Folks, about a week back a went to Chevy's website and priced out a Cruze with the top of the line model and maxed out the options. The total MSRP was about $26,800. I'm sorry, but that's very expensive for a car like that and surely there are better choices for that price.
Anyone own a Chevy Cruze yet?
- Thread starter Popinski
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: grampi
Bottom line: the Cruze is way overpriced. Base should be $14-$15K, loaded $18-$19K max.
A totally stripped Mazda 2 is $15k. Surely you can admit the Cruze is a class above and should command a higher starting price.
there is no such thing as a 'totally stripped' Mazda2; there are 2 trim levels, sport and touring. the sport starts at $14,180 and has A/C, power windows, locks and mirrors, DSC AND TC. you call that 'stripped'?
'totally stripped' used to mean roll up windows and no A/C.
the 'upscale' touring model just adds nicer wheels, a spoiler, cruise and some odds and ends, and it it still only starts at $15,635.
Originally Posted By: grampi
Bottom line: the Cruze is way overpriced. Base should be $14-$15K, loaded $18-$19K max.
A totally stripped Mazda 2 is $15k. Surely you can admit the Cruze is a class above and should command a higher starting price.
there is no such thing as a 'totally stripped' Mazda2; there are 2 trim levels, sport and touring. the sport starts at $14,180 and has A/C, power windows, locks and mirrors, DSC AND TC. you call that 'stripped'?
'totally stripped' used to mean roll up windows and no A/C.
the 'upscale' touring model just adds nicer wheels, a spoiler, cruise and some odds and ends, and it it still only starts at $15,635.
Originally Posted By: mpvue
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: grampi
Bottom line: the Cruze is way overpriced. Base should be $14-$15K, loaded $18-$19K max.
A totally stripped Mazda 2 is $15k. Surely you can admit the Cruze is a class above and should command a higher starting price.
there is no such thing as a 'totally stripped' Mazda2; there are 2 trim levels, sport and touring. the sport starts at $14,180 and has A/C, power windows, locks and mirrors, DSC AND TC. you call that 'stripped'?
'totally stripped' used to mean roll up windows and no A/C.
the 'upscale' touring model just adds nicer wheels, a spoiler, cruise and some odds and ends, and it it still only starts at $15,635.
Likewise with the base Cruze LS...all the features you mention are standard at the base price of $16,300. The base LS comes standard with A/C, P/W, P/L, P/Heated/Mirrors, Trac Control, 4 wheel ABS, TEN air bags, Keyless Entry...all in a package that is a class size larger than the 2.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: grampi
Bottom line: the Cruze is way overpriced. Base should be $14-$15K, loaded $18-$19K max.
A totally stripped Mazda 2 is $15k. Surely you can admit the Cruze is a class above and should command a higher starting price.
there is no such thing as a 'totally stripped' Mazda2; there are 2 trim levels, sport and touring. the sport starts at $14,180 and has A/C, power windows, locks and mirrors, DSC AND TC. you call that 'stripped'?
'totally stripped' used to mean roll up windows and no A/C.
the 'upscale' touring model just adds nicer wheels, a spoiler, cruise and some odds and ends, and it it still only starts at $15,635.
Likewise with the base Cruze LS...all the features you mention are standard at the base price of $16,300. The base LS comes standard with A/C, P/W, P/L, P/Heated/Mirrors, Trac Control, 4 wheel ABS, TEN air bags, Keyless Entry...all in a package that is a class size larger than the 2.
Seems like it would take more effort and expense to crash-engineer a smaller car.
Originally Posted By: grampi
Bottom line: the Cruze is way overpriced. Base should be $14-$15K, loaded $18-$19K max.
Ten years ago, maybe. . .
Bottom line: the Cruze is way overpriced. Base should be $14-$15K, loaded $18-$19K max.
Ten years ago, maybe. . .
LS2JSTS,
I've noticed you are very pro GM, why is that ?
When a BITOG memeber say anything negative about GM, you run to the rescue and defend GM as if they were your first born child.
I admit that I am one of the many Americans that will never purchase another GM vechicle. Ford, yes. GM, no.
I've noticed you are very pro GM, why is that ?
When a BITOG memeber say anything negative about GM, you run to the rescue and defend GM as if they were your first born child.
I admit that I am one of the many Americans that will never purchase another GM vechicle. Ford, yes. GM, no.
Cool...I'm a Ford guy actually...glad to hear you would consider Ford again.
FWIW, to answer your question, I didnt take your comment as anti GM, rather as anti fact. I do see the need for a little balance around here at times. I dont consider it as defending GM as much as defending reality. More to the point, I'm pro Detroit and pro US based auto manufacturer. As a Ford man who knows the industry from both sides of the fence...I can tell you it is only in Fords best interest to have a stable GM just down the street. Healthy competition with a worthy adversary is a good thing, just as it was a good thing for the Euro and Japanese makers to enter our competitive market.
Frankly, I'd like to get beyond all this GM this, GM that...so we can get back to the old days of Ford vs GM based on the cars and engines they build instead of whether they did or didn't take a loan...or as you would say, a "bail out". If you knew me ten years ago, you would see me GM bashing all over the place...but since the recent market failures and forced hostile take over...there just isnt any fun in that anymore. I find myself defending as you say, my previously hated GM...lol...it sucks.
WRT, small vs large car material costs...The fact of the matter is that the fixed costs for building a small car vs building a larger car are about the same. The materials cost that you mentioned as an explanantion as to why a smaller car should be cheaper doesn't hold true in the real world. The costs to develop, build the needed infrastructure and actually bring to market a clean sheet design are huge and none of them change based on the size of the car being designed. All of the major fixed costs are for the most part, the same across platforms..for all manufacturers.
FWIW, to answer your question, I didnt take your comment as anti GM, rather as anti fact. I do see the need for a little balance around here at times. I dont consider it as defending GM as much as defending reality. More to the point, I'm pro Detroit and pro US based auto manufacturer. As a Ford man who knows the industry from both sides of the fence...I can tell you it is only in Fords best interest to have a stable GM just down the street. Healthy competition with a worthy adversary is a good thing, just as it was a good thing for the Euro and Japanese makers to enter our competitive market.
Frankly, I'd like to get beyond all this GM this, GM that...so we can get back to the old days of Ford vs GM based on the cars and engines they build instead of whether they did or didn't take a loan...or as you would say, a "bail out". If you knew me ten years ago, you would see me GM bashing all over the place...but since the recent market failures and forced hostile take over...there just isnt any fun in that anymore. I find myself defending as you say, my previously hated GM...lol...it sucks.
WRT, small vs large car material costs...The fact of the matter is that the fixed costs for building a small car vs building a larger car are about the same. The materials cost that you mentioned as an explanantion as to why a smaller car should be cheaper doesn't hold true in the real world. The costs to develop, build the needed infrastructure and actually bring to market a clean sheet design are huge and none of them change based on the size of the car being designed. All of the major fixed costs are for the most part, the same across platforms..for all manufacturers.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: grampi
Bottom line: the Cruze is way overpriced. Base should be $14-$15K, loaded $18-$19K max.
Ten years ago, maybe. . .
You may think its price is ok, but I'm not paying $20+ for a compact car....
Originally Posted By: grampi
Bottom line: the Cruze is way overpriced. Base should be $14-$15K, loaded $18-$19K max.
Ten years ago, maybe. . .
You may think its price is ok, but I'm not paying $20+ for a compact car....
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: grampi
Bottom line: the Cruze is way overpriced. Base should be $14-$15K, loaded $18-$19K max.
Ten years ago, maybe. . .
You may think its price is ok, but I'm not paying $20+ for a compact car....
OK, very well, it's your money and at the end of the day, it is your decision alone as to where your money goes (unless the IRS is involved...). That said, I would respectfully challenge you to point out a same-size alternative that offers the same options (remember to compare from LS up to the LTZ on a one-to-one basis) for the same price.
Yeah, I too wish I could find a good, mainstream small car for the price you covet, but the last time I saw that was about 15 years ago.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: grampi
Bottom line: the Cruze is way overpriced. Base should be $14-$15K, loaded $18-$19K max.
Ten years ago, maybe. . .
You may think its price is ok, but I'm not paying $20+ for a compact car....
OK, very well, it's your money and at the end of the day, it is your decision alone as to where your money goes (unless the IRS is involved...). That said, I would respectfully challenge you to point out a same-size alternative that offers the same options (remember to compare from LS up to the LTZ on a one-to-one basis) for the same price.
Yeah, I too wish I could find a good, mainstream small car for the price you covet, but the last time I saw that was about 15 years ago.
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
I agree, the Cruze is overpriced for what you get, I would rather have a Camry or Accord which are much better. Sure, the Cruze looks good...... but there are better cars out there.
Quote:
A smaller car should not automatically command a lower price.
Doesn't a smaller car use less materials to manufacture than a bigger car ????
Materials costs make up a very minor percentage of the total price.
I agree, the Cruze is overpriced for what you get, I would rather have a Camry or Accord which are much better. Sure, the Cruze looks good...... but there are better cars out there.
Quote:
A smaller car should not automatically command a lower price.
Doesn't a smaller car use less materials to manufacture than a bigger car ????
Materials costs make up a very minor percentage of the total price.
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Cool....The fact of the matter is that the fixed costs for building a small car vs building a larger car are about the same. The materials cost that you mentioned as an explanantion as to why a smaller car should be cheaper doesn't hold true in the real world. The costs to develop, build the needed infrastructure and actually bring to market a clean sheet design are huge and none of them change based on the size of the car being designed. All of the major fixed costs are for the most part, the same across platforms..for all manufacturers.
I hope I'm wrong, but I think that's the reason small cars won't sell well in this country.
Cool....The fact of the matter is that the fixed costs for building a small car vs building a larger car are about the same. The materials cost that you mentioned as an explanantion as to why a smaller car should be cheaper doesn't hold true in the real world. The costs to develop, build the needed infrastructure and actually bring to market a clean sheet design are huge and none of them change based on the size of the car being designed. All of the major fixed costs are for the most part, the same across platforms..for all manufacturers.
I hope I'm wrong, but I think that's the reason small cars won't sell well in this country.
Well that's what you'll have here, the usual GM bashers that will grasp at straws to disparage anything GM. There is a reason GM was the world's largest automaker for so long. They made good cars relative to other makes. The Cruze has a high level of ride quality, low noise level and solid construction above some of its competitiors. It's marketed for people who want a small car with midsize refinement, and is not a bargain priced entry vehicle.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Well that's what you'll have here, the usual GM bashers that will grasp at straws to disparage anything GM. There is a reason GM was the world's largest automaker for so long. They made good cars relative to other makes. The Cruze has a high level of ride quality, low noise level and solid construction above some of its competitiors. It's marketed for people who want a small car with midsize refinement, and is not a bargain priced entry vehicle.
GM bashers? There are so many Toyota bashers in this forum they could just change the name of the site to Toyota bashers.
Well that's what you'll have here, the usual GM bashers that will grasp at straws to disparage anything GM. There is a reason GM was the world's largest automaker for so long. They made good cars relative to other makes. The Cruze has a high level of ride quality, low noise level and solid construction above some of its competitiors. It's marketed for people who want a small car with midsize refinement, and is not a bargain priced entry vehicle.
GM bashers? There are so many Toyota bashers in this forum they could just change the name of the site to Toyota bashers.
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2025
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Well that's what you'll have here, the usual GM bashers that will grasp at straws to disparage anything GM. There is a reason GM was the world's largest automaker for so long. They made good cars relative to other makes. The Cruze has a high level of ride quality, low noise level and solid construction above some of its competitiors. It's marketed for people who want a small car with midsize refinement, and is not a bargain priced entry vehicle.
GM bashers? There are so many Toyota bashers in this forum they could just change the name of the site to Toyota bashers.
He is right.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Well that's what you'll have here, the usual GM bashers that will grasp at straws to disparage anything GM. There is a reason GM was the world's largest automaker for so long. They made good cars relative to other makes. The Cruze has a high level of ride quality, low noise level and solid construction above some of its competitiors. It's marketed for people who want a small car with midsize refinement, and is not a bargain priced entry vehicle.
GM bashers? There are so many Toyota bashers in this forum they could just change the name of the site to Toyota bashers.
He is right.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Well that's what you'll have here, the usual GM bashers that will grasp at straws to disparage anything GM. There is a reason GM was the world's largest automaker for so long. They made good cars relative to other makes. The Cruze has a high level of ride quality, low noise level and solid construction above some of its competitiors. It's marketed for people who want a small car with midsize refinement, and is not a bargain priced entry vehicle.
Really? intersting view. Could it be that maybe the competition from the imports forced the domestic makes to finally make good cars that could compete with the japanese.
Well that's what you'll have here, the usual GM bashers that will grasp at straws to disparage anything GM. There is a reason GM was the world's largest automaker for so long. They made good cars relative to other makes. The Cruze has a high level of ride quality, low noise level and solid construction above some of its competitiors. It's marketed for people who want a small car with midsize refinement, and is not a bargain priced entry vehicle.
Really? intersting view. Could it be that maybe the competition from the imports forced the domestic makes to finally make good cars that could compete with the japanese.
I believe that is a common but mostly unfounded claim perpetuated by the biased media. GM was building some of the best cars before Japan was making anything let alone anything competitive. I'd argue American cars at first slipped in quality in the face of increasing foreign competition. Anyway, the anti-GM stuff is irrational. I don't know how one could criticize GM and praise Ford.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I believe that is a common but mostly unfounded claim perpetuated by the biased media. GM was building some of the best cars before Japan was making anything let alone anything competitive....
When was this? The '20s?
In the '40s, the Grumman Hellcat was heavily influenced by both the strengths and the weaknesses of the Nakajima (Subaru) and Mitsubishi Zero. So the '30s and early '40s one could argue either side.
You really can't compare Japanese products from the '50s and '60s. Much of Japan's infrastructure had been bombed into oblivion. Meanwhile GM definitely built some of their best automobiles ever. A few of their lesser designs too but mostly good.
Then in the '70s? GM argued that NO ONE could reach the upcoming emission standards. Some little upstart motorcycle company took a 350 powered Caprice, built new cylinder heads for it and VOI'LA! Standard met without a catalyst on a Chevrolet 350. The upstart? Honda. The cylinder heads? Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion aka CVCC.
The '70s and '80s GMs are not noted for their innovation, efficiency, or quality
The Japanese manufacturers continued to improve their product. GM did not. Ford did not. Chrysler was soon on life support and it had become apparent that Kenosha, WI manufacturer AMC was not going to make it.
I believe that is a common but mostly unfounded claim perpetuated by the biased media. GM was building some of the best cars before Japan was making anything let alone anything competitive....
When was this? The '20s?
In the '40s, the Grumman Hellcat was heavily influenced by both the strengths and the weaknesses of the Nakajima (Subaru) and Mitsubishi Zero. So the '30s and early '40s one could argue either side.
You really can't compare Japanese products from the '50s and '60s. Much of Japan's infrastructure had been bombed into oblivion. Meanwhile GM definitely built some of their best automobiles ever. A few of their lesser designs too but mostly good.
Then in the '70s? GM argued that NO ONE could reach the upcoming emission standards. Some little upstart motorcycle company took a 350 powered Caprice, built new cylinder heads for it and VOI'LA! Standard met without a catalyst on a Chevrolet 350. The upstart? Honda. The cylinder heads? Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion aka CVCC.
The '70s and '80s GMs are not noted for their innovation, efficiency, or quality
The Japanese manufacturers continued to improve their product. GM did not. Ford did not. Chrysler was soon on life support and it had become apparent that Kenosha, WI manufacturer AMC was not going to make it.
.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I believe that is a common but mostly unfounded claim perpetuated by the biased media. GM was building some of the best cars before Japan was making anything let alone anything competitive....
When was this? The '20s?
In the '40s, the Grumman Hellcat was heavily influenced by both the strengths and the weaknesses of the Nakajima (Subaru) and Mitsubishi Zero. So the '30s and early '40s one could argue either side.
You really can't compare Japanese products from the '50s and '60s. Much of Japan's infrastructure had been bombed into oblivion. Meanwhile GM definitely built some of their best automobiles ever. A few of their lesser designs too but mostly good.
Then in the '70s? GM argued that NO ONE could reach the upcoming emission standards. Some little upstart motorcycle company took a 350 powered Caprice, built new cylinder heads for it and VOI'LA! Standard met without a catalyst on a Chevrolet 350. The upstart? Honda. The cylinder heads? Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion aka CVCC.
The '70s and '80s GMs are not noted for their innovation, efficiency, or quality
The Japanese manufacturers continued to improve their product. GM did not. Ford did not. Chrysler was soon on life support and it had become apparent that Kenosha, WI manufacturer AMC was not going to make it.
Most rational people understand your points..but some refuse to accept this view. Blame everyone else, the media, public, unfair trade pracitices etc. Face it the big 3 have no one else to blame but themselves for where they are today.
Anyway, The new cruze is actually a pretty decent car. The best small car GM has ever built imo.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I believe that is a common but mostly unfounded claim perpetuated by the biased media. GM was building some of the best cars before Japan was making anything let alone anything competitive....
When was this? The '20s?
In the '40s, the Grumman Hellcat was heavily influenced by both the strengths and the weaknesses of the Nakajima (Subaru) and Mitsubishi Zero. So the '30s and early '40s one could argue either side.
You really can't compare Japanese products from the '50s and '60s. Much of Japan's infrastructure had been bombed into oblivion. Meanwhile GM definitely built some of their best automobiles ever. A few of their lesser designs too but mostly good.
Then in the '70s? GM argued that NO ONE could reach the upcoming emission standards. Some little upstart motorcycle company took a 350 powered Caprice, built new cylinder heads for it and VOI'LA! Standard met without a catalyst on a Chevrolet 350. The upstart? Honda. The cylinder heads? Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion aka CVCC.
The '70s and '80s GMs are not noted for their innovation, efficiency, or quality
The Japanese manufacturers continued to improve their product. GM did not. Ford did not. Chrysler was soon on life support and it had become apparent that Kenosha, WI manufacturer AMC was not going to make it.
Most rational people understand your points..but some refuse to accept this view. Blame everyone else, the media, public, unfair trade pracitices etc. Face it the big 3 have no one else to blame but themselves for where they are today.
Anyway, The new cruze is actually a pretty decent car. The best small car GM has ever built imo.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
The cylinder heads? Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion aka CVCC.
A dreadful piece of trash engine in my opinion, having had the misfortune to have owned one bought brand new in 1979: wheezy, noisy, gutless, primitive, low quality materials, miles of cheap vacuum hose hooked up to a crummy Keihin (sp?) carb. Before I finsished my undergraduate, that piece of junk was smoking like a mosquito fogger. Before I finished law school, it barely had enough compression to start.
I had an upscale CVCC - the really crummy ones in the Civic still used a manual choke.
The rest of the car was no prize either. Anyone who believes Honda's were a good car back in those days, likely never owned one, or is blinded by rose colored glasses.
Toyota made some great little RWD cars in those days. It was clear even then who would be the real long term competition for GM and Ford.
edit: oh yeah, I forgot to add that all the CVCC nonsense used to avoid a catalyst and unleaded gasoline gave the engine the powerband (what little power there was) of an on / off switch.
The cylinder heads? Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion aka CVCC.
A dreadful piece of trash engine in my opinion, having had the misfortune to have owned one bought brand new in 1979: wheezy, noisy, gutless, primitive, low quality materials, miles of cheap vacuum hose hooked up to a crummy Keihin (sp?) carb. Before I finsished my undergraduate, that piece of junk was smoking like a mosquito fogger. Before I finished law school, it barely had enough compression to start.
I had an upscale CVCC - the really crummy ones in the Civic still used a manual choke.
The rest of the car was no prize either. Anyone who believes Honda's were a good car back in those days, likely never owned one, or is blinded by rose colored glasses.
Toyota made some great little RWD cars in those days. It was clear even then who would be the real long term competition for GM and Ford.
edit: oh yeah, I forgot to add that all the CVCC nonsense used to avoid a catalyst and unleaded gasoline gave the engine the powerband (what little power there was) of an on / off switch.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
