Bought a Cruze Eco tonight

[milehigh]

Hi all-

I bought a slightly used '12 Cruze Eco with a 6mt tonight. It only has 3900 miles on it- still smells new.

So far, very impressed with the "solidity" of the car and the smooth and quiet ride down the highway while the computer reports 47 mpg... nice!

I'll update more as I learn more about the car and gain some ownership experience.

I need to figure out how to change my screen name- both of my Hyundai's are gone (I still have my Elantra for a few more days-until the new owner picks it up).

 

[DevilsRule]

I bought a new 2012 Cruze in November 2011. I have had it for over a year and have not had one problem. If you bought the turbo version, make sure you increase the octane in the summer months (depending on where you live). Heat soak may be a factor if it gets hot where you live. Good luck with it. If you feel that it is hesitating or lacking power in the summer then increase the octane of your fuel in the summer. You will find that it runs better. In my experience with the car, I run 93 in the summer and 87 in the winter. I have had no problems so far. I am running Mobil 1 EP for the full OCI. So far in 5000 miles, it has not burnt oil. I changed my factory oil @ 7500 miles. The Cruze is a smooth riding, "tight" vehicle that gets greast mileage in my opinion. Let me know if you need any advice milehighhyundai.

 

[sprocketser]

Congrats on new car . 47 mpg , I ll never have it with my car right now .

 

[sciphi]

That computer is a touch high, it's only really getting 44 mpg.

Congrats on getting a great fuel-sipper! At 40k miles, mine's averaged 44 mpg that entire time, and has only had a few minor problems. The trunk switches are known for going out, but they can be resuscitated and protected if not too badly damaged.

The general recommendation with the 1.4T is to change the oil when the oil life monitor says 25%, even with a full synthetic 5w-30. These little engines are murder on oil.

 

[pbm]

I've had my 2011 Cruze 1LT for almost 2 years. I only have 11K on it but that should start to change as we work it into the rotation with my children starting to drive. It has been trouble-free and is a very nice highway car. The MPG's are much lower on the 6 speed A/T version (32-34 highway) but I agree with the rest of your assessment.

If GM had gotten the MPG's a little closer to the Eco's numbers I'd rate the car a 10 out of 10 but as it is I give it an 8.

I do notice that the oil (Mobil 1 in my case) gets dark earlier than my other cars and while I know that isn't an indication of anything, I do feel the turbo beats up the oil.

I'm sticking with 5K OCI's until I start putting miles on faster...at that point I'll go to a 7.5K max. or 15% to 20% on the OLM

 

[ClutchDisc]

Originally Posted By: milehighhyundai
Hi all-

I bought a slightly used '12 Cruze Eco with a 6mt tonight. It only has 3900 miles on it- still smells new.
Nice car! I like your choice of transmission!

 

[neevers]

Mice car, I've been interested in the Cruze.

 

[otis24]

Chevrolet did a great job with the Cruze. They were a big hit with the public when I worked at a GM dealership in sales. If I needed a commuter car for long distance driving (where I live, everything is long distance) I would choose a Cruze.

 

[Tdbo]

Congratulations. I know that the Cruze Eco would be my choice in the Chevrolet line.

 

[97tbird]

Originally Posted By: neevers
Mice car, I've been interested in the Cruze.

Is it powered by a mouse wheel? I always wanted one of those

 

[Hallmark]

Recently, I rented a Cruze with AT for 10 days in Kona. I was very impressed with the ride comfort and apparently solid tank-like construction with good fit & finish. But, the engine was noisy with excessive RPMs and the tranny was constantly searching for the proper gear, all indications that the engine needed more power and/or some weight needed to be shaved from the body.

At home, I drive a 138 HP Veloster with a quieter engine, less body weight, and considerably more spirited performance while turning 30-38 mpg. While I didn't calculate the Cruze mpg figures, I recall that milegae was well into the mid-30s range...can't complain there. But, GM could certainly improve on the Cruze's engine/transmission tranquility.

 

[ClutchDisc]

Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Originally Posted By: neevers
Mice car, I've been interested in the Cruze.

Is it powered by a mouse wheel? I always wanted one of those
Oh, I thought he meant that it was a special edition sized for mice!

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: Hallmark
Recently, I rented a Cruze with AT for 10 days in Kona. I was very impressed with the ride comfort and apparently solid tank-like construction with good fit & finish. But, the engine was noisy with excessive RPMs and the tranny was constantly searching for the proper gear, all indications that the engine needed more power and/or some weight needed to be shaved from the body.

At home, I drive a 138 HP Veloster with a quieter engine, less body weight, and considerably more spirited performance while turning 30-38 mpg. While I didn't calculate the Cruze mpg figures, I recall that milegae was well into the mid-30s range...can't complain there. But, GM could certainly improve on the Cruze's engine/transmission tranquility.


The automatic transmission ruins the Cruze. It's slower, less fuel-efficient, and can shift oddly at times. The MT is the transmission of choice in this car.

The AT Cruzes also weigh about 3200-3300 lbs. The Eco MT's being discussed here weigh 3000 lbs. Combine with the gearing that lets the engine run at 1800 RPM at 60 mph, and the engine is barely audible on the highway. A 2011 Cruze automatic will turn much higher RPM's, and be more audible. IIRC it's north of 2500 RPM at 60 mph. Chevy changed the final drive ratio for the 2012 AT to make the engine turn fewer RPM's while cruising. 2011 had a 3.87 FDR, while the 2012's got a 3.53. The Eco MT has a 3.83 FDR along with steep gears 4-6 and aggressive gears 1-3. Sort of a schizophrenic gearset that still manages to work well in the real world.

I wouldn't wish a 2011 automatic Cruze onto anybody. The Eco MT is a whole different car just by adding a third pedal and all the little other myriad changes GM did.

 

[ClutchDisc]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
The automatic transmission ruins the Cruze. It's slower, less fuel-efficient, and can shift oddly at times. The MT is the transmission of choice in this car.

The AT Cruzes also weigh about 3200-3300 lbs. The Eco MT's being discussed here weigh 3000 lbs. Combine with the gearing that lets the engine run at 1800 RPM at 60 mph, and the engine is barely audible on the highway. A 2011 Cruze automatic will turn much higher RPM's, and be more audible. IIRC it's north of 2500 RPM at 60 mph. Chevy changed the final drive ratio for the 2012 AT to make the engine turn fewer RPM's while cruising. 2011 had a 3.87 FDR, while the 2012's got a 3.53. The Eco MT has a 3.83 FDR along with steep gears 4-6 and aggressive gears 1-3. Sort of a schizophrenic gearset that still manages to work well in the real world.

I wouldn't wish a 2011 automatic Cruze onto anybody. The Eco MT is a whole different car just by adding a third pedal and all the little other myriad changes GM did.

You said it well! I totally agree with you!

 

[milehigh]

Thanks all. I agree that the Eco mt is an entirely different animal. I was specifically looking for low mile used, and drove a few LT models with AT's. While I thought all of them drove nice (for a test drive), I was most excited about the car after driving a used (and abused) '11 Eco. My thoughts were that the car was tight, solid and very quiet- even for a higher mile roughly owned used unit. Having the turbo is nice especially here @ 5300' elevation.

I did a search within 500 miles and acquired this thru Carmax at their store in NE. Had it shipped in 3 days and I absolutely love it!

 

[sw99]

It's from NE? Being from CO, you know that has bad juju right? LOL, nice ride. Makes be want to attempt to consider GM possibly...Maybe.

 

[pbm]

Originally Posted By: Hallmark
Recently, I rented a Cruze with AT for 10 days in Kona. I was very impressed with the ride comfort and apparently solid tank-like construction with good fit & finish. But, the engine was noisy with excessive RPMs and the tranny was constantly searching for the proper gear, all indications that the engine needed more power and/or some weight needed to be shaved from the body.

At home, I drive a 138 HP Veloster with a quieter engine, less body weight, and considerably more spirited performance while turning 30-38 mpg. While I didn't calculate the Cruze mpg figures, I recall that milegae was well into the mid-30s range...can't complain there. But, GM could certainly improve on the Cruze's engine/transmission tranquility.


I've said it before...I think a 1.6 or 1.7L turbo would have been a better choice since the car would go into boost less often and probably save on fuel.
The A/T does settle down (stop hunting) as you accumulate miles.

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: pbm
Originally Posted By: Hallmark
Recently, I rented a Cruze with AT for 10 days in Kona. I was very impressed with the ride comfort and apparently solid tank-like construction with good fit & finish. But, the engine was noisy with excessive RPMs and the tranny was constantly searching for the proper gear, all indications that the engine needed more power and/or some weight needed to be shaved from the body.

At home, I drive a 138 HP Veloster with a quieter engine, less body weight, and considerably more spirited performance while turning 30-38 mpg. While I didn't calculate the Cruze mpg figures, I recall that milegae was well into the mid-30s range...can't complain there. But, GM could certainly improve on the Cruze's engine/transmission tranquility.


I've said it before...I think a 1.6 or 1.7L turbo would have been a better choice since the car would go into boost less often and probably save on fuel.
The A/T does settle down (stop hunting) as you accumulate miles.


I believe it's all about the gearing and aerodynamics. Those are the two major changes between your Cruze and mine. Mine's geared taller and has some extra aerodynamic aids for highway travel. From what I recall, your 2011 Cruze gets 32-33 mpg highway while my 2012 will get 45-46 mpg. Granted it's Granny Smiths to Red Delicious since yours is a "sporty"-geared AT while mine's a fuel-economy-geared MT, but it still goes to show what large effects those two differences have on otherwise identical cars.

Now if I'm totally off my rocker, please say so!

What's your RPM at 60 mph? Mine's at 1800 RPM at that speed.

 

[Hallmark]

Originally Posted By: pbm
Originally Posted By: Hallmark
Recently, I rented a Cruze with AT for 10 days in Kona. I was very impressed with the ride comfort and apparently solid tank-like construction with good fit & finish. But, the engine was noisy with excessive RPMs and the tranny was constantly searching for the proper gear, all indications that the engine needed more power and/or some weight needed to be shaved from the body.

At home, I drive a 138 HP Veloster with a quieter engine, less body weight, and considerably more spirited performance while turning 30-38 mpg. While I didn't calculate the Cruze mpg figures, I recall that milegae was well into the mid-30s range...can't complain there. But, GM could certainly improve on the Cruze's engine/transmission tranquility.


I've said it before...I think a 1.6 or 1.7L turbo would have been a better choice since the car would go into boost less often and probably save on fuel.
The A/T does settle down (stop hunting) as you accumulate miles.


Re: your last sentence. The Cruze I rented last month had only 31 miles on the odometer. Apparently, I was the first rental driver of the car.

 

[Nick R]

I can concur that the 2011 AT isn't exactly great. I've driven a few 2012s (friend, and a rental) and the tranny seems much more well sorted. And much lower RPMs at speed. My 2011 turned 2900RPM at 75mph.