My eyes must be going bad...

Because the Suzuki Kizashi is eerily familar to a Chevy Cruze..

If I take my glasses off, all new cars look like the same vanilla 4 door sedan.

To me, the Kizashi looks rather nice, and the Cruze looks fairly cheap.

And cars always looked the same from the same era, basically.

Honda, Toyota, Subaru, Suzuki, Hyundai/Kia etc.......most Asian 4 door sedans look the same anymore. People complain about Nissan being weird/ugly but at least they are different.

I don't think I would lump Hyundai in with that group. Their newest designs are refreshingly different, and quite attractive to my eyes. But I still like my plain vanilla Q-ship.

pres589 wrote: To me, the Kizashi looks rather nice, and the Cruze looks fairly cheap.

Agreed, all the hype about the Cruze when I finally saw one I immediately thought it looked outdated. The more I see them them more flaws I notice. Yesterday I was saw one & I swear the lines around the rear doors made it look like nothing fitted properly.

I think the Kizashi looks good for what it is. The one I see at work needs smaller wheels to look better IMO.

T.J. wrote: I think the Kizashi looks good for what it is. The one I see at work needs smaller wheels to look better IMO.

Heretic!

T.J. wrote: I think the Kizashi looks good for what it is. The one I see at work needs smaller wheels to look better IMO.

funny how car manufactures want lager wheels on new cars, my 97 saab has smaller wheels on it, and it looks fine

Volksrodden wrote: funny how car manufactures want lager wheels on new cars..

Lager wheels... delicious!

Yes, the Kizashi is a Lexus when compared to the Cruze. Actually I compared the Kizashi feature by feature to a Lexus and the Kizashi won.

We can all follow the progression here.

Cavalier...Cobalt...Cruze...crap can.

To be fair, I haven't driven a Cruze, so I can't pass true judgement on them. They're better than the Cobalt from what I see, but "better" is a relative term.

The Cobalt may have been crap, but it was way better crap than the Cavalier. That was a hateful little penalty box.

dculberson wrote: The Cobalt may have been crap, but it was way better crap than the Cavalier. That was a hateful little penalty box.

I, in all honesty, did not ever really have an issue with Cavaliers. Cheap, sure, but they weren't any 'cheaper' than other cheap cars.

tuna55 wrote: I, in all honesty, did not ever really have an issue with Cavaliers. Cheap, sure, but they weren't any 'cheaper' than other cheap cars.

GM knew the Cavalier was cheap and didn't even try to hide it (at least no real attempt). Good news is if you need a ride and are near broke, they are everywhere for cheap. And if they break, just get another one or get parts from the local pull-a-part. This tends to hold true for most of the smaller GM front-drive cars.

To the OP, the cars nowadays are looking very much alike. I find myself more and more interested in older cars (80s and older and a very few 90s).

tuna55 wrote:

dculberson wrote: The Cobalt may have been crap, but it was way better crap than the Cavalier. That was a hateful little penalty box.

I, in all honesty, did not ever really have an issue with Cavaliers. Cheap, sure, but they weren't any 'cheaper' than other cheap cars.

IMHO the feel eight million times cheaper then a same year Civic.

I think a lot of the reason that new cars are all looking similar is the stupid gov't getting all in the designers kool-aid over safety. Headlights have to be this big, beltline needs to be here, etc etc. They're painting the manufacturers into a corner.

93EXCivic wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

dculberson wrote: The Cobalt may have been crap, but it was way better crap than the Cavalier. That was a hateful little penalty box.

I, in all honesty, did not ever really have an issue with Cavaliers. Cheap, sure, but they weren't any 'cheaper' than other cheap cars.

IMHO the feel eight million times cheaper then a same year Civic.

My wife's old 98 Civic and my sisters 2000 Cav (close enough) beg to differ.

They do look very similar but I like them both, especially the back end with the little sweep up lip on the trunk. Looks like what BMW did on the 1 series or dare I mention the e46 CSL trunk lid...

Chevy could finally get it's act together, I figure they owe it to use after we bailed them out...

tuna55 wrote:

93EXCivic wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

dculberson wrote: The Cobalt may have been crap, but it was way better crap than the Cavalier. That was a hateful little penalty box.

I, in all honesty, did not ever really have an issue with Cavaliers. Cheap, sure, but they weren't any 'cheaper' than other cheap cars.

IMHO the feel eight million times cheaper then a same year Civic.

My wife's old 98 Civic and my sisters 2000 Cav (close enough) beg to differ.

Hell my '93 Civic feels way better put together then my roommate's '01 Sunfire. The interior is all cheap plastic on that one and the gauge cluster has completely gone bad.

dculberson wrote: The Cobalt may have been crap

It wasn't, and isn't. Nothing wrong with a Cobalt. I'd take one over a newer Civic any day.

It's funny how you guys turn these threads into a GM hating thread.

Zomby woof wrote:

dculberson wrote: The Cobalt may have been crap

It wasn't, and isn't. Nothing wrong with a Cobalt. I'd take one over a newer Civic any day. It's funny how you guys turn these threads into a GM hating thread.

The Cobalt was crap. The interior is all hard plastic. The driving position sucks. I swear the damn thing was slower then either of my old Civics (at least it felt that way). It wasn't any worse then the newer Civics though.

I will hold my judgement of the Cruze until I drive it.

93EXCivic wrote:

Zomby woof wrote:

dculberson wrote: The Cobalt may have been crap

It wasn't, and isn't. Nothing wrong with a Cobalt. I'd take one over a newer Civic any day. It's funny how you guys turn these threads into a GM hating thread.

The Cobalt was crap. The interior is all hard plastic. The driving position sucks. I swear the damn thing was slower then either of my old Civics (at least it felt that way). It wasn't any worse then the newer Civics though. I will hold my judgement of the Cruze until I drive it.

Well I have not driven a Cobalt, but riding in one seemed fine. The 98 Civic was the slowest thing I have driven next to my sisters old car (an 84 Buick Skylark), and I certainly didn't think the plastics in the Civic were really any different than the Cav or the Cobalt.

You Honda people are weird. My old boss gushed and gushed when out company got a loaner MDX before they came out. Seemed like a oversized SUV to me, I really didn't think it was all that special. Especially once I saw the sticker price. I guess that made it special.

You could argue that 60k-80k mile timing belt changes before instant death made the Civics special.

In reply to tuna55:

Meh. I don't love them that much. I mean I am bored with mine and there are plenty of faults (the timing belt, the ricers, thief). Just the Chevy subcompacts are fail so far. I think the big problem with the speed of the Cobalt was you would hit the loud pedal and it was like the car was asking you "are you sure you want to accelerate and then ok I will move kinda.

Of coarse pretty much every modern car I have driven recently, I have hated so take that for what you will. (not that any of them were exciting in any way).

Edit: oh and the stock seat suck. But Teggy seats bolt in.

I sat in a last gen Cavalier 4 door the other day. I was surprised that while in no way laterally supportive for fun time happy driving, the seats were pretty soft and comfy. Sure as heck better than a comparable Civic, IMO.