Holden Cruze Hatch: Road Test

Price Guide (recommended price before statutory and delivery charges): $28,490 (1.4 iTi SRi-V manual), $24,490 (1.4 iTi CD automatic), $28,740 (2.0 Diesel CDX manual)
Options fitted (not included in above price): Metallic Paint $500
Crash rating: Five-Star (Euro NCAP)
Fuel: 91 RON PULP (SRi-V, CD) and Diesel (CDX)
Claimed fuel economy (L/100km): 6.6 (SRi-V), 6.9 (CD), 5.6 (CDX)
CO2 emissions (g/km): 155 (SRi-V), 164 (CD), 147 (CDX)
Also consider: Ford Focus, Hyundai Elantra, Volkswagen Golf

Buyers in the market for a new small car from their local Holden dealer might be in for a surprise, especially if it's been a long time between drinks.

The now locally-manufactured Cruze hatch is over 400mm longer than the TS Astra hatch of 10 years ago — that's almost an extra foot and a half in length, in the old money. And while 'CD' was once a badge worn with pride by the flagship model, it now marks the entry-level grade.

Curiously, it might be easier for a buyer to make the jump into the Cruze hatch from a 20-year old Holden Apollo — a (mid-sized) Toyota Camry by another name. The small Cruze hatch measures just 8mm longer than the Apollo/Camry sedan. And the Cruze is Toyota-like in other ways too, but you'll have to read on to find out how...

Above the basic Cruze CD hatch there are three levels of trim: CDX, SRi and SRi-V. And the five-door Cruze also offers three engine choices and two transmission options, although the 1.4-litre turbo engine is the only powerplant available in the SRi and SRi-V grades — and it can't be had in the CDX specification. So we here at motoring.com.au thought it was about time to sample three flavours of the Cruze hatch at the one sitting. Providing the widest possible selection of variants from the range, we drove the Cruze SRi-V manual with 1.4-litre turbo engine, the Cruze CD auto with the same engine, and the Cruze CDX diesel with manual box. All we've missed is the 1.8-litre naturally-aspirated petrol four...

The immediate impression is that there's not the dynamic variance one might expect from three cars as different in the drivetrain department. Performance varies of course, but all three go about their business delivering respectable acceleration and fuel economy, without being class leaders. Owners of older Opel-sourced Holdens may miss the crisp steering and sporty ride — but there will be plenty of buyers out there who will adore the plush ride comfort and serenity of the Cruze.

We found the steering response to be quite direct in all three cars, but the feedback through the wheel was masked by the power assistance, with the weight pretty light at low to middling speeds. It seemed to work better in the petrol-engined cars than the diesel, providing more consistency of feel and weight. The transition to power-on understeer could be felt through the seat and the wheel, but the Cruze's roadholding seemed up to the standard met by its peers, and handling on a trailing throttle was much closer to neutral.

If anything, given the Cruze's ride properties, it handled and held the road better than it should, by rights. Given the amount of torque available, the diesel's roadholding was particularly worthy of mention. Torque steer was briefly encountered in the diesel on one occasion, but never posed a significant concern. Holden's traction and stability control systems seem to be properly calibrated for the Cruze's target demographic.

The ride comfort over small imperfections in the road was admirable, although the car felt at times underdamped. In a strong headwind on Melbourne's Eastern Freeway the Cruze felt like it was slowly pitching fore and aft, like a boat in a long swell. The small Holden's suspension soaked up bumps well, but was heard working over longer and larger undulations in the road surface.

At open-road speeds the Cruze was quiet, with mostly tyre noise intruding. There was next to no drivetrain or wind noise present at cruising speeds. In fact, the drivetrain in the 1.4-litre Cruze was commendably quiet and refined in any mode. In the basic CD variant the NVH suppression didn't meet the same standard, but it was acceptable. Similar comments apply to the CDX with the diesel powerplant; the engine was reasonably well mannered, but not to the same extent as the diesel-powered Ford Focus. While there was just a gentle, common-rail susurration on the move and even at idle, the Cruze CDX remained distinctly diesel to the ear.

The gear selection in the SRi-V was light and foolproof, but felt a little remote from the action. However, it proved far easier to use -- and smoother -- than manual gear shifters in other small cars around the traps. Furthermore, the clutch take-up was about right and there was no engine flare between gear shifts, so the whole act of changing gear was free of frustration. It could be hurried at times, although the shifts weren't always as smooth when the engine was revving to redline and then falling off boost for the next gear change.

By contrast, the diesel's manual change was heavy and slow — a symptom of building the transmission robust enough to cope with the engine's high torque output. The Cruze diesel could be driven smoothly, provided the driver didn't attempt to hurry the gearshifts. It's a shame that the diesel CDX was a manual, because we suspect the automatic might be a better car for typical Cruze buyers. An auto/diesel variant would likely combine the performance potential and frugality of the diesel engine with the auto's effortless operation.

The turbocharged 1.4-litre four-cylinder was, as noted already, very refined, but felt less lively than forced-induction engines of similar displacement from European manufacturers. In fact, with air con running on a hot day and the whole family of four on board it was sluggish, to be frank. With less load to haul, the engine launched with a degree of vitality, but it's more about torque than power -- and even so it couldn't just shrug off the car's weight. Performance was more or less linear up to the redline, to its credit, and it sounded pleasant enough at any revs. While cold it was reluctant to call on the turbo, so should the driver need more performance during the warm-up period, there's some lag followed by a surge of power irrespective of whether the engine is coupled to manual or automatic transmission.

Cruze owners may not be concerned by the mediocre performance of the petrol-engined manual variants, but the trip computer's fuel consumption figure of 8.9L/100m could be a different matter. That figure was registered over a week of mixed commuting and open-road driving. For a 1.4-litre engine of any kind that sort of figure is not so flash. The auto Cruze posted a similar figure, despite travelling a lot further on freeways. The diesel, which spent more time around town (only venturing out on the freeways for 20km in total) used 9.6L/100km average, according to the trip computer. This figure would naturally come down if the owners do more open-road driving, less in the suburbs.

Turbo lag was an issue with the diesel Cruze CDX. Forget double-declutching if you want revs built up for a downshift. The engine just won't pick up that fast, but at least it responded relatively quicker from launch, riding the clutch a little. Once on boost it was a sufficiently strong performer and would accelerate faster than either of the petrol variants tested.

As a car just to get one from point A to point B, the downmarket Cruze CD — the 1.4 petrol variant with the automatic transmission option — seemed to make more sense than the manual SRi-V variant with the same engine. Despite our praise for the manual transmission's shift, the auto box appeared to work better with the torque and power delivery of the small-displacement engine. Fuel consumption was on a par, as mentioned already, and the ratios and shift points were always right for the sector in the rev range where the engine was developing optimal torque. Unless you're really the sort of driver lost without a gearstick in hand at all times, the auto Cruze is certainly the better option.

It's not the smoothest automatic around though — and few will have trouble picking the change points — but performance seemed more accessible and using the sequential shift facility it practically felt sportier than the manual variant. It responded quicker to the driver's manual downshifting and picked up lower gears from reasonably high road speeds. While you wouldn't place a bet on it, there's a possibility that the Cruze auto could be quicker along a twisty section of road than a manual. And if you're not trying to set a new record for intercity runs, the auto CD is just that much easier to drive, of course.

If the Cruze deserved to be particularly commended for any element of design and engineering, it was the build quality and interior presentation. Doors closed securely with little effort, even the tailgate. There was no sign of loose or poorly fitting trim and all materials were of a decent quality. The instrument binnacle was attractively styled, with chrome trimming for the bezels. Leather-trimmed seats (in the SRi-V) were nicely contoured in front, although the cushioning bordered on firm. In the rear the seating was regrettably bench-like. None of the three cars driven came with a footrest for the driver's left foot. This was less a shortcoming in the manual-transmission variants, but its absence was noticed more in the self-shifting Cruze CD.

From the driver's seat the look and legibility of the major instruments seemed akin to typical Mazda equivalents. In other words they were generally easy to read, but used every last pixel of real estate. The controls were all within easy reach and were properly damped where necessary (indicator/wiper stalks), although the handbrake was located closer to the front passenger's seat than the driver's. It was less of a stretch than in other cars, although it also needed a good, hard yank to ensure the car wouldn't go anywhere.

Hooking up an iPod through the audio system was dead easy, however ergonomics were not so intuitive for the combined 'Menu' button and dial to select destinations for the sat nav and carry out the scrolling through the iPod playlist. On one occasion in the higher-grade Cruze SRi-V, the voice recognition function failed to prompt the user with a list of commands as some small cars with the same facility do. There was no such problem in the base-grade Cruze CD or mid-range CDX, both of which did prompt for voice commands unbidden and allowed easier, faster Bluetooth connection as a consequence.

The key for the Cruze SRi-V flipped out from the fob, but there was no ignition lock barrel for it, just a button to push for starting -- provided the clutch pedal was pushed all the way to the floor for safety. The key is still needed for the door locks in the event the remote central locking system fails or the battery (in either the car itself or the key fob) runs flat. In the basic Cruze CD and the mid-range CDX, there was an ignition barrel to accommodate the key. Once familiar with the minor quirks of the switchgear, everything was in close reach and proved simple to operate.

There were no vents for the air conditioning system in the rear of the Cruze — even the SRi-V variant. We would call that a small but significant oversight in a premium variant of an Australian-designed car -- even a small hatch.

The boot space was commodious in a practical way. It was large and square for the ready loading of large, square objects. And there was full lining as well. Adult levels of headroom and kneeroom in the rear were welcome, although there wasn't a huge measure of actual rear-seat legroom for adults to stretch out. When folding flat the rear seats, furthermore, the headrests brush up against the rear of the front seats unless removed first -- and that's without the front seats adjusted fully astern.

Of the three cars tested, the reviewer would probably choose the Cruze SRi-V with the auto transmission. And that drivetrain combo is also recommended in the lower grades, if money is tight. The one regret is that we didn't try the diesel Cruze with automatic, as noted earlier.

The upshot for the Cruze is this: In all three variants it was quiet, comfortable, well built and solid, albeit with some minor oversights in design and packaging. It's not a driver's car par excellence, but it's among the very safest of small cars tested by NCAP and it's a practical, well-resolved family car that could be the 21st century successor to the FJ Holden.

Read the latest Carsales Network news and reviews on your mobile, iPhone or PDA at the carsales mobile site