not be in the market for a new car for a long time to come, if ever. What a crock.The ION may not be much of a car but the engine, trans and body are bullet proof and will hold up for as long as I want to keep it. GM can go upscale all it wants be it will always be a low rent corner cutting mediocrity in the business. 2 or 3 years of improvement are meaningless after a legacy of pumping out garbage small cars for 40 years. Believe me: I cut that ION [and Cobalt] a lot of slack as the Delta is GM's best effort to date. But my and my family's overall experience with GM [the Cavalier seems more like an exception to the rule ] tells me that when the time comes: there's a Ford in my future.

Like Reply
Ricky Spanish on Jun 04, 2010

Pretty expensive Jetta . . .

Like Reply

Recent Comments

SCE to AUX "we had an unprecedented number of visits to the online configurator"Nobody paid attention when the name was "Milano", because it was expected. Mission accomplished!
Parkave231 Should have changed it to the Polonia!
Analoggrotto Junior Soprano lol
GrumpyOldMan The "Junior" name was good enough for the German DKW in 1959-1963:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DKW_Junior
Philip I love seeing these stories regarding concepts that I have vague memories of from collector magazines, books, etc (usually by the esteemed Richard Langworth who I credit for most of my car history knowledge!!!). On a tangent here, I remember reading Lee Iacocca's autobiography in the late 1980s, and being impressed, though on a second reading, my older and self realized why Henry Ford II must have found him irritating. He took credit for and boasted about everything successful being his alone, and sidestepped anything that was unsuccessful. Although a very interesting about some of the history of the US car industry from the 1950s through the 1980s, one needs to remind oneself of the subjective recounting in this book. Iacocca mentioned Henry II's motto "Never complain; never explain" which is basically the M.O. of the Royal Family, so few heard his side of the story. I first began to question Iacocca's rationale when he calls himself "The Father of the Mustang". He even said how so many people have taken credit for the Mustang that he would hate to be seen in public with the mother. To me, much of the Mustang's success needs to be credited to the DESIGNER Joe Oros. If the car did not have that iconic appearance, it wouldn't have become an icon. Of course accounting (making it affordable), marketing (identifying and understanding the car's market) and engineering (building a car from a Falcon base to meet the cost and marketing goals) were also instrumental, as well as Iacocca's leadership....but truth be told, I don't give him much credit at all. If he did it all, it would have looked as dowdy as a 1980s K-car. He simply did not grasp car style and design like a Bill Mitchell or John Delorean at GM. Hell, in the same book he claims credit for the Brougham era four-door Thunderbird with landau bars (ugh) and putting a "Rolls-Royce grille" on the Continental Mark III. Interesting ideas, but made the cars look chintzy, old-fashioned and pretentious. Dean Martin found them cool as "Matt Helm" in the late 1960s, but he was already well into middle age by then. It's hard not to laugh at these cartoon vehicles.