Cruisin’ in the Chinese Chevrolet Cruze

Our European editor, Paul Horrell, got behind the wheel of Chevy’s Next Big Thing in Spain a couple of months ago. His verdict? The Chevy compact is good in parts. And after time behind the wheel of a pair of Chinese-spec Chevrolet Cruzes during my three-day road trip from Shanghai to Hangzhou and back, I’d have to agree. There’s a lot to like about the Cruze, including the distinctive styling, roomy packaging, tight structure, and competent chassis. But the car needs work before it’s ready for prime time here in the United States.
I drove an entry-level 1.6 SE with a five speed manual, and a top of the range 1.8 SX with the six-speed automatic transmission. The SX comes with sat-nav, climate-control air-conditioning, central locking, a sunroof, and power fore-aft adjustment on the driver’s seat. The seats are leather trimmed, as are the steering wheel and the contrasting colorway that stretches from the doors across the dash fascia.

Curiously, the SE’s interior seems classier, largely because the lighter color, self-patterned cloth material of the seat inserts replace the bland-looking leather on the doors and dash. The plastic-rimmed steering wheel definitely feels bargain basement, though. The cabin is roomy, with decent front seats, and good rear-seat accommodation. Out back is a big trunk.On the outside, you’ll need sharp eyes to pick the difference between the two trim levels. The SX gets a chrome strip on the beltline, chrome plates on the door handles, and a chrome garnish between the taillights. Both our testers rolled 16-in. alloy wheels fitted with Kumho Solus KH17 205/60R16 tires.
Both Cruzes are more stiffly sprung than the Buick Regal is, which suggests they’d be more fun to drive in the twisties. And they are, although the steering is quite low-geared and has an artificially strong self-centering characteristic. The chassis’ at-the-limit handling characteristic is typical front-drive understeer; up to that point, it’s composed and benign, with gentle and utterly predictable transient responses.
Paul slammed the 1.6L and 1.8L DOHC Ecotec fours in his review, and rightly so. Both engines are dogs; droning snoozers with no panache, no personality, and no discernable power or torque peaks. I wasn’t impressed by the transmissions, either. The five-speed manual is somewhat balky and has ratios so widely spaced you could drive a ’49 Packard between them, while the six speed auto shunts clumsily through the shifts in a race to get to as high a gear as possible as fast as possible.
Presumably, both powertrains have been optimized for fuel efficiency, but GM’s claimed 36 mpg for the 140-hp 1.8L auto and 40 mpg for the 115-hp 1.6L manual at a steady 56 mph is hardly impressive enough to be worth the compromises. And then there’s the impact on the performance — claimed 0-to-60-mph time for the 1.8 auto is in the high 11s, while the 1.6 manual needs more than 12 seconds. Bottom line: Neither powertrain is remotely acceptable for the American market.
Just as well, then, GM plans on launching the U.S.-market Cruze, scheduled to go into production at the company’s Lordstown, Ohio, plant next year, with a new 1.4L direct-injection turbocharged four-cylinder engine under the hood. Details are sketchy, but it’s believed this engine will deliver at least 130 hp and a healthy chunk of much needed mid-range torque, along with up to 44 mpg on the highway. Presumably, U.S.-spec Cruzes will also get much more crisply calibrated transmissions.
The suspension needs retuning, just to take the edge off the sharper vertical body movements, though Chevy’s chassis engineers should try and maintain as much roll stiffness as they can to maintain agility. The steering needs recalibration, too, ideally with a quicker ratio rack. I’d also recommend GM spend a few extra bucks on quality tires for the U.S. model; grippier rubber would enhance the basic competence of the Cruze’s Global Delta platform.
GM has an awful lot riding on the Cruze, more, perhaps, than any single car in the company’s history. This car has to be right; it has to be the import-fighting compact Detroit has promised for so long — and so often failed to deliver. The good news is the basics are there. Now GM must sweat the details.
[source:MotorTrend]

B-Segment Surprise: 2011 Chevrolet Viva

General Motors said Friday morning, 10 days after President Obama announced new fuel mileage standards and three days before the automaker declares bankruptcy, that it will build a new small car in an idled U.S. plant.
Thursday afternoon, retiring GM Vice Chairman/Product Chief Bob Lutz showed the Automotive Press Association a chart with recently produced and near-future product names in tiny letters. Most were known to the automotive press. One was not: Chevrolet Viva.
And on Friday, Forbes columnist Jerry Flint wrote of how the United Auto Workers has destroyed Detroit. Factories here are closing, even as import manufacturers open non-union shops, mostly in the South.

The reopened plant will be a UAW shop, of course. GM says in its release that the retooled plant will have capacity of 160,000 per year, building a combo of small and compact vehicles. GM will determine the sight selection in the future. Lake Orion, Michigan, Wilmington, Delaware or Shreveport, Louisiana, all have potential.
What about the small car? It’s not the Chevrolet Spark. That car, a four-door hatchback version of the Beat two-door hatch concept (which used a name Honda still owns), is on an old Daewoo platform. It cost GM some cash to beef up the body structure after it had been designed to meet U.S. and European crash standards.
The new b-segment small car and c-segment compact to be built in the U.S. must be on new, flexible platforms that could be assembled at any GM plant in the world that builds on those same platforms.
The next-generation Chevy Aveo is set for the 2011 model year. If the new car has the kind of design excellence Lutz claims GM has rediscovered, it should be a serious competitor for Ford’s 2011 Fiesta. In that case, the Aveo name will do it no favors, so “Viva” seems likely (the moniker dates back to a 1960s Vauxhall and has recently been used on compact GMs in Russia and Australia), if too directly influenced by the Ford’s Spanish name.
Building a Chevy Viva in a UAW plant will cost more than building the Aveo in South Korea. It should be much more stylish and upmarket compared with the current Aveo. Chevy would have the advantage over Ford of a more ready supply of its competitor if the b-segment, fueled also by the coming Fiat 500 and a small Dodge, takes off in the next few years.
GM says about 67-percent of GM cars and trucks sold in the U.S. are built in the U.S. (remember, this doesn’t include Canadian or Mexican NAFTA production) and that the number will rise to about 70 percent with the addition of the 160,000-unit b-/c-segment plant. An important fact as GM goes into Chapter 11 with help from the federal government, which wants to preserve U.S. jobs.
And addition of a relatively high-volume b-segment car won’t hurt when the 2012-16 Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations kick in.
What about the c-segment car to be built in the same factory? GM already has committed its Chevy Vega/Cavalier/Cobalt factory in Lordstown, Ohio, to production of the 2011 Chevy Cruze. And Volt is slated for Hamtramck, Michigan. That leaves the 2012 Chevy Orlando MPV and a 2012 Buick compact (go ahead, call it “Skylark”), both to be built on the same platform as the Cruze. Either is likely, although side-by-side production with the Cruze in Lordstown would make more sense for the Buick.