17th Mar 2011, 20:41
I made a decision based on the fact that the Cavalier replacement was more refined and offered more content which it did in comparison to the Civic at the time, just like this Cruze does compared to its Civic... If a scientist tries an experiment using the same formula more than twice, with the same combination, and it doesn't work...
My 2012 Civic arrives in April... My Cruze still isn't repaired... Been 4 weeks now... This is my second GM lemon... I haven't even driven my Cruze, but I am still paying for it... Waiting for GM to take it back, even though they can't get it to start either... Funny that... Civic is the right choice period...
17th Mar 2011, 21:45
You're right... That's why I will not waste the years... I am going with the Civic.
18th Mar 2011, 21:25
So, this is the 'new' GM. Seems like the same old thing. No wonder they went bankrupt. I guess they didn't learn much.
19th Mar 2011, 10:26
Unfortunately, when you get free money from the government and are not allowed to fail in business, you don't really need to learn much. What is going to be interesting to see is how GM fares in the next gas price increase. They have not really upped their economy car lines enough, and still rely heavily on large SUV's as their breadwinners. Could be a repeat of 2008!
19th Mar 2011, 12:46
I have said it before and I'll say it again. Buying the first year of any new car is not a good idea. There are always bugs in any new model. I fell in love with the 2005 Mustang, but refused to buy one until the 2007 model. The next model Cruze will be a winner. It has far better styling, better fuel economy, and better build quality than anything from Japan.
As for Civic, we had one. It was what sold us on never again buying a cheaply built Japanese car.
20th Mar 2011, 18:44
"It has far better styling, better fuel economy, and better build quality than anything from Japan."
Better build quality than Japan, and yet you won't buy one as it is the first year for them. Kind of contradictory isn't it? I have never had issues with first year models when I have bought import cars. I have had many first year designs, and never an issue. Some domestics I have had started having issues at low miles, and they were 3 or 4 years into the model cycle. I wouldn't count on this car getting better with a year or two of model years going by!
21st Mar 2011, 14:21
I hate to tell you, but you are mistaken. Japanese cars are not the only ones cheaply made. ALL cars are cheaply made to some extent. They are made by companies who are in the business to turn a profit. That said, they all cut corners where they can get away with it. Taking the lowest bid on materials and things like manufacturing is just good business for them or anyone else who is trying to make money from a profit. Do any of you for one minute think that any car corporation is run by a car enthusiast whom is out to make the best most reliable car ever? I'm afraid the answer is no. They are run by men and women who are interested in making money only. Their directives are to make the car for as little money as possible, and sell as many as possible to turn the largest profit possible. period.
It's been this way for as long as there have been cars. Anybody remember a man named Tucker? He tried to build the safest, most reliable car in the world, and succeeded, until the big three knocked him down because he would have cut too deeply into their profit margin. I'm not saying that all cars are crappy, but don't be surprised if you see cheap plastic panels in your interior. They are designed to break. Why else would you need to buy a new one if they did not? ;-)
21st Mar 2011, 18:31
Well... Actually all cars are not cheaply made, most are, but there is a secret out there. Want a well built car that is easy on your $$$$? Look for a Kanto designed Toyota. A couple of examples are the 1988 to 1992 Corolla (a low cost car that lasted forever and was trouble free) or check out a Kanto is300 Lexus say... a 2001. Drive it and you will want one. Fit and finish as good as it gets, and they drive better than the more expensive cars... and again trouble free. Toyota is a cheap car, I wouldn't buy a regular one, but KANTO Toyotas in the past have always been the ones to own.
21st Mar 2011, 18:31
"They are designed to break. Why else would you need to buy a new one if they did not? ;-) "
I agree, except with the statement that things are designed to break. I don't think they purposely design things to fail. That would only succeed in sending people to other brands.
22nd Mar 2011, 15:57
Wrong. People who love their Honda's, Toyota's, Fords, Chevys etc and are loyal to the brand will continue to dump money into overpriced parts or repairs, where the dealership makes a ton more money. Some people are so brand loyal, they will just go out and buy another Civic or F-150, even though their previous one was a lemon too. That's what advertising does, and it works great.
There is absolutely no profit to be made in building a car that lasts forever. Building one that lasts 5-10 years at best is more profitable, you can sell 3 times the amount of cars. People will buy anything, basically, with the right advertising. It has nothing to do with quality.
There is a reason Toyota discontinued the 22RE engine, that Ford doesn't make the 300 inline 6 anymore, and Chevy stopped making good smallblock V8's. They ran forever and could not be killed. Honda had to make the new Civics cheap and disposable, as there was no profit in making them to last like they used to. GM changed the intake to a plastic one on their bulletproof 3.8 engine, as the old one was too good of a design.
Comparing a new Mercedes, BMW, or Volvo to one from the 80's is like night and day. Sure, the performance has improved a bit, but the build quality has cheapened to an incredible extent. An old Volvo or Benz Diesel could do over 500k on 1 engine, while a newer one can barely make 150k without major drivetrain problems.
There is just no profit in making a car that lasts forever, bar none. Sure, maybe you can sell a few extra on reputation to some people, but since all brands have their lemons, and models vary in quality, it's not really relevant even. Advertising and public relations can change pretty much any public opinion of any company; that is what sells cars, no matter what the quality.
23rd Mar 2011, 02:32
A car's odometer might not seem to go as high as they used to. But you're totally overlooking soo many factors that contributed to the long over life of engines like the 4.9 I6 Ford made. Those older engine styles required more maintenance, more oil changes, more fuel. And people actually took better care of their cars. I thing it's a shame your Cruze seems to be a dud, but outside North American they seem to have a decent reputation, and I think they look pretty good. Better than the Civic.
But all that aside, cars these days meet way too complicated a criteria for anyone to say they are built to break. I would argue that they are built far better than cars of the past, manufacturers have to push for higher fuel efficiency, more power, lower emissions, longer service intervals, and balance that with reliability. The industry is far too competitive right now to be building cars that break, especially with long 100,000km warranties.
Owners these days take that even further; if it said 2000 mile oil changes in the 60's, people did them, most cars say 5000 now, and I see people go 10-15 on new cars, which could void their warranty, but they don't seem to care.