Report: General Motors delays Cruze launch by three months
2011 Chevrolet Cruze - click above for high-res image gallery
General Motors is desperate to avoid the recall stigma that plagued the first year of North American production of the original Ford Focus a decade ago. That car was recalled five times in the first year to fix early production glitches. The new Chevrolet Cruze had been scheduled to launch production at the company's Lordstown, Ohio factory in April of next year, but that has now been pushed back to July.
Although earlier launches of the Cruze in China and Europe have not had any serious problems, as the first major new product since GM was re-born out of bankruptcy this summer, and the company wants to make sure nothing goes wrong in the U.S. as well. The Cruze is expected to hit 40 mpg in highway driving with its new 1.4-liter turbocharged four cylinder. According to reports, the delay will also give GM time to have every variant of Cruze ready for customers on day one. Often, production launches are staggered with some versions held back. This can frequently cause problems for an automaker if they don't build enough of the version people actually want to buy.
Gallery: 2010 Chevy Cruze - live shots
[Source: Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Ghen 11:37AM (10/29/2009)
Very good idea. Looking at video game launches, games often launch buggy and incomplete. These games die a fast and horrible death in the market. Game companies that take the time to get their games perfect (Valve, Blizzard, etc) bask in the glory of that perfection once their games (eventually) release.
So I'm all for pushing back the release of anything for perfection. The future connotation a good launch gives a brand is far more worth it than releasing slightly earlier.
Reply
KK 12:17PM (10/29/2009)
"Every variant"? I thought it was only available as a sedan, and only with the 1.4-l turbo engine. Has that changed, or do they just mean "all colors and trim levels"?
Reply
alex 12:25PM (10/29/2009)
Well there's a wagon and either a hatch/coupe variant (can't remember which) for other markets... maybe we are getting those as well.
Jimbo 1:21PM (10/29/2009)
I think he means trim levels, not true variants.
Richard 12:25PM (10/29/2009)
Why does everybody think it's not important to mention the in city mileage? That's the one that really counts. Nobody drives straight to the highway and off. What gives?
Reply
Stew 1:41PM (10/29/2009)
I agree, people are getting highway mileage burned in to their brains and will be disappointed when they don't achieve that around town.
Kinda like if an EV didn't achieve its rated mileage if you drove it on the freeway.
Stew
Jimbo 2:10PM (10/29/2009)
As a commuter, the highway mileage most accurately reflects the mileage I see. Most of my 140-mile round trip is at a steady 60-70 mph with very little stop-and-go. And given that this car is targeted at commuters, it's not THAT outrageous to quote the highway mileage.
Richard 5:00PM (10/29/2009)
Again, Highway miles means you would only drive on the highway. As far as I know nobody lives on the highway. Even still, if you did live on the highway, you would still have to get up to speed and that takes up more gas. This is a marketing ploy and it will fail.
Brandon 5:35PM (10/29/2009)
I have a 90 mile round trip commute so highway miles matter to me. I paper and pencil track every mile and gallon I use and I have never had a car I can't consistantly beat EPA Highway mileage. So to me highway mileage does matter. I could care less about city mileage.
Jimbo 10:40PM (10/29/2009)
"Again, Highway miles means you would only drive on the highway. As far as I know nobody lives on the highway."
Nice try. Most people in rural America live along highways and other roads where people drive 55+ mph, including gravel roads. And city driving wastes a lot more fuel than highway driving, hence the lower mpg on every vehicle that's not a hybrid. Why? Because of the constant acceleration and deceleration. On the highway, you generally get up to speed and stay at that speed. You're not doing it over and over again. So yeah, for a hell of a lot of people, highway mileage matters more than city.
Is it marketing? Sure. If you've got it, why not flaunt it? Will it fail? Probably not since every automaker does it. Should automakers focus on improving their city mpg? Probably. But stop dismissing the highway number as worthless. For a lot of people, that's the one that matters.
KK 1:28AM (10/30/2009)
For conventional cars, I tend to think of highway mpg as the upper limit on gas mileage. City mpg can be pretty close to highway mpg if you drive smoothly (gentle acceleration, moderate speed, minimal braking); or it can be much worse if you accelerate hard every time there's a gap in front of you. The only reliable way to get better than the rated highway mpg is to drive at a *sustained* moderate speed - i.e. slow highway driving.
It also matters to those who drive very far every day, but even in the US, most people aren't so irresponsible (environmentally) as to drive 100+ miles every day for commuting.
Jimbo 10:40AM (10/30/2009)
KK: I take offense to your statement that "most people aren't so irresponsible (environmentally) as to drive 100+ miles every day for commuting". In my case, it is out of necessity. I have a house in a small rural town and worked less than 2 miles from home. I frequently biked to work. But earlier this year, the company I worked at laid off half of its workforce, including myself, causing unemployment to skyrocket to over 20%. The only jobs available offering similar salaries are in a metro area 50+ miles away. So I have to drive, in my case 70 miles each way. I would love to sell my house and move closer, but when the town has a 20% unemployment rate, that isn't going to happen.
And even if you dismiss my story as atypical, consider this: many people choose to live in rural areas and commute to work. They don't like living in the city. To them, their quality of life is better by living outside the city and that trumps your so-called "environmental irresponsibility". It's a personal preference and it's one I happen to support.
And another thing, my drive takes me 70 min. I have coworkers that live in the city and it takes them 70 min to get to work due to traffic. Who do you think is wasting more fuel?
mk3 1:10PM (10/29/2009)
Does everyone else like the name? I know I shouldn't choose a car based on the name but I just hate it. I will consider the car if it is good. I need a commuter/family car.
Also, it's not spelled correctly.
of course it is always better to hit your launch date AND have all the bugs worked out but given the choice between the two evils, I can see why GM was forced to delay. I'm sure they hate the idea of delaying the revenue though.
Reply
Wanted 1:40PM (10/29/2009)
Hopefully they're planning to offer more colors than what the rest of the world has gotten. It's a shame the only option given that I like is the dark grey.
Reply
omnimoeish 3:54PM (10/29/2009)
So when is the new launch date? I've previous heard the Spring of 2010. The big 4-0 mpg is certainly a nice milestone. What I don't understand is that they've been selling these in Korea, South Africa and Egypt, China, India and probably a lot of other countries. I know the US is a more competitive market, but I'm surprised with that much time and experience, it's still being delayed. I know they are using a different engine in the US, the 1.4L Turbo Direct Injected engine here in the US, so maybe that's why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze
People are saying that the Volt is GM's big ace in the hole, but I think the Cruze is going to be a huge hit and GM knows it. They've already had great success with the other cars they've built with DI engines and this will certainly put GM's small cars on the map in competition with the Japanese.
I am hoping to get one of these things. They sound like they'll be very nice cars.
Reply
cmiles1701 7:30PM (10/29/2009)
Why is GM concerned about what happened with a FORD Focus launch? Perhaps it remembers some of its own poor launches?
I actually look forward to the Cruze.
One would assume, by the way a city mileage of like, 32-34 if highway is 40. I am impressed as this is new real world EPA testing numbers (AC on, stop and go, etc).
I wonder if the numbers would even be higher using the old tests? Makes it hard to cite actual improvements vs prior years as the testing methods have changed
Oh, and can someone lend Buick an extra model or two? Chevy has a gazillion (more coming) and Buick has, like, three current cars!
Reply
Carlos 3:02AM (10/30/2009)
Why GM not be used the Cruze plattform for the Volt system? It´s ideal for Taxi drivers.
Reply
Chris 11:12AM (10/30/2009)
I applaud them for taking the time to get this right BEFORE launch.
I think, maybe, they're trying to prevent new owners from creating an extensive checklist of potential problems as they did on there most recent new release (2010 Camaro)?
http://consumerist.com/5319502/buying-a-2010-chevy-camaro-take-this-68+point-checklist-with-you
Reply