Chevy is going to replace the current Cobalt with the Cruze in late-2010 and the new vehicle can't come soon enough to help save GM.
We've seen plenty of spy photos of the exterior of the new Cruze, but this is the first photo of what we can expect on the inside. It looks far better than either the Cobalt or even the Saturn Astra interior. The Cruze is expected to be powered by a 1.6L 4-cyl that will help the car achieve more than 40mpg. Production is expected to start in mid-2010 with sales starting shortly after.
Full Story: theCarfanatic
Related Stories:
GM's Future Models Leaked...First Look at the Chevy Cruze and Saab 9-4X
Chevy Announces 2008 Cobalt XFE with Improved Fuel Economy
Comments (26)
Rather nice looking. Although its impossible to tell interior quality from a photo.
Of course, I have no doubt some idiot here will try to tell us exactly how it will be by comparing a car they drove 10 years ago that they detested with some round about explanation using extrapolation and trigonometry to say how GM sucks. I would expect nothing less here.
Posted by Sandman | August 4, 2008 6:51 PM
Posted on August 4, 2008 18:51
1.6L?! 40mpg?! REALLY?!
My Toyota 1.8L 1ZZ-FE with VVTi barely hits 38-39 mpg and that's pure highway. Now in mixed driving it still does good at 33-35 mpg. And I've never gotten below 29.
But for a GM engine to get 40...sorry I've owned/been around a lot of Chevy products. They are not known for stellar fuel economy with decent power. Maybe if this is using some type of aluminium chassis, but this is GM and that isn't happening.
Wonder if they will still make an SS version? They should.
And if this is a "2010" then it'll be on sale in a year.
Posted by Brian | August 4, 2008 6:53 PM
Posted on August 4, 2008 18:53
Chevy could use the "direct injection" like there doing with the new camaro and solstice to keep decent power and gas mileage in a smaller engine.
Posted by Brandon | August 4, 2008 9:09 PM
Posted on August 4, 2008 21:09
Might just be the best looking interior for a reasonbly priced commuter car. I do wonder where the cup holders are, probably stuck in the arm rest. Other than that disappointment, if this thing gets upper 30's on the highway and has a reasonable pricetag it's going to be a very competitive product.
Posted by thetruth | August 4, 2008 9:38 PM
Posted on August 4, 2008 21:38
Interior looks like an Australian Ford...
...Don't Ask.
Posted by Saheed | August 4, 2008 10:23 PM
Posted on August 4, 2008 22:23
6 different colors, 5 different materials, straigh and curved lines. Yes, this riot is definitively GM!
Posted by lowest iq | August 5, 2008 4:30 AM
Posted on August 5, 2008 04:30
@ Brian,
GM cars tend to get the best gas mileage out of the domestics. I have a G6 V6 that consistently gets 32 mpg in mixed driving. 40 doesn't seem to difficult to obtain.
Posted by gmowner | August 5, 2008 4:41 AM
Posted on August 5, 2008 04:41
I think it looks very good, especially compared to the Cobalt like the author said. I'm sure you won't have to opt for the ridiculous color combo.
@ Brian
A guy I know at work had a Toyota back in the 70's and put 6 engines in it in 50k miles. Does that mean the Toyotas of today suck and are unreliable? He seems to think so, but the answer is No! Things change over time.
Posted by Porsche Lover | August 5, 2008 4:42 AM
Posted on August 5, 2008 04:42
I am not a GM fan but I can attest to the fact that GMs get great mileage across the board. There full size trucks have always dominated in mileage. And GM's full size cars always get crazy good highway mileage. I have a 2007 Camry with the 2.4L and it does not get better than 25 mpg going down hill. I know several people who have Malibu who get 32 and 34 mpg on the highway with the 3.6L.
I know all of you will look at the inacurate EPA mileage of GMs but I've never known there cars to ever get that mileage. All the Toyotas (2 Corallas and 2 Camrys) I've owned only barely got their EPA rated mileage. And the Buicks with there 3.8L motor had awesome power and mileage.
Posted by Tom T | August 5, 2008 6:21 AM
Posted on August 5, 2008 06:21
@ Tom T
There! = Their
Posted by Grammar Police | August 5, 2008 6:52 AM
Posted on August 5, 2008 06:52
It is a matter of displacement and gearing
My 83 1.5l MT Honda Civic would easily get 40mpg
Not really a rubber burning ride :)
Posted by winer | August 5, 2008 8:11 AM
Posted on August 5, 2008 08:11
@winer
Exactly, a lot of cars could easily get better fuel economy, if they just sacrificed a little performance.
I don't see why someone that can barely afford the bottom end model needs to go 0-60 in less than 8 seconds. It would be different if they were buying the top end model.
At least give people options by using different final drives. That shouldn't cause too many testing and maintenance issues.
The interior does not too terrible, I have seen way worse from GM, but I would actually have to sit in it to be certain. 40mpg from a non hybrid GM car would be impressive.
Posted by mf | August 5, 2008 10:25 AM
Posted on August 5, 2008 10:25
The same article on Autoblog lists the shown picture as a Daewoo, a GM product. So it is korean made but could be a nice example of whats to come.
Posted by Legacy Owner | August 5, 2008 12:02 PM
Posted on August 5, 2008 12:02
why did they finish the glove compartment with grass and bricks? i prefer my cobalt interior, it's cheap and plasticky but at least I don't have to water it.
Posted by cobaltssman | August 5, 2008 12:11 PM
Posted on August 5, 2008 12:11
Right on. People don't even need to go 0-60 in less than 10 seconds. My first car was a 1992 Mazda Protege DX that did a solid 12.5 seconds to sixty. It was completely livable, and makes my 6.5 second MINI Cooper S seem like a rocket ship... yet they both get the same 35mpg.
Light weight or light power....
Posted by Joan of Arc | August 5, 2008 1:07 PM
Posted on August 5, 2008 13:07
@Joan of Arc
Try driving around here and you'll rethink that statement, try pulling out of a parkingl ot directly onto a highway (no on ramps) which has a speed limit of 50mph and cars frequently go 60, it can be scary at times with a car that can do 0-60 in 6 seconds, you couldn't pay me to be doing it in a car that takes 10+ seconds to get to 60.
Posted by Sandra | August 5, 2008 1:43 PM
Posted on August 5, 2008 13:43
As someone who lived through and owned absolutely horrid GM vehicles in the 1980's and early 90's, seeing the interior of the Cruze does show what a tremendous turnaround GM has done in 20 years. The current Cobalt's interior is miles better than the Cavalier that it replaced, but unfortunately some cost cutting measures marr the product. Hopefully, the Cruze will rectify that and offering a possible 40mpg vehicle is welcome news. Has GM completed its turnaround? Far from it, but I am glad to see GM offer vehicles not being sold solely on the basis of rebates, rather on their own merits. Unfortunately it took the dominance of Japanese vehicles in the US marketplace to drag GM kicking and screaming into the 21st century levels of fit and finish.
Posted by londxcommuter | August 5, 2008 2:49 PM
Posted on August 5, 2008 14:49
@ Sandra
If you would learn to merge properly, you wouldn't need the horsepower to propel the car onto the freeway. I drive an 02 Focus sedan, in MD.
Posted by Ryan A | August 5, 2008 4:47 PM
Posted on August 5, 2008 16:47
hmm,,,lol
Posted by cruzessman | August 5, 2008 5:08 PM
Posted on August 5, 2008 17:08
My 93 Saturn 1.9L TBI got 40 on the highway whenever I didn't run the air. 37 all day long (in Flat-road Florida) with the air on. 30-32 in town (one that you know by name so lots of tourist traffic) over the life (130K miles) of the vehicle. 1.6L DFI or PI and 18 years of aerodynamic improvements can = 40.
Oh, it looks very good in my opinion, though I don't understand the current trend of making every radio different. But it looks good.
Nice grass comment, and thanks for not making the obvious "it must be made in Canada" joke...
DOH!
Posted by zzbottom | August 5, 2008 6:29 PM
Posted on August 5, 2008 18:29
The Engine is supposed to be a 1.4L Direct Injected Turbo. Not sure about tranny, but with a 6-speed Auto, i can see 40MPG, EASY! (All from Car And Driver)
Posted by Riddler | August 5, 2008 8:25 PM
Posted on August 5, 2008 20:25
@Ryan A:
There's two proper ways to properly merge onto a highway, one is get up to highway speed before you get to the end of the on ramp which isn't posible on this strech of road as their is no on ramps, parking lot --> right highway lane, that's it, the only other option is to wait till theirs a big enough openeing that you can safely get on the highway and up to speed without the car behind you having to slam on your brakes and said road has so much traffic you would be waiting 15 mins for and opening big enought to pull out onto the road in what is considered safe and not a traffic hazard in your focus, underpowered cars are traffic hazards.
Posted by Sandra | August 6, 2008 7:42 AM
Posted on August 6, 2008 07:42
@Sandra
Yes it is the underpowered car that is the traffic hazard and not the distracted speeders.
Posted by mf | August 6, 2008 10:21 AM
Posted on August 6, 2008 10:21
I love the fact everyone goes on about their 80's or early 90's model car getting 40+ mpg. GOOD GOD people, a 73 VW bug can get 36+ if tuned properly.
HOWEVER it's going to fail any current emission test, just like your 88, 93, or whatever non year 2000+ car is (at least in terms of being a new production vehicle).
It's not that GM couldn't make an engine get 40+mpg. I just don't seem them making one that can do 40+ and meet emissions.
And being a 1.4L DI Turbo...it's a start, but to get 40+ I question the driveability and smoothness.
It's the same reasons diesels get better mileage in Europe than in the US. We care more about the air we breathe than Europe, and they care more about the MPG....
Posted by Brian | August 7, 2008 7:58 AM
Posted on August 7, 2008 07:58
Brian, more efficient combustion equals lower emissions, you're barking up the wrong leaf.
Posted by zzbottom | August 8, 2008 7:01 PM
Posted on August 8, 2008 19:01
@ Sandra
You're probably right. What do I know. Good answer by the way. ; )
Posted by Ryan A | August 11, 2008 6:11 PM
Posted on August 11, 2008 18:11