Find Reviews by Make:
The back of the 2015 Chevrolet Cruze is largely unchanged. The front has sadly been messed with to look more like the Malibu. A shame, since the Cruze was a rather handsome car.
The big change is apparently a revised infotainment system, with a 4G LTE hotspot and Siri Eyes Free for iPhone users. Powertrains remain unchanged.
86 Comments on “2015 Chevrolet Cruze Gets A New Mug...”
Read all comments
Sell it in wagon form with a diesel. That would open the car up to a lot more buyers.
Not with that ugly mug.
+1
I don’t get where Chevy is going with their design language. I’m afraid to think what the replacement to my second gen Equinox will look like.
The next gen looks pretty much like the current gen.
You mean before or after it gets recalled?
There needs to be a moderation rule for this. The words “diesel” and “Wagon” and “brown” and “hatchback” need to go into some sort of kill file.
I actually have a manual diesel hatchback, but not brown ….
Speaking of which, the Audio Allroad is just gorgeous.
Why is it that OEM’s find it necessary to make all their fascias look the same? I agree the current Cruze face is much better looking and distinguished the car more, now it will look like the ‘Bu and the Volt
they are made to look similar like siblings.
GM has no bounds when it has an Powerpoint showing the benefits to change facias no matter what the cost, while ignoring black dots in Consumers Reports.
It’s all about branding. The trend these days is to use the “face” of the car to create a linkage within the entire lineup.
BMW and Mercedes probably deserve the credit/blame for making this common within the industry.
Between the ignition fiasco and uglifying nice-looking cars, GM seems to be as intent on self-distruction as my Indiana Pacers.
“Between the ignition fiasco and uglifying nice-looking cars, GM seems to be as intent on self-distruction as my Indiana Pacers.”
I agree. What is more troubling is that not one person with enough authority to stop a redesign seems to have killed this. The design team must fully contain 70 year old’s who think they understand the market. I can see them patting each other on their backs for this “spectacular” redesign. There is zero enthusiasm in marketing or design at GM anymore. I was wondering why did they even bother when I first saw this. It looks like they actually didn’t bother.
Quit teasing, show us the 2015 Cruze? Oh, wait….
Yup, Conslaw, and after this ignition fiasco you can’t help but wonder what awaits the proud owners of these GM cars five, ten years down the road.
I remember when the Cobalt-series was introduced. It was touted as being radically different from all that had come before.
In the end, we learn, it was all hype. Hype to sell something. Something that was flawed, and GM knew it all along. Knew it all along but denied, misdirected, misinformed, obfuscated, and stalled until they could stall no more. Stalled until they could stall no more because at least 13 people are dead because of the flaw, and now Uncle Sugar has stepped in for a look-see themselves into what the hoopla is all about.
Do you own one of the recalled cars? I owned several, never had a problem with the “key” incident. Also owned a Camry that blew out a head gasket and steering rack. Own a Subaru and waiting for those head gaskets to blow and the AC just won’t stay fixed. Know a few people with Porsches and have had had their IMS and RMS fail TWICE with normal driving. BMW? Maintenance costs were legendary as is reliability. Daughter has a Ford Escape that is a fine vehicle when not in the shop. One wheel had wrong lug nuts on it and had to be drilled out. WRONG lug nuts? Also had six recalls. GM was wrong for not having their configuration control system under control, and people should be fired, but to think GMC alone is a bad actor is silly.
The Cruze is fine as far as I am concerned but wish it had about 70 more HP to compete with the Focus and GTI.
I personally do not own one of these recalled cars, nor do I own any GM vehicles any more (since 2008).
However, in MY area, a severely economically-depressed area, it is customary to pass cars down from family car to kid’s car. Several of my friends and fellow poker players own a Cobalt or a G3 or a Saturn and have since passed them down to their kid(s).
It really is a matter of concern for them, and they have voiced it in conversation, with me and others. Many of these recalled cars are kids’ transportation to/from school, college, university, work and because of our desolate location, daily roundtrips of 150+ miles are not uncommon.
Such incidences don’t matter to most until someone they care about is involved in a crash or gets killed because of the defect.
As long as the kids are not drinking, driving over 40 mph over the speed limit on a rough or off road, they will be perfectly safe.
AutoNews article…
“At the time, many of the crashes now tied to faulty General Motors ignition switches looked like the predictable consequences of drunken driving, speeding or inattentiveness late at night. Some were a violent and tragic combination of all three.”
“Police say they had no clear reason to suspect anything was amiss with the cars. They had seen plenty of crashes in which airbags didn’t deploy, for a variety of reasons.”
There was a post in another thread which had links to investigations of deaths in these cars. I don’t recall if a single decedent in any of the investigations was wearing a seat belt (maybe one), but I remember that at least one of them was driving drunk at the time of the incident.
Forgive my simplicity, but how is this an “Uncle Sugar” moment? (or do you refer to all government/private-sector interactions as “Uncle Sugar”?)
NOTE: I’m actually confused, not trying to be snarky or whatever.
Jo, it is my understanding that members of the US government are currently looking into the GM ignition-switch problem. Uncle Sugar, Uncle Sam, is a general reference normally accepted as referring to the US government, or any of its far-reaching, invasive tentacles.
The Uncle Sugar connotation has special significance since this is the same government that bailed out the failed and bankrupt GM, as in sugar often being used as a synonym for money or being kept, like young college girls advertising for a sugar daddy online to pay their way through college in return for personal services rendered.
The Cobalt was just a re-badged Ion, no more than that, but the Cavalier was so bad that just about anything else that replaced it would be leaps and bounds better.
The Cavalier didn’t have to be as terrible as it was. In Europe, the J-car derivatives were significantly better. The Opel Ascona C, which was a J-car, was the best selling car in West Germany for a time in the early ’80s. Opel replaced it in 1988 with the Vectra, which was an indication that its time of relevance was past. The Vectra went through three generations before being replaced by the Opel Insignia, which came here as the current Buick Regal. The Insignia came out in 2008, but the fact that GM went through 3 Vectras in Europe during the Cavalier’s run in the US shows what they thought of their American customers. It is a bit funny that people talk about model bloat and the German J-car evolved into a car that was 1,500 lbs heavier, 20 inches longer yet had no more useful interior room. On the other hand, our J-car evolved into an old Daewoo Lacetti, so the consistent thread is that there are better car companies plying the trade.
My ex as part of her graduate work did a report on unions in the auto industry. I don’t recall much of what she concluded but one detail I do recall is on average UAW added $2,000 to the cost of the car vs the competition. Easy to make up on a high margin model, tougher with a low margin compact in a competitive segment. If you are already at break even or losing money on compacts, do you want to spend the money to build new models or just let dated platforms ride effectively as compliance cars?
I think it was more than $2K per car. I thought it was more like $3K-$5K depending on the type of vehicle, as in 1/2 ton trucks were padded to the tune of $5K for the benefit of the UAW while econoboxes were padded with $2K per car.
OTOH, buyers of foreign fare often paid a lot more for their comparable cars than buyers of the domestic brands did. More ironic, they often did so willingly and gladly because of the reliability, durability and dependability of those cars vs the domestics.
Then again, breakdowns and repairs only come into play after the factory warranty expired.
That said, the old saying that “Chevies run badly longer than any of the other brands” had merit back then.
But these days with collaboration between manufacturers on parts and components, all produced by the same American suppliers, all car makers are in the same boat.
If one gets recalled for faulty CTS gas pedals, so do all the others using the same gas pedal. And so on, and on and on…
i think the new nose looks fine but there was nothing wrong with the old nose either
however… the rest of the car blows
i know this is probably more a regional/provincial thing but the car reminds me of the horrible old Sebring with its “dog taking a sh*t” humpback stance
also still has the dowdy tail lights
funny thing is the hatch looks fine to me (some people hate it)
the wagon is a real looker but sadly isnt available with the turbo engines
GM could do a real solid by making a turbo petrol 1.6 wagon, manual and give it a slight lift
or… go to town and give it a big lift and rob the 4wd system from something
would really sell, and make it brown
i dont care for diesels esp. the diesels GM got from VM motori and the current turbo petrol is so good anyway
this whole situation reinforces to me that GM doesnt seem to get all the dollars left on the table
The main thing I like about the outgoing front-fascia is the way the bow-tie emblem neatly intersects both main grilles, and I wish they’d done that here. Also, I wonder what the RS package will look like.
Agreed, Derek. This grille’s been hit with the ugly stick. Right between the eyes.
The grille is the result of extensive crash testing until it’s molded into compliance..
An improvement.
I liked the Cruze when I test drove it in 2011. It seems like a very refined car. The problem was, for slightly less money similarly equipped, you could get the Hyundai Sonata which had more room, more power and functionally equal MPG.
My experience with Hyundai products has been excellent. My 21-yo grand daughter has driven the p!ss out of her 2011 Elantra and has NEVER had a problem!
We’ll be trading that Elantra next month (or so) to get her a new car for graduation from college and launch her into her new life in the real world in a set of new wheels.
Don’t know what we’ll buy her, yet. That depends on where her first career-appointment will take her. If it turns out to be the highlands of NM or CO, it will most likely be a 4X4 Tacoma V6. If it turns out to be the flatlands, it could be any sedan, depending on what she wants to be seen in (within reason).
But Hyundai surely is worthy of consideration again based on real-life experience. Then again, so is a Jeep Wrangler Hard Top.
We’ve had great experiences with our four Hyundai/Kia products as well, including a current 2007 Sonata SE and a 2012 Sonata Limited. But we and our extended family have also has excellent experiences with our GM products over the years. I think the worst fiasco was when the fuel pump went out on Grandma’s Camaro…
Yeah, mechanical fuel pumps going out at the most inopportune time was a real bummer. So was a stuck carburetor float that drowned the engine. Those days are behind us, I hope.
Then again, electrical in-tank fuel pumps going out is no fun either, as happened to a friend’s Olds Cutlass while she was cruising the desert on her way home.
If not for cellphones, she would have had to rely on the kindness of strangers to get her home. There’s a scary thought!
Jarringly ugly, and obvious grafting of Malibu grille, which looks out of place. Horrendous, piecemeal, desperate, hurried, clumsy.
“Jarringly ugly” is about the most succinct description I can think of. It is so out of proportion that every time I look at a new photo of the car I’m momentarily startled with how ugly and awkward it looks. It looks like an underbite borne of inbreeding and never properly treated, or my jaw after I had all of my wisdom teeth out but before the swelling went down. Just truly appalling looking. How anyone let this get out of committee I can’t fathom.
I’m less judgmental after viewing WorldCarFan video of this car: it shows how chrome surround highlights/ emphasizes shape of new ‘mouth’ (especially with dark car), and also how frontal appearance is better (bow)tied together– from a distance. Still, the old headlamps junction with new grille reads almost like an injury.
They should have put on a shrunken down version of the Impala/Traverse grille instead.
Maybe. I wonder if that look is going to have lasting appeal. I like the new Impala, especially from front.
The redesign of the cruze will just add more buyers for the new Chryaler 200.
The Cruze and 200 aren’t competitors. This competes with the Dart, the 200 competes with the Malibu.
The Malibu’s front end doesn’t even work on the Malibu, let alone here. I agree that up to now, the Cruze has been a handsome and mature car, and that this is a downgrade. The headlamps and taillamps were the only two areas that I thought needed improvements, and those are ironically the areas that were left untouched.
I know, My thoughts entirely.
+1 and I own a 2013 Cruze.
In “Crystal Red Tintcoat”, like the picture? Awesome. I would love a Cruze LT or LTZ with the RS package.
No, actual in Black Granite Metallic, LT2, RS Package, Manual, Leather, sunroof.
http://instagram.com/p/dZbKFWhm51/
Looks a lot sleeker and more cohesive than the old front end to my eyes. But then looks are subjective. Smart to leave the rear alone, that was the better looking end of the car anyways.
‘Looks are subjective’ and yet GM and Honda both rushed ’emergency’ refreshes for Malibu and Civic…
Just because you and few other people on TTAC don’t like it doesn’t mean the masses will reject it. Again, looks are subjective. How a car photographs and how it looks sitting on a dealer lot can be two different things.
I think it’s really awesome that Chevy only offers the diesel in the top trim level. No wait…I don’t think it’s awesome at all. My local dealer has ONE in stock and have the gall to ask $29,000 for it. The local VW shop is offering top trim, fully loaded Passats for $31,000 (and I think a $1,000 fuel card to boot). Touch choice there.
That’s a ridiculous price, and doesn’t accurately reflect the going price for one of these. In my area, at least, the ATP for a Cruze Diesel is just over $21,500. Even a loaded Malibu will come in at well under $30K, so $29K for a Cruze Diesel is silly money.
Too, remember that there are always price outliers for any car. You can do a nationwide search on Cars.com and see that there are dealerships asking $45K for the Fusion Titanium, and I don’t know who would pay that when that kind of money will get you a well-equipped MKZ or ES 350.
Yes is always at least a few dealers asking silly money. Right now within 300 miles of me Cruze diesels are going for around $23,000 as the asking price with a little cash on the hood, sticker close to $26,000 but you also have to remember that Diesel Cruzes are only offered in top trim, leather, heated seats, all standard.
I just wish you could get the RS package on the Diesel…
That’s my main point Principal Dan, if they offered the diesel in a bare bones stripper, I’d be interested. I’m pretty confident in saying that modern cars have left me behind. I don’t want every electronic gizmo they can think of crammed into what is really a small, economy car. These kids today, sheesh!
Remember what Hank the Duce said: “Small cars, small profits, forget it.” That is what many in the major US automakers still believe. One way around the “small profits” is to load the car up with options. I think they think its easier to get people to pay more for the diesel if they load it up with options.
BTW VW TDI prices are about $3000 higher than the gas version across the board.
I agree with Hank’s overall logic, esp for Detriot’s mfgs.
I see nothing wrong with the styling of the 2015 Cruise. People just like to complain.
I think it looks sharp.
Until about 6 months ago, I was worried that Ford’s QC problems were making it lose the plot to GM and Chrysler. Seeing GM’s newest designs and how badly it bungled the ignition crisis, I now think GM is no longer a threat. I really hate to agree with the Autoextremist, but GM is as slow and moribund as British Leyland or the Soviet Kremlin. They are headed for the same fate.
I think it looks fine, though I wish the rear end had been freshened too. This facelift looks like a last-minute stop-gap to make up for the all-new Cruze’s delay to the end of next year. I was a bit concerned that the Cruze would soldier all the way until then without any sort of visual upgrade, so I suppose this is a nice surprise. (and to be honest, by the end of next year the Cruze will only be 5 years old to the US, which is on the shorter end of a lifecycle, but the facelift is still a nice touch)
I never really liked the Cruze before this one, at least this face-lift makes some sense from a product standpoint in keeping with GMs cooperate look, why thats important? I dunno.
At least they kept the greenhouse though, how much do you want to bet that the Cruze sells just for not having huge blindspots?
My only trouble with the Cruze is that they seemed to be brought by ex-Civic owners around here, racing stripes, black bits, stuff that doesn’t belong on a Daewood-based family cruiser.
“My only trouble with the Cruze is that they seemed to be brought by ex-Civic owners around here, racing stripes, black bits, stuff that doesn’t belong on a Daewood-based family cruiser.”
Funny you mention that. I just spent a week in China, and the Cruze seemed to be the most popular tuner car on the road. I’ve never seen them modded out like that in the US.
Oh, thank God. They finally gave it some LED’s.
The front fascia is almost identical to the current Cruze. It looks like they’ve done some modest work to the front bumper, probably to improve the aero slightly.
In the grand scheme, this release is good news. Cruze has pleasing proportions and nice looks from almost every angle, which sets it apart from the rest of compact sedans. Cruze sells well, too. Major redesign would be epic folly. Refreshing the fascias and updating technology is a smart strategy.
It’s hideous, and i’m surprised they didn’t touch the back. If this car needed a refresh it was the back not the front, It has the same old dowdy taillights, and every time I look at Cruze my eyes are always drawn to that plastic triangle DLO fail. It reminds me of the sebring. I like the wagon though it looks much better.
Meh. Not a big enough change to get worked up about. Seriously, we notice as enthusiasts but 90% of the buying public will have to have it pointed out to them. Wonder what the RS package accents will look like grafted onto the new fascia? I think the RS package does make the Cruse “sharp” but that’s about the only time I notice one in traffic.
If it was a planned refresh surely they would have grafted on Camaro-style taillamps. Isn’t that the new design law at Chevy?
The shapes don’t seem that cohesive. GM did the same thing to the good looking grill of the Lacrosse.
This is new? Coulda fooled me
I’m really not a fan of the current Chevy grill, especially when they have the terrific looking Impala grill that they refuse to put on anything else (I guess techniquely the design comes from the Camaro, but still).
On the plus side, at least it isn’t offensive, and unlike the Chinese version doesn’t look like a rebadged Focus.
Everyone needs to keep in mind that GM press photography over the past decade absolutely 100% sucks.
GM obviously hasn’t realized why the Cruze sold so well. Came from nowhere to consistently among the top three. The Cobalt sold on price while the Cruze is commanding the highest prices in its segment. The reason? Elegant looks, dare i say Audi esque, that made it look more premium and expensive than it was. The competition looked like poverty mobiles by comparison. Nobody wants to buy a car that looks cheap. The new Corolla and Sentra have taken offensive and cheap to a whole new level. The Cruze always stood out and aged well. Unless this was their plan to make the Malibu more appealing I don’t see why they would mess up a good thing. GM and Mazda are the only companies that sell lot more compacts than mid-sizers. I think GM intentionally ruined the Cruze to upsell buyers to a Malibu or this where the market is headed. The new corolla, new sentra and the next focus have all become weird looking.
I love it, I’m glad GM had to restraint to tweak just a little without overdoing it, like the new Malibu, I don’t like that thing at all.
The headlights and grill are samey enough, it really doesn’t look to different from the current gen.
This is much better than the future Cruze pic that was posted on TTAC a bit ago, because this still looks like a Cruze!
GM lead designer: Now, what we’re going for is a new level of mediocrity. We don’t want cars so boring and homogenized that at first glance you have no idea what model they are, or if it’s the current version or the one from 15 years ago, we don’t want cars so bland that they blend into a parking lot and if you’re unfortunate enough to own one you’ll be wandering for hours–even if it’s right in front of you.
No, we want a new level of mediocrity. We want this thing to be so mediocre it could disappear into the background if it were dropped into the middle of the desert and was the only man made object for hundreds of miles.
Cars aren’t meant to be good looking. They’re appliances, like that 20 year old Kenmore refrigerator we have in our break room. I want that. An automotive equivalent of a 20 year old refrigerator.
Oh, it looks OK – but it needs “Camaro” taillights like my horrendously ugly 2013 Malibu (which everyone I know has described as a “really nice-looking car”). Of course, their “GM-got-bailout-so-I-must-hate” is way down on their list of obsessions.
GM must have used the global Colorado for the design ques for the front end.
The Colorado is even uglier than my Mazda BT50.
If this is going to be the GM corporate front end they will definitely go broke.
Yep, they took a good looking car and made it ugly. Ford took a ugly (Focus) looking car and made it good looking. Seems like Ford is on the right track.
I look at that picture and can hear ” Sir, you reserved an intermediate sized rental car, and that’s all we have” :D
LOL. My reaction exactly — assuming they aren’t all at dealers with recalls.
Not sure why they bothered.
Meh. I don’t get Chevy’s love for the split-grill, but whatever. The sharp headlight cutouts are kind of cool, the fake vents under the headlights look OK, the roofline is very Chrysler 200 but I never really got the hate for that either. There’s better looking cars in this segment, but in this segment looks don’t count for much. If I were small-sedan shopping it wouldn’t scare me off.
That said, Chevy needs a wedge to pry at Corolla/Civic buyers, and styling seems like a good attack vector. They should do better.
Is this the best GM and its engineers can do for a small car that could have huge potential. No matter how I look at it, inside or out, it’s unrefined and screams rent-a-car! The new Toyota Corolla looks and feels generations ahead of the Cruze. Perhaps GM should stick to trucks and Corvettes for those who really want one.
The looks are not that bad. The Cruze is good enough. I think the best looking compact car is the Hyundai Elantra. The Corolla is not bad but it is a copy of the Elantra. The Civic is not bad but it will not win any styling awards. Most compact car buyers are not as interested in having the most stylish car. There is something to be said in having a car that has appliance like functionality and reliability.
If GM believes they cannot build a car without Daewoo’s help maybe should not be in the business of making cars.