[JimsterG]

Why does the new Cruze have such lousy tail lights? They are still using 1950's technology on a 2017 model. Every time you use a turn signal, you lose a brake light. It looks like there is a place for a separate turn signal, but like the Malibu it is not used. I'm sure they must use it in European markets where an amber turn signal is required, but why not here? All the babbling GM uses about how new and modern this car is yet the tail lights are stuck in 1951! Does anyone know why it is like that? What can it cost to do this? Maybe $10? I don't understand that.

 

[ChevyGuy]

Really? Gen1 had a separate amber turn signal. I like having separate lights. That way when someone turns on the turn signal and taps the brakes at the same time I don't have to analyze to know what's going on.

I can't say as I'm thrilled with Gen2 lights. Looks like everyone else.

 

[JimsterG]

Correct. Gen 1 had a amber signal yet this Gen2 does not. But there is a place for it not used on U.S. models. Why they would not use it is a mystery to me. The Gen 1 setup is much more modern.

 

[LiveTrash]

What can it cost to do this? Maybe $10? I don't understand that.

When it comes to mass production, it's all about cost reduction. I worked in a Honda assembly plant putting parts on cars for a while. I saw it first hand. Simple things being removed on lower trim cars or removed all together in a new model release just to cut a few bucks off each car. While it may not seem like a lot, $10 on hundreds of cars a day (upwards of 800 - 900 is what the Honda plant was spitting out) adds up to a lot. It's also about the cost of manufacturing the wiring harness to incorporate a separate turn signal bulb, the bulb itself, etc etc.

 

[JimsterG]

It would not be so bad if it was not such an obvious omission on the Gen2 models. There is a place for it, just not used. I think that is a awful place to save a few bucks in the manufacturing process. Even Ford is not that cheap on the Focus.