By on June 25, 2015

2016 Chevrolet Cruze Front 3/4

After all the hubbub caused by the Alfa Romeo Giulia reveal yesterday, the all-new 2016 Chevrolet Cruze got lost in the melee. But, it’s here, and it’ll be packing a 1.4L turbocharged four-cylinder mill as standard. Even a new diesel lump will make its way to production for 2017.

What else does the Cruze have up its sleeve?

Well, for starters, it’ll have a bigger sleeve. The Cruze will grow a bit going into 2016, as is typical with almost any new generation of car that isn’t named Miata. The wheelbase is stretched from 105.7 inches to 106.3. Overall length grows from 181 inches to 183.7. However, the Cruze gets ever so slightly shorter and narrower for its second generation.

2016 Chevrolet Cruze rear 3/4The Cruze goes on a diet for 2016. Curb weight has been slashed by approximately 250 lbs, though GM was reluctant to publish final numbers yesterday. Let’s hope that makes the Cruze feel like a much more nimble compact versus the outgoing model, which always drove a bit heavy.

For the first time, Cruze will receive an all-aluminum 1.4L turbocharged four-cylinder Ecotec engine as standard, producing 153 horsepower and 177 lb-ft of torque. GM says the all-new engine will be good for an estimated 40 mpg on the highway with the ability to send you to 60 mph in eight seconds. Expect a decent city fuel economy number to be published thanks to stop/start. (Whether you’ll want to use stop/start is another story.) Power will be delivered to the front wheels by way of either a six-speed manual or six-speed automatic transmission. Outside North America, the Cruze will also be available with a 1.5L naturally-aspirated four-cylinder engine with 113 hp and 108 lb-ft of torque mated to a five-speed manual transmission. Both engines can use regular 87 octane.

A year after its 2016 launch, the Cruze will welcome a new 1.6L diesel mill to the engine family, though exact specs were not disclosed.

Instead of the dumpy, angular front end of the current Cruze, a smoother, more aerodynamic design is applied to the new generation car along with a windshield featuring a more raked profile. This contributes to a fairly low cD of 0.29. For comparison, the Volt has a cD of 0.28. The design also brings Cruze in line with the new 2016 Malibu and current Chevrolet Impala. Expect the next generation Chevrolet Trax to follow suit.

2016 Chevrolet Cruze InteriorInside, Cruze receives a new interior befitting its exterior duds, complete with a new version of Chevrolet MyLink on a seven-inch screen. An upgrade to an eight-inch screen will be available. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto arrive later in the Cruze’s lifecycle. Space has also increased for improved comfort for those of us gifted with height.

In addition to extra entertainment tech, Chevrolet will offer a full suite of safety technologies on Cruze, such as Side Blind Zone Alert, Rear Cross-Traffic Alert, Lane Keep Assist and Forward Collision Alert.

The 2016 model will go on sale early next year with five different trim levels: L, LS, LT, Premier and RS. GM says the latter is “more expressive”, which should read “more show, no additional go.”

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

121 Comments on “2016 Chevrolet Cruze Gets Standard Turbo Mill, Diesel Will Continue...”


  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    183 inches long. 106 inch wheelbase. In my day that was a midsizer. That’s bigger than an mid 90s Camry.

  • avatar
    50merc

    The speedometer goes only to 160. Isn’t that dangerously inadequate for people who drive faster than 160?

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      A 1.4T Cruze is dangerously inadequate for people that drive faster than 160.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        It is inadequate for people who are forced up short exit ramps on a slope. Or whom must drive among hills.

        So slow! Can’t even spin the wheels if ya floor it.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          “It is inadequate for people who are forced up short exit ramps on a slope. Or whom must drive among hills.”

          Chevy does not care for these people and suggests that they “Find New Roads”.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Lol!

            I suspect the Verano option would fix the problem. Perhaps.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            It should. But if you get Dave’s manual transmission of doom, it might be worse.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Some people are into a little slap-bang-clank acceleration.

            Also, the back of this new one looks more Honda/Kia to me for some reason, I think I’d prefer less wrap-around on the rear 3/4 panel.

          • 0 avatar
            tonycd

            In fairness to Chevy, 8 seconds to 60 is pretty damn respectable for a base-engine compact economy sedan.

            As perspective, the original 24-valve, variable-valve-timing DOHC Maxima “4DSC” sports sedan of less than a quarter-century ago was hailed for its “tremendous acceleration,” which included 7.1 seconds to 60 with automatic.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            4DSC has come up a lot around here lately. I feel like I should have some recollection of it or remember the early 90s Maxima. It must be because I’m 30 that the 4DSC means nothing to me. It’s in weird time that has no nostalgia from myself or my parents. I also didn’t drive yet when Nissan was using that tagline. When I see them, I just think $hitty old Nissan.

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            @bball40dtw

            I started driving in the mid-80s, so was in my hooning prime when the 4DSC Maxima came out. I still see them and think “crappy old Nissan”. No interest at all, then or now. They did seem to be good cars though, friend bought one new in ’96 and kept it until just a year or so ago.

        • 0 avatar
          krhodes1

          You kids these days are so spoiled. In my day we drove our 80hp (and that was the big engine option) Subarus up steeper hills both ways to our McJobs and liked it! Couldn’t spin the tires on SNOW, never mind on pavement.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Meh, I like jokes.

            I started driving in the late 90s. 6 out of 10 cars in my high school parking lot had some sort of GM V6 in them. None of them were fast by today’s standards. The Cruze is faster than the 3100 powered Grand Am that so dotted high school parking lots across the Midwest.

          • 0 avatar
            Ryoku75

            When I see the LEGENDARY “4DSC”, I just think “beige Taurus competitor”, I don’t get the love.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Yes BUT, the Cruze is still slow when everything else is fast. Back then, everything was slow except Corvettes and the like.

        • 0 avatar
          Sigivald

          Yeah, 177 foot pounds of torque? How can it even start moving under its own [email protected]

      • 0 avatar
        tonycd

        My suspicion is that it’ll be dangerously inadequate for people that drive farther than 160,000 miles.

        The GM organization sourcing a highly stressed turbo application in a non-enthusiast sedan. What could possibly go wrong?

        • 0 avatar
          krhodes1

          What’s highly stressed about it? It’s what, all of 135hp or something?

          Entirely adequate, I’ve had a number of them as rentals and like them, especially in loaded LTZ trim. It’s not a performance car, but if you pin your foot to the floor it moves right along. I’m sure they are far better with a stick, most things are.

    • 0 avatar
      Blackcloud_9

      Probably some German requirement. You know most of their cars are limited to 155 mph. ;-)

    • 0 avatar
      geozinger

      If it’s anything like recent GM cars, there’s a setting to change the car’s display units from MPH to KMH. So, while we have a exceptionally wild number for our speedos, we’ll never ever get there. Unless we get a push from an F-35 jet fighter…

      What’s more fun is the Canadian market cars come with speedos marked to 220 or 240 (I forget right now). My daughter had a Canadian market Saturn that she told all of her friends that the car would do 220. She never said what units they were, just that the car could do 220.

      They were impressed…

  • avatar
    Willyam

    Possibly a dumb question, but assuming Stop-Start is also on the manuals, does anyone have one so equipped and is it just as much of a weird driving experience?

    I’ve rented Cruzes a couple of times, sometimes they’re tight as a drum, sometimes loosey-goosey. Seems to be not connected to mileage, maybe plant? On the good ones, I appreciate the “heavy” feel, unlike something like a Sonic, who’s tinny and light feel can get old pretty quick on the highway.

    • 0 avatar

      From my personal experience…

      Diesel + Start/Stop = YES
      Gasoline + Turbo + Start/Stop = NO

      Diesels (at least the ones I’ve driven) with start/stop fire up much quicker than their gasoline turbocharged rivals.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff Weimer

      AFAIK, start/stop will only be available in the automatics.

    • 0 avatar
      GMat

      I have a Ford Focus 1L Ecoboost, 6 speed manual.

      Auto stop when car is at standstill, clutch pedal released (neutral).
      Auto start when clutch pedal is depressed in prep for shift into 1st.

      I can override and often do when its hot out and have people in car needing AC.

      Gm

  • avatar
    bball40dtw

    So the Cruze gets nicer gauges than the ATS?

  • avatar

    This is a huge “Meh”. It’s not ugly necessarily, but it’s also not very nice looking. The current Cruze is distinctive and one of the better looking small cars. The current higher level trims don’t look so cheap on the outside. I can just picture all the black plastic trim in the lower grill fading after 4-5 years being that baked grey color. This looks like a move back to Cobalt territory rather than a step forward with the new Cruze to me. The interior still looks pretty nice though (if not extra BLACK!) and the apple in-car suite HAS to be better then the Chevy MyLink crap which is the worst of the bunch in my opinion. I had the a new Silverado crew cab rental a month ago and the mylink system sucks.

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      I was just about to post this. The current Cruze stands out from the rest of the compact class as actually having some design language all its own, and it looks more solid and mature than the rest of the blobs. It’s hands down my favorite looking compact, sad to see them lose this.

      • 0 avatar
        Featherston

        Agreed, gtemnykh. The pointless for-’15-only facelift detracted from its looks slightly, but the current-generation Cruze is a clean, conservative design. A well-cared-for ’14 Cruze is still going to look good in six to ten years’ time.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I’m not into this size class but for some reason my mother is very interested in trading in her Matrix on a diesel Cruze.

    I don’t know if she will like the new exterior though.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    The power and torque boost for the 1.4T and the weight loss (if it materializes) will finally mean a Cruze that’s not a slug compared to the rest of the class. The only version of the previous Cruze that had enough power was the Verano.

    I don’t really like either the old or the new design. The old one was so conservative as to be aggressively boring. The new one just looks like Chevy reverse-engineered an Elantra.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      Hopefully they give it the 2.0T. Truthfully this whole class could use some bigger engine options. The cars are big enough. Old midsizers of these dimensions had V6 options.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        “Hopefully they give it the 2.0T”

        They won’t

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Doesn’t that motor such anyway?

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Well, throwing the 2.0T in the Cruze would at least follow my rule of turbocharged vehicles:

            A vehicle can have a turbocharged engine as long as said engine’s displacement is approximately greater than or equal to the largest naturally aspirated engine offered in that vehicle with the same cylinder count.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        “This whole class” is quite disparate weight-wise, the Cruze and Dart are on the larger end at over 3000lb, whereas my 2012 Civic for example weighs a scant 2650lb. So I find the port injected 1.8L 140hp in my Civic is quite peppy, but I hear many people unhappy with just about all Dart/Cruze powertrains in terms of performance just due to all the weight they’re lugging around. For the record, I found the 6spd manual Cruze Eco to be perfectly adequate powerwise on a test drive, but a rental LT 1.4T with an automatic to be a bit labored.

        • 0 avatar
          APaGttH

          The Cruze Eco manual is the fastest trim package on the Cruze – and what I’ve read the Eco is the best driving of the available trim packages. It is also, on what I’ve read, the only trim package that deliver the MPG sticker and beyond.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Yeah I was very impressed and would have loved to buy one, but they were selling for $19k new when I was looking, above my budget at the time. That coupled with so-so resale and a fairly unknown (at the time) drivetrain drove me into my lightly used Civic. The Cruze definitely feels positively “germanic” going down the road in a very solid fashion. The Eco is geared to the moon as well, it really loafs along.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff Weimer

            Well beyond – I got 48.6 MPG over 15 gallons without really trying all that hard in my Eco. And I know folks who regularly average over 50.

            It’s too bad they’re not keeping that trim – the Eco manual gear ratios will, with the new car, give at least 44 MPG (EPA cycle). Then again, that would dig deeply into the take rate for the diesel. Gasoline being generally significantly less expensive than diesel fuel.

        • 0 avatar
          brenschluss

          “I find the port injected 1.8L 140hp in my Civic is quite peppy”

          “Peppy” is apparently very subjective.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Sub 8 second 0-60 with the stick shift, by my standards that’s peppy. Beyond the numbers, the engine has a very smooth and linear torque curve, and coupled with the slick shifter and well sorted gearing and it comes together as a fun little car to zip around in.

          • 0 avatar
            redmondjp

            Compared to the 100HP 1.6L engine in my 1996 Civic, peppy it is!

          • 0 avatar
            sportyaccordy

            I can +1 his sentiments. The car is not fast, but it doesn’t strain anywhere below 95 MPH, and all of its controls are perfect. Suspension is tuned well enough, brakes have great feel and balance, and you can absolutely thrash it without guilt or suspicion. I have an 09 EX 5MT and it’s a fun fun car. On the street I find it more enjoyable than my old 350Z (but it def takes a distant second to my motorcycle).

            Passes and stuff do take a little more planning than in a faster car but that’s part of the game. There is nothing frustrating, fatiguing or annoying about its driving experience on the road, which is what makes it great for me.

          • 0 avatar
            brenschluss

            It has a nice gearshift, sure, but it’s like an 85lb man boxing with good form: being slick is fine, but torque is the problem.

            Short vignette: I own the Civic which recently took Mr. Baruth around Shenandoah. I actually said to him at the time, (and this doesn’t reflect well on me I admit,) that I can’t help but feel a rather visceral, pit-of-the-stomach negative reaction to expressions of satisfaction with the dynamic package that is the non-Si 8th-generation Honda Civic.

            This has long been the case and remains so, and so I’m sorry for being snippy. I will disagree that there’s nothing frustrating (slow,) or fatiguing (loud,) about the car, but I’m also envious of patient people and can safely be ignored.

        • 0 avatar
          sportyaccordy

          Domestics have always lagged in weight and space efficiency. Your Civic is like 6″ shorter than the new Cruze too, but has a longer wheelbase. Dart is even worse with packaging. Aside from the cab forward Chryslers it seems like the domestics just can’t figure that out, which keeps them from being competitive in this segment.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        I’d be happy with the upcoming 1.6T.

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        Well, you could get a Focus ST or a WRX?

        The “bigger options” just don’t sell that well, not enough for Chevrolet to care.

        (Or Honda or Toyota…)

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      2015 Toyota Corolla S Premium – 0 to 60 8.8 seconds 1/4 mile 17.1 @ 83 MPH

      2015 Honda Civic EX-L – 0 t0 60 8.6 seconds 1/4 mile 16.6 @ 88 MPH

      2015 Dodge Dart SXT – 0 to 60 8.2 seconds 1/4 mile 15.9 @ 87 MPH

      2015 Ford Focus SE 5-door – 0 to 60 7.7 seconds 1/4 mile 15.9 @ 91 MPH

      2015 Hyundai Elantra Limited – 0 to 60 8.7 seconds 1/4 mile 16.8 @ 83 MPH

      2015 Nissan Sentra SL – 0 to 60 9.3 seconds 1/4 mile 17.1 @ 79 MPH

      2015 Mazda Mazda3 iGrand Touring – 0 to 60 7.9 seconds 1/4 mile 16.3 @ 87 MPH

      2015 Chevy Cruze Eco Auto – 0 to 60 8.8 seconds 1/4 mile 17.2 seconds @ 78 MPH

      2015 Subaru Impreze 2.0i Limited 4dr AWD – 0 to 60 9.3 seconds 1/4 mile 17.0 @ 79 MPH

      ====================================

      Not sure how the Cruze is a slug compared to the class given the data available.

      All times taken from autofiles.com. Trim levels selected were the more popular or middle of the road trims. For example one could have picked the most base Civic to get a slower time or the Ford FoST to get an extremely fast time. Trim levels are listed above so you can see there wasn’t any cherry picking (e.g. absolutely poverty spec versus the fastest possible model for any of the models).

      Almost every model above has some trim packages that are slightly faster and some trim packages that are slightly slower. No model had the fastest or slowest time selected. Mazda i package versus s package selected – that is really the only one you can go, “ha, you picked the slow one!”

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        Trap speed is somewhat instructive here, at the end of the quarter mile, the Cruze is going about 10 mph slower than many of the better cars in the class, and is on par with a 2.0L Impreza (which truly is a slug IMO) I wonder what engine the Dart had in this, couldn’t have been an automatic 1.4T I don’t think.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          Who da [email protected] cares about trap speeds in compact econoboxes?

          Where is Norm to lay down some figure 8 times and skid pad figures?

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            No one cares necessarily about the outright numbers, but we can interpret this to mean that the Cruze is a slower accelerating vehicle in the real world in the current compact class. Like I said, my own experiences with an automatic LT 1.4T left me wanting, but the same motor with the 6 speed stick was totally fine.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            The 1.4T is a dog in the Cruze automatic. I don’t think buyers actually care though.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff Weimer

            @gtemnykh –

            My experience with a Cruze Eco manual? If you want more than leisurely acceleration, you gotta wring it’s neck. Good thing – the engine will rev willingly. But if you shift earlier than about 3K? It’ll take its sweet time.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Your own data show only the Impreza, well known for being deathly slow, and the also-ran Sentra as being slower than the Cruze. Everything else, including all of the well-known class leaders, is faster. Looks to me like “a slug compared to the rest of the class.”

        • 0 avatar
          APaGttH

          My own data also shows equal to the Corolla, 1/10 slower than the Elantra and 2/10 slower than the Civic.

          It is on the lower end of middle of the pack.

          Once again – anyone who didn’t learn to drive in the malaise era has no clue on what a slug is. These times are absolutely rocket ship grade compared to vehicles people hold up on a nostalgic pedestal as fast.

          Given the Interstate Highway System was designed during an era when cars were slower going to 60 MPH on bias ply tires and negligible speed limits – todays cars have zero issue getting up to speed, and the Cruze is faster than a long list of more popular SUVs and CUVs.

          It’s quite average.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            I’ve owned an automatic ’88 Accord that was significantly down on power from the original 98 hp. I drove city transit buses for five years, including one type that had well over 100 pounds per horsepower in empty weight. I know what slow is.

            And I still say the Cruze is a slug by any modern standard. Its 78 mph trap speed is way lower than the cars with similar 0-60 times that you say are “equal.” The car is asthmatic. And in real life it just feels poky and heavy.

          • 0 avatar
            tonycd

            APaGttH gets a gold star.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff Weimer

        Every single one of those cars beats the “legendary” Rabbit Mk1 GTI.

        The Focus SE beats a 1985 Camaro IROC-Z.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff Weimer

        Eco Automatic? Not worth it. All you get is the aero mods (shutters and grille) and minor weight savings (rear seat). The transmission ratios are the same as the rest of the lineup. Get a 1LT or 2LT instead if you must have an autobox. You get rear seat cupholders with those.

        The real gas savings in the manual transmission Cruzes come with the gear ratios. If you have a manual Eco, you have a nominally “smaller” gas tank (12.6 gallons vs. 15.6) due to the design of the pump. You can carefully add another three gallons and get your per-tank range over 700 miles, even up to 800.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        How would the ‘most base Civic’ be slower than the EX-L, which has the same gearing and engine combined with more weight? The EX-L is the slowest Civic now that the hybrid is gone.

        2015 Civic LX 4dr Sedan 0-60 8.1 sec 1/4 mile 16.2 @ 89 mph

        I don’t take these numbers too seriously though, since they listed the EX as being slower than the EX-L. How adding a power seat, fog lights, heavier wheels, and leather upholstery makes a car faster is a mystery to me.

        • 0 avatar
          tonycd

          “How adding a power seat, fog lights, heavier wheels, and leather upholstery makes a car faster is a mystery to me.”

          Less wind resistance than velour.

        • 0 avatar
          APaGttH

          Apologies. I honestly did not know that the LX was the entry level Civic. LX has typically indicated a “luxury” trim model in the world order of autos.

          You are correct, the stripper model is faster – by 1/2 a second at 8.1 seconds.

          The trim order for the Civic is:

          LX
          SE
          EX
          EX-L
          EX-L Nav

          So I should have used the EX sedan in the above comparo.

          The EX Sedan stats for 2015 is 0-60 in 9.1 seconds and 1/4 mile in 17.0 @ 83 MPH.

          The EX-L Sedan does the same in 8.8 seconds and 1/4 mile in 17.0 @ 87 MPH

          My GUESS on why the EX-L is faster is all in the rubber. We don’t have a 60 foot time that shows what happened on launch, but an identical time across the 1/4 mile, with a 4 MPH faster trap speed indicates that the EX-L sedan hooked up faster in the critical first 60 feet. With my time on the drag strip, when you have two identical, or near identical cars, running identical seconds to the 1/4 miles, but one with a faster trap speed (more than say 1 or 2 MPH) the issue is at the beginning of the track at launch – and the car with the slower trap speed had a longer 60 foot time. This is either driver error, or you can’t get the power to the ground.

          I can run very low 13’s in my car because I simply can’t get the power to the ground any better. I have 17″ rims that I want to put drag radials on – I’m told the extra hook up will get me into the 12s easy. My 60′ time stinks, I can run trap speeds of close to 109 MPH at 13.2 – that trap speed supports a 12.8 time in the G8.

          The numbers indicate that’s the issue – and the EX gets smaller 16″ rims while the EX-L gets larger 17″ wheels – more contact patch on the ground.

          The base LX gets 15″ steel rims with wheel covers, but it is going to be lighter, and we don’t know what the OEM meat was on the rims for the testing between the LX, EX and EX-L models.

          At the end of the day variation on the EX to EX-L of 3/10 of a second and a few MPH across the traps could be a ton of things. Surface conditions at the start of the track, heck even tire pressure could give you that much change. There is the human factor of a slightly botched launch with a bit too much wheel spin or not fast enough tip in. The gas could be a bit better in one versus the other, one engine could be more broken in with thousands of miles on the odo, while the other is still tight and new, with the seals not 100% seated and tight. One run could have been done in the early morning, or late in the day, when the air was cooler and more dense – while another was done on a hot day. We also don’t know if the testing was at the same track, or if DA was applied.

          I do want to acknowledge you’re right on the time difference.

          There are tons of variables but in the end, the Cruze is not a “slug” in the class. For that matter no car in the class is a slug. They are all right in the 8 to 9 second range – with a couple dipping into the high 7’s and a couple going over 9 seconds.

          Also, 0 to 60 in 7.5 seconds to 9.5 seconds is not inherently dangerous, regardless if the vehicle is A-segment, B-segment, C-segment, D-segment, E-segment, CUV, SUV, truck, van, minivan, or otherwise.

          The meme that anything that can’t sprint to 60 in under 6 seconds is an under powered death trap is just plain silly (not directed at you CJ)

          I drive two different vehicles – one can hit 60 right at 5 seconds, the other is lucky to do it in 10.5 seconds. The only difference between the two when I merge onto I-5 or I-405 is I have to give the slower one more gas. In the end it doesn’t feckin’ matter if I drove a car that could go to 60 in 3 seconds because the asshat Prius driver in front of me, texting as they go up the ramp is merging onto the highway at 45 MPH, hitting the brakes to slow down as they come to the gore.

          The average driving slob doesn’t use WOT – ever.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Quite a lengthy retort, but what we’re trying to get across (those have driven Cruzes and other compacts in the segment) is that the not-so-large difference at the dragstrip is felt in a very real way going down the road. All that weight comes to roost, the little turbocharged 1.4L can only do so much when saddled to the eager to upshift automatic.

            I must say, the fuel economy in my LT automatic 1.4T was also nothing to write home about: 30mpg of exclusively highway driving at 72 mph with A/C, I must have constantly been in the boost, equal to what I got in a 1.6T Fusion SE later doing the same route. A ragged out CVT Lancer (37k mile rental) actually got 37 mpg. I’m of the opinion that these tiny turbo motors are just not quite ‘all that,’ atleast not when paired with an automatic.

          • 0 avatar
            APaGttH

            @gtemnykh

            Get use to the small turbo charged motors. As China becomes more and more the market makers build to support over NA, you’ll see a lot more 1.5L or smaller engines. There is a tax in China for engines over 1.6L in displacement, hence the growing number of smaller mills we are seeing.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            Wheelspin isn’t an issue with 140 hp and a CVT. The EX is slower because the numbers are effected by some uncaptured variables. Was the EX-L broken in more than the EX? Was the EX-L running gasoline and the EX running CA swill? Whatever happened, an EX and an EX-L in identical condition on the same day will result in the EX being a fraction of a second faster than the EX-L.

            As for the LX, it is available with a 5 speed manual. 8.1 seconds is at once quick for a CVT Civic and slow for a 5-speed. I would expect a 5-speed LX to be between 7.4 and 7.7 seconds with a competent driver.

      • 0 avatar
        GreggW

        I currently drive my 3rd Cruze Eco 6MT. All of them have been 6 speed manuals. All of them have been different, in their own way. I currently drive a 2014 blue ray metallic Eco. And although, I’d like something with a little more pep, I have grown accustomed to the superior gas mileage that this car gets. I have a 80 mile round trip commute, and can drive it like I stole it, to and from work, and have a hard time getting under 40, in it.

        Now, something a little more unique about my car is, it’s been aftermarket tuned. I know, joke as you will, but for a few hundred dollars, you can transparently flash the stock ecu. And I will tell you, the results are mind blowing for this little engine. 0-60 in 6.7 and 1/4 in 15.2 @94. It’s not a corvette, by any means, but you truly don’t want to mess with it, on the highway. This is my 19th car, and I’ve owned countless turbo charged cars. Many heavily tuned eclipses and talons. And this thing is pretty fun to drive with it tuned. I’ve surprised many 350Zs V6 Camaros, and Nissan Maximas. And it walks all over a Civic Si on the highway. The torque of the turbo just takes over. 3rd and 4th gear, in the manual Ecos is extremely tall. So, I definitely look forward to everything this new Cruze has to offer. I’ll definitely take a look at it when it hits the lot, however, I do have my eye on the new ATS coupe, in which they have a turbo upgrade and tune, netting 390hp, and 410lb ft of tq. 0-60 in 4.8 seconds. For about $2,600. With the turbo, the tune and a new down pipe. So, I may be taking that route. All in all, though, I’ve been happy with all 3 of my Cruzes. I commute, a lot, so I pack on the mileage, and I’ve replaced them all, except the current one at about 40k. The 2014 currently has 53k and I’ll be keeping this one a little longer. Definitely great, fun cars. Also, keep in mind that I have 7 of the 11 32nds of tread left on the factory tires. This really is a great car.

    • 0 avatar
      krhodes1

      I was going to post asking who stuck the bowties on the Elantra.

    • 0 avatar
      tonycd

      I thought Elantra too, especially around the C-pillar.

  • avatar
    Land Ark

    I predict the move to smaller turbo engines will have a greater negative impact on the low-cost used car market in 10 years than Cash for Clunkers ever did.

    I’ve not seen any evidence that turbo build quality and reliability is any better than it was a decade ago. It concerns me that we’re going to go from expecting 250k mile cars to stepping back into the territory of being terrified of any car with more than 150k miles on it.

    Maybe I’m wrong, maybe modern turbos are bullet-proof (aka owner-proof). Someone correct me if so.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      You’re right, just another step in a move toward a disposable society.

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      In my experience, the people who “know” that turbo engines don’t last are one and the same as the people who “know” that synthetic oil is a ripoff, and “know” that OEM parts are overpriced.

      Those people can’t be helped. They are surprised when I tell them my (second) car is 14 year-old (“but it drives like new!”), and yet 5 minutes later they will kindly explain to me on how to “save money” on maintenance. Right. You are dropping $30k in depreciation every 4 years, and I’m supposed to follow your money advice?

      Short version: turbos aren’t the problem, owners are.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        heavy-handle, you are in absolute agreement with Land ark when you lay the blame with the owners. And this is exactly what will happen. An oil-sensitive small displacement turbocharged motor just won’t put up with the abuse doled out by the ‘average’ American user, whose maintenance regimen consists of taking the car to Jiffy Lube when the remember to. I think there’s a good reason why the ‘survivors’ I see parked in the ghetto are so largely represented by turn of the century w-body GMs with overhead valve motors.

        • 0 avatar
          heavy handle

          I think you see so many “turn of the Buick Century” survivors is because their first owners didn’t drive them much. They won’t last long with their current owners.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Nope, like I said, these are true ghetto warriors. Donned with numerous battle scars, space saver tires, and sometimes poorly applied two tone paint and/or huge rims. I agree that sooner or later they finally croak, perhaps due to transmission failure or a leaking lower intake gasket hydro-locks the engine. But it is indisputable that these understressed old school American motors are extremely tolerant of missed oil changes and general neglect and abuse.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        I’ve owned WAY too many turbo motors to pay the slightest attention to what the peanut gallery around here have to say on that subject.

        • 0 avatar
          JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

          When people claim putting a turbo into the equasion drops reliability and longetivity, I think about all the big rigs roaming about the country with a million or so miles on them.

          Even the TurboDiesel pickups (like the earlier Cummins, 7.3L PowerStroke, etc) with 300k+. I even have a friend with an early Duramax with over 500K on it. The only thing that has ever been troublesome on that truck is its manual transmission (which is a common fault on GM trucks of the era, no matter what engine its bolted to. Ironicly, the automatics seem to last longer).

          • 0 avatar
            bumpy ii

            Ah, but diesels generally run lower exhaust temperatures than gasoline cars so they don’t have as many issues with heat soak and oil coking.

          • 0 avatar
            Sigivald

            I think part of it is that there are so many horribly badly implemented historical car turbos … but the heavy truck market *does not put up with that crap*.

            (See, e.g., the Audi 2.7TT in the A4 ten years ago or so. Too cramped, too hot, ate turbos for lunch.

            Not because turbos are bad, but because Audi was bad at putting them in a car.

            There’s no *inherent* reason a turbocharger should be particularly troublesome, in itself.)

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          And how many GM cars have you owned?

      • 0 avatar
        tonycd

        heavy handle, here’s something you didn’t “know”: I use synthetic oil religiously, use OEM brake pads, and completely disagree with you about turbos.

        In fact, one problem with turbos is that they require synthetic oil for long life because the high RPM and heat of the turbo bearings and the higher overall stress level of the engine will break down the oil faster. That’s less of a problem in a performance car, but spells trouble in ordinary family and economy cars where neither owners and repair shops recognize it as obligatory upkeep for a “regular” car.

        So yeah, you can say “It’s the owner’s fault for not maintaining his Cruze/Focus/Fusion like a Lotus.” But it’s not very realistic of you, nor IMO terribly responsible on the part of those carmakers.

      • 0 avatar
        dantes_inferno

        > Short version: turbos aren’t the problem, owners are.

        Heavy Handle FTW!

        Based on my observations, the majority of car owners place more of an emphasis on maintaining their smart-phones than maintaining their vehicles – despite the many protestations to the contrary by some individuals in this forum.

        Here are some basic guidelines when operating a vehicle with a turbocharged engine:

        1) Brand new turbos should be broken in at low to moderate RPMS for the first 750 miles (which means don’t try to break any 0-60 records when you first drive the vehicle out of the dealer’s lot). This is done in order to properly break-in the critical turbo bearing. As the turbo bearing goes, so will the turbo.

        2) If you’re planning to park the car immediately after a spirited drive (whether highway or city), even though the car and engine have slowed down, that turbo is still spinning at high RPM and producing heat. Let the engine idle for 1-2 minutes so the turbo will spin down, the engine temperature stabilizes and the oil and coolant have a chance to flow through the turbo’s bearing and cool it down. Failure to do so over a period of time will cause the oil to cook, creating a coking substance (think hard sludge) around the bearing – which will lead to to the bearing’s (as well as the turbo’s) demise before its time.

        3) Full synthetic oil changes at the proper manufacturer-suggested mileage intervals to reduce the possibility of oil sludging. Do not make a habit of exceeding the mileage intervals, do not use those cheap synthetic oils, and for goodness sakes, DO NOT, I repeat – DO NOT go to those quick lube places under ANY circumstances. Have your oil changes done at the dealer or do it yourself with the proper OEM oil and filter specified for your vehicle.

        My 2003 VW 1.8T is currently at 307,000 miles with the original Borg-Warner K03s turbo and still doesn’t burn oil. Fully synthetic oil at 5000-mile intervals, and following steps 1 through 3 listed above are the main reasons why the engine and turbo are still going strong.

        B.T.W. – 3a) These guidelines apply especially to IHI Turbo-equipped engines on some of the current Subaru, VW/Audi, and other models. The recent iteration of IHI turbos have experienced higher-than-normal failure rates as of late. Just a friendly public service announcement.

        I have a saying: 9 times out of 10, a car is as reliable as its owner. The factory/dealership is usually the culprit in the 1 time out of 10 scenario.

    • 0 avatar
      krhodes1

      Turbos are ultimately a wear part, just like everything else that spins on a car. When it is worn out, replace it. Will probably be longer than you own the car if you buy it new. If you buy it used, budget accordingly.

      I’ve owned a dozen or more turbo cars, some bought with more than 150K on them, a couple with more than 200K on them. To my knowledge, only one ever had a turbo replaced. An ’85 Saab 900T, with a non-water cooled turbo. At 190K. On dino oil. Can’t really get too excited about that. The majority of cars today specify synthetic oil anyway – I don’t believe there is any such thing as 0w-20 dino oil, and that thin stuff is getting more and more common to eek out that little bit extra on the EPA test.

      Don’t want to deal with it? Buy a Corolla and enjoy the hairshirt experience.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        “Don’t want to deal with it? Buy a Corolla and enjoy the hairshirt experience.”

        Nice strawman. Those who don’t want one of these tiny turbocharged motor are banished to Camry ownership? I’ll take one of the new J-series equipped Accords (or even one of the K-series 4 cylinders for that matter) over ANY turbocharged midsize competitor (Fusion, malibu, H/K twins).

        • 0 avatar
          dantes_inferno

          > I’ll take one of the new J-series equipped Accords (or even one of the K-series 4 cylinders for that matter) over ANY turbocharged midsize competitor (Fusion, malibu, H/K twins).

          Don’t be too quick to put your feet up and relax – Honda has turbocharged engines coming down the pipeline for their Accord/Civic models. So you’re not out of the woods by a longshot – unless you buy the current 4 cylinders now and plan to keep it over a decade or two.

          Bottom line – turbocharged engines (from the base models on up) are coming, they will be here to stay, and there’s nothing you can do to stop that train.

          • 0 avatar
            JREwing

            I did exactly that – bought a low-mileage 2012 Accord with the 4-cylinder and 5-speed. No reason why that can’t knock out 250,000+ miles.

  • avatar
    JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

    I liked the styling of the first Cruze, and the car was a worthwhile effort, especially compared to the awful Cobalt it replaced.

    This one, as mentioned by the author, will fit right in on a dealer lot next to the new Malibu and Impala. I like it well enough, and Im happy to hear the Diesel is to continue. I was afraid that the General would dump it after the low take rate of it with the current gen, but I am glad theyre giving it another shot.

    What the Cruze really needs is a true sporty variant, preferably of the hatchback we are supposedly getting, to compete with VW Golf GTI, Ford Focus ST, Honda Civic Si, etc. Maybe even a Focus RS/Civic Type R -like version of that. It would be good for image if nothing else.

    Overall, I wish them the best with the new car. Id certainly take one over Corolla, Elantra and probably Dart as well (especially the hatch since Yota and Dodge dont offer one, and I like hatches usually). My ideal Cruze would be a hatchback Diesel with a manual, though Im not sure that combination will be possible.

    Its not particularly handsome, but then again, nothing else in this segment is either. Focus and Dart are “okay”, same with Civic, but nothing stands out as particularly good looking in my opinion. Cruze isnt offensive and I dont mind the design language as much as, say, the outgoing Malibu.

  • avatar
    bumpy ii

    “all-aluminum 1.4L turbocharged four-cylinder Ecotec engine as standard, producing 153 horsepower and 177 lb-ft of torque.”

    1.4? Typo? Not the 1.5T in the new Malibu and CDM Verano?

  • avatar
    1998redwagon

    can someone explain to me why every car has a 3 spoke steering wheel with the odd spoke centered at the 6 oclock position? if there have to be 3 spokes why not a 12, 4 and 8 configuration? why not a 4 and 8? or a 3 and 9?

    my hand misses the 6 oclock position! i want it back!

    loved the 2,4,8 and 10 configuration on my b5 passat.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Because SPORTY!

    • 0 avatar
      bumpy ii

      I would guess that spokes above 3 and 9 are verboten due to airbag functionality needs. The two horizontal spokes have to be fat to make room for the bazillion audio and nav control buttons and wheels. Could go with four spokes, but that gets kinda crowded on the lower half of the wheel, so one spoke at 6 is what’s left.

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        Why not just a two-spoke wheel, then?

        Like … my SuperDuty?

        It’s not like you need three; you can do it with ONE if you really want, like whichever-ridiculous-concept-car of the early 80s that had that.)

  • avatar
    Menloguy

    The 2016 Cruze in the photos appears to that of a loaded higher end model. I eagerly await photos of the lower end 2016 models equivalent to the current LS and LT1 that presumably don’t have foglights and has different wheel designs. I like the smoother front end look of the 2016 model.

  • avatar
    Sam Hell Jr

    Cleverly photographed to disguise non-discontinued Black Plastic Triangles.

  • avatar
    brettc

    So it looks like a current Civic at the front and a current Corolla at the rear. I guess that deserves a sarcastic “good job, GM”. Hopefully the weight reduction helps it because the outgoing model did feel very heavy.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

      Actually, it looks like the new Malibu in the front a lot more than it does the Civic or anything else. Same goes for the back. In the above comments, its clearly a Kia…or Honda, or Focus, or Corolla, or a Hyundai, or [any compact within the past 5 years]. Geeze. Instead of trying to find another car it looks like, see where their design language has come from and how this fits.

      So, I suppose your comment deserves a sarcastic “way to bash a GM product because its GM”.

      Just because a car can faintly resemble another car from certain angles, if you squint and try really hard, does not mean they “copied” anyone or intended in anyway to resemble a compeditor.

      I must be a weirdo, but I dont look at a debuting new car and think to myself “gee, what car can I say this copies so Ill look like a clever [email protected]$Г@rd in the comments section?” I tend to simply judge the car based on what I think of it, not for what I think will get me cool points from commenters.

  • avatar
    whynotaztec

    I have about 800 miles on a 15 LT. Commpared to my 12 Accord SE, it feels more solid, definitely quieter, and handles bumps better. It sure isn’t powerful, and it always wants to upshift, but when commuting 60 miles daily on 128 in the Boston area, power is hardly a concern. It’s all about idling and braking. Overall it’s a nice car, but at 6’4″, no one is sitting behind me.

    • 0 avatar
      indi500fan

      Agree, and it’s a sweet highway cruiser. I’ve done a bunch of Indiana-Florida and Indiana-Arkansas runs with great fuel econ (on 87 octane) and comfort.
      The turbo lag is a bit annoying but the overall experience is excellent in my view. Especially for a sub $200/month lease (LT/RS/auto/sunroof) with zero down.

  • avatar
    VoGo

    This is the first time that I can recall where GM replaced a B-class vehicle with another of the same name, and in a reasonable time period. Typically, GM just let its compacts rot on the vine for a decade until they were well below mediocre. No one wanted an updated Cobalt, Cavalier, Citation or Vega, so they kept rolling out expensive new nameplates.

    Maybe this is progress?

  • avatar
    TW5

    It looks like they spent a lot of money to ruin Cruze’s proportions. Admittedly, interior space and comfort are a bit limited in the current Cruze, but the proportions of the new car are uninspiring, and I’m not sure it will sell. Maybe the DRG will be better than the photos.

    Standard start-stop makes me think the EPA and manufacturers have finally worked out a lucrative credit for start-stop systems that don’t provide much benefit on the current test.

    The 2025 regulations are looking increasingly ridiculous, especially considering the price of fuel, which alters to cost/benefit of certain fuel saving technologies. Without generous credits for start-stop and other cheap fuel-saving technology, CAFE will have to be overhauled or scrapped. Hopefully, they will switch up the footprint regs, regardless of the negotiated credits.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    “the outgoing model, which always drove a bit heavy.”

    Yes, good. Felt like a small Audi to drive, and wasn’t jittery on the highway.

    I see they didn’t fix the bad steering wheel. The lower spoke is RIGHT where I want my fingers to go when I’m driving long distances. In the current Cruze, it’s got a silver plastic trim piece on the lower spoke, which is not nice to touch at all, or put a finger through.

    I will always be in favor of two or four spoke steering wheels.

  • avatar
    Menloguy

    It’s good to know that the overall weight decreased for 2016 but I hope it still has a spare tire and a jack.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    Chevy engineering process: In this iteration we’ll make ELantra

  • avatar
    anomaly149

    Anyone else notice the “PULL X2” note on the hood release handle in the Autoblog pictures?

    What’s that all about? That like the BMW system?
    http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2016-chevy-cruze-live-reveal/#image-10

  • avatar
    danwat1234

    I am excited to finally see a diesel car that has an engine smaller than 2 liters in displacement. that has been the minimum in the USA for so, so long now. 1.4 or 1.6 liters is pretty standard in Europe. Mate that to a hybrid drivetrain and you may, may, be able to compete with the 2016 Prius in terms of efficiency, taking into account that diesel kind of cheats in the MPG statistic by having more energy in a gallon of fuel than gas. If you were to go by MPG itself with a 1.6L diesel 2 motor hybrid versus 2016 Prius, the diesel hybrid would probably win.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • el scotto: @ SCE to AUX Sir, you are exactly right. Most vehicles are manufactured with 100’s if not...
  • el scotto: Just nasty, like something unidentifiable and sticking to the bottom of your shoe. Badge-engineered with...
  • ToolGuy: Static shock? Problem solved: https://neptunic.com/products/ sharksuits
  • Corey Lewis: Jaguar is bad about that. They’ll tell you it’s a Performance S with 310 horsepower, but not...
  • zerofoo: “and the lack of bullet trains and other public transportation alternatives is causing our freeways to...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber