Chevrolet Cruze gets 5% mpg increase
- Thread starter Superbuick96
- Start date
- Status
THe 24mpg city rating is still pitiful.
Originally Posted By: The Critic
THe 24mpg city rating is still pitiful.
Well, according to the GM website:
Quote:
Cruze Eco offers 42 MPG Highway
Cruze is very efficient already, offering 36 MPG highway(6). Introducing the newest member of the lineup - Cruze Eco - that offers an incredible 28 MPG city/42 highway(6). That's better gasoline fuel economy than 2011 Ford Focus, 2011 Honda Civic and 2010 Toyota Corolla(8). Cruze Eco is equipped with the powerful and efficient 1.4L turbocharged engine. Engineers then added new components to help reduce drag and improve aerodynamics.
Here is the link..go down a little ways on the page to see:
*** I am talking the eco model Cruze. Here is the other models again quoted from the GM website:
Quote:
Fuel-saving technology no compact can compete with.
Cruze has solutions most compacts don't offer. Its standard six-speed transmissions, like the manual in Cruze LS, help offer 26 MPG city and 36 highway(6). Cruze LT and LTZ have a six-speed automatic transmission and the 1.4L turbo-charged engine - a performance increase that helps Cruze offer 36 MPG highway(6). Cruze Eco offers up to 42 MPG highway based on EPA estimates(7). That's better standard highway fuel economy than 2011 Ford Focus or 2011 Honda Civic and 2010 Toyota Corolla offer(8).
Link here (read under performance section):
THe 24mpg city rating is still pitiful.
Well, according to the GM website:
Quote:
Cruze Eco offers 42 MPG Highway
Cruze is very efficient already, offering 36 MPG highway(6). Introducing the newest member of the lineup - Cruze Eco - that offers an incredible 28 MPG city/42 highway(6). That's better gasoline fuel economy than 2011 Ford Focus, 2011 Honda Civic and 2010 Toyota Corolla(8). Cruze Eco is equipped with the powerful and efficient 1.4L turbocharged engine. Engineers then added new components to help reduce drag and improve aerodynamics.
Here is the link..go down a little ways on the page to see:
*** I am talking the eco model Cruze. Here is the other models again quoted from the GM website:
Quote:
Fuel-saving technology no compact can compete with.
Cruze has solutions most compacts don't offer. Its standard six-speed transmissions, like the manual in Cruze LS, help offer 26 MPG city and 36 highway(6). Cruze LT and LTZ have a six-speed automatic transmission and the 1.4L turbo-charged engine - a performance increase that helps Cruze offer 36 MPG highway(6). Cruze Eco offers up to 42 MPG highway based on EPA estimates(7). That's better standard highway fuel economy than 2011 Ford Focus or 2011 Honda Civic and 2010 Toyota Corolla offer(8).
Link here (read under performance section):
Last edited by a moderator:
I like the look and feel of the Cruze, and its good that its reporting better MPG. I just wish I was a tad shorter(bumped my head in and out of it on test).
If you have a car thats getting good MPG's, its not worth the jump. But if you want out of a pig your not upside down on(but still paying) it may be in your interest.
If you have a car thats getting good MPG's, its not worth the jump. But if you want out of a pig your not upside down on(but still paying) it may be in your interest.
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: The Critic
THe 24mpg city rating is still pitiful.
Well, according to the GM website:
Cruze Eco offers 42 MPG Highway
Cruze is very efficient already, offering 36 MPG highway(6). Introducing the newest member of the lineup - Cruze Eco - that offers an incredible 28 MPG city/42 highway(6). That's better gasoline fuel economy than 2011 Ford Focus, 2011 Honda Civic and 2010 Toyota Corolla(8). Cruze Eco is equipped with the powerful and efficient 1.4L turbocharged engine. Engineers then added new components to help reduce drag and improve aerodynamics.
True, but the auto-trans Eco only achieves 26 mpg in the city. Most of us in densely populated urban areas need to pay attention to that city number since that is probably what we will get.
The improvements in the 2012 models are due to a taller 6th gear, which will have little or no effect at all in city driving.
So, the Cruze still has one of, if not the lowest city mpg for its class. Of course, I'm sure it drives much nicer than the Elantra that gets 29 in town, but I shouldn't have to give up 5 mpg in the city to have a car that doesn't sound like a tin can.
Originally Posted By: The Critic
THe 24mpg city rating is still pitiful.
Well, according to the GM website:
Cruze Eco offers 42 MPG Highway
Cruze is very efficient already, offering 36 MPG highway(6). Introducing the newest member of the lineup - Cruze Eco - that offers an incredible 28 MPG city/42 highway(6). That's better gasoline fuel economy than 2011 Ford Focus, 2011 Honda Civic and 2010 Toyota Corolla(8). Cruze Eco is equipped with the powerful and efficient 1.4L turbocharged engine. Engineers then added new components to help reduce drag and improve aerodynamics.
True, but the auto-trans Eco only achieves 26 mpg in the city. Most of us in densely populated urban areas need to pay attention to that city number since that is probably what we will get.
The improvements in the 2012 models are due to a taller 6th gear, which will have little or no effect at all in city driving.
So, the Cruze still has one of, if not the lowest city mpg for its class. Of course, I'm sure it drives much nicer than the Elantra that gets 29 in town, but I shouldn't have to give up 5 mpg in the city to have a car that doesn't sound like a tin can.
Originally Posted By: The Critic
So, the Cruze still has one of, if not the lowest city mpg for its class. Of course, I'm sure it drives much nicer than the Elantra that gets 29 in town, but I shouldn't have to give up 5 mpg in the city to have a car that doesn't sound like a tin can.
I was surprised when the 24/36 1.4L Cruze only returned 18 mpg on the Car and Driver 400 mile test loop (May 2011), the same as the 22/29 2.5L Mazda3. But the 29/40 1.8L Elantra didn't do a whole lot better at 20 mpg, the same as the 24/31 2.5L Jetta. The 28/38 2.0L Focus did the best at 21 mpg. All were six speed automatics except the Mazda3, which had only five speeds. I'm trusting EPA ratings less all the time, especially after the Equinox numbers were proven to be, uh, highly optimistic. I would have been inclined to purchase a 29/40 car over a 22/29 car of the same size, but if the true difference is only 2 mpg, I'd rather just ignore those numbers when making my choice.
So, the Cruze still has one of, if not the lowest city mpg for its class. Of course, I'm sure it drives much nicer than the Elantra that gets 29 in town, but I shouldn't have to give up 5 mpg in the city to have a car that doesn't sound like a tin can.
I was surprised when the 24/36 1.4L Cruze only returned 18 mpg on the Car and Driver 400 mile test loop (May 2011), the same as the 22/29 2.5L Mazda3. But the 29/40 1.8L Elantra didn't do a whole lot better at 20 mpg, the same as the 24/31 2.5L Jetta. The 28/38 2.0L Focus did the best at 21 mpg. All were six speed automatics except the Mazda3, which had only five speeds. I'm trusting EPA ratings less all the time, especially after the Equinox numbers were proven to be, uh, highly optimistic. I would have been inclined to purchase a 29/40 car over a 22/29 car of the same size, but if the true difference is only 2 mpg, I'd rather just ignore those numbers when making my choice.
The only Cruze that gets anywhere near EPA ratings is the MT Eco model. I've seen several Fuelly profiles on those specific cars reporting mid-30's MPG. It's also the only Cruze variant I'd consider. Strangely, the local dealers apparently can't keep that variant on the lots for test drives...
Patman
Staff member
I really don't understand how Canadian car makers figure out their gas mileage, as it's always higher than the figures listed in the US. For the 2011 Cruze, the GM Canada website lists the manual trans Cruze Eco as getting 4.6L per 100km on the highway, or 51.1 miles per US gallon! Even the automatic version is listed at 5.1L per 100km, or 46.1 MPG!
Chevrolet is not alone here, as Honda Canada lists the highway fuel economy on the new Civics as being 5.0L per 100km (for the 5 speed automatic) or 47 MPG! I know that's considerably higher than the rating on the US Honda website.
Chevrolet is not alone here, as Honda Canada lists the highway fuel economy on the new Civics as being 5.0L per 100km (for the 5 speed automatic) or 47 MPG! I know that's considerably higher than the rating on the US Honda website.
Originally Posted By: Patman
I really don't understand how Canadian car makers figure out their gas mileage, as it's always higher than the figures listed in the US. For the 2011 Cruze, the GM Canada website lists the manual trans Cruze Eco as getting 4.6L per 100km on the highway, or 51.1 miles per US gallon! Even the automatic version is listed at 5.1L per 100km, or 46.1 MPG!
Chevrolet is not alone here, as Honda Canada lists the highway fuel economy on the new Civics as being 5.0L per 100km (for the 5 speed automatic) or 47 MPG! I know that's considerably higher than the rating on the US Honda website.
Very strange...
I really don't understand how Canadian car makers figure out their gas mileage, as it's always higher than the figures listed in the US. For the 2011 Cruze, the GM Canada website lists the manual trans Cruze Eco as getting 4.6L per 100km on the highway, or 51.1 miles per US gallon! Even the automatic version is listed at 5.1L per 100km, or 46.1 MPG!
Chevrolet is not alone here, as Honda Canada lists the highway fuel economy on the new Civics as being 5.0L per 100km (for the 5 speed automatic) or 47 MPG! I know that's considerably higher than the rating on the US Honda website.
Very strange...
Originally Posted By: Patman
I really don't understand how Canadian car makers figure out their gas mileage, as it's always higher than the figures listed in the US. For the 2011 Cruze, the GM Canada website lists the manual trans Cruze Eco as getting 4.6L per 100km on the highway, or 51.1 miles per US gallon! Even the automatic version is listed at 5.1L per 100km, or 46.1 MPG!
Chevrolet is not alone here, as Honda Canada lists the highway fuel economy on the new Civics as being 5.0L per 100km (for the 5 speed automatic) or 47 MPG! I know that's considerably higher than the rating on the US Honda website.
They must've gone the opposite direction of EPA then.
When I bought my Mazda 3 in 2006 it was rated at 9.2 L/100KM (25.6 US MPG) city and 6.1 L/100KM (38.6 US MPG) highway. This is pretty much what I get, my city mileage stands at 9.5 L/100KM and all my highway trips yielded about 6.1 to 6.3 L/100KM with AC on and averaging 120-130 km/h.
Now I see Camry and Accord, in 4-cyl variants, rated very closely to my Mazda and I can't help but wonder who on earth believes these numbers?
I really don't understand how Canadian car makers figure out their gas mileage, as it's always higher than the figures listed in the US. For the 2011 Cruze, the GM Canada website lists the manual trans Cruze Eco as getting 4.6L per 100km on the highway, or 51.1 miles per US gallon! Even the automatic version is listed at 5.1L per 100km, or 46.1 MPG!
Chevrolet is not alone here, as Honda Canada lists the highway fuel economy on the new Civics as being 5.0L per 100km (for the 5 speed automatic) or 47 MPG! I know that's considerably higher than the rating on the US Honda website.
They must've gone the opposite direction of EPA then.
When I bought my Mazda 3 in 2006 it was rated at 9.2 L/100KM (25.6 US MPG) city and 6.1 L/100KM (38.6 US MPG) highway. This is pretty much what I get, my city mileage stands at 9.5 L/100KM and all my highway trips yielded about 6.1 to 6.3 L/100KM with AC on and averaging 120-130 km/h.
Now I see Camry and Accord, in 4-cyl variants, rated very closely to my Mazda and I can't help but wonder who on earth believes these numbers?
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
They must've gone the opposite direction of EPA then.
When I bought my Mazda 3 in 2006 it was rated at 9.2 L/100KM (25.6 US MPG) city and 6.1 L/100KM (38.6 US MPG) highway. This is pretty much what I get, my city mileage stands at 9.5 L/100KM and all my highway trips yielded about 6.1 to 6.3 L/100KM with AC on and averaging 120-130 km/h.
Now I see Camry and Accord, in 4-cyl variants, rated very closely to my Mazda and I can't help but wonder who on earth believes these numbers?
Are they too high or too low?
In my case, I usually exceed the US EPA numbers. My Camry is rated 22 city/32 highway, and I average about 29-30 with it. What is a 2011 2.5/6AT Camry rated in Canada?
They must've gone the opposite direction of EPA then.
When I bought my Mazda 3 in 2006 it was rated at 9.2 L/100KM (25.6 US MPG) city and 6.1 L/100KM (38.6 US MPG) highway. This is pretty much what I get, my city mileage stands at 9.5 L/100KM and all my highway trips yielded about 6.1 to 6.3 L/100KM with AC on and averaging 120-130 km/h.
Now I see Camry and Accord, in 4-cyl variants, rated very closely to my Mazda and I can't help but wonder who on earth believes these numbers?
Are they too high or too low?
In my case, I usually exceed the US EPA numbers. My Camry is rated 22 city/32 highway, and I average about 29-30 with it. What is a 2011 2.5/6AT Camry rated in Canada?
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
They must've gone the opposite direction of EPA then.
When I bought my Mazda 3 in 2006 it was rated at 9.2 L/100KM (25.6 US MPG) city and 6.1 L/100KM (38.6 US MPG) highway. This is pretty much what I get, my city mileage stands at 9.5 L/100KM and all my highway trips yielded about 6.1 to 6.3 L/100KM with AC on and averaging 120-130 km/h.
Now I see Camry and Accord, in 4-cyl variants, rated very closely to my Mazda and I can't help but wonder who on earth believes these numbers?
Are they too high or too low?
In my case, I usually exceed the US EPA numbers. My Camry is rated 22 city/32 highway, and I average about 29-30 with it. What is a 2011 2.5/6AT Camry rated in Canada?
When I bought my car the fuel rating was very accurate, at least in my case for my car.
But current numbers seem to optimistic.
The Canadian Toyota website lists 4 cyl Camry at 9.0 L/100Km (26.1 US gal) city and 6.0 L/100KM (39.2 US gal) highway.
This is what my Mazda 3 gets and there is no way that a Camry can match my Mazda in same driving conditions, so the test method must've been relaxed to show higher fuel economy for the test, but it will be hard to achieve in normal driving conditions.
http://www.toyota.ca/toyota/en/vehicles/camry/specifications/capacity
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
They must've gone the opposite direction of EPA then.
When I bought my Mazda 3 in 2006 it was rated at 9.2 L/100KM (25.6 US MPG) city and 6.1 L/100KM (38.6 US MPG) highway. This is pretty much what I get, my city mileage stands at 9.5 L/100KM and all my highway trips yielded about 6.1 to 6.3 L/100KM with AC on and averaging 120-130 km/h.
Now I see Camry and Accord, in 4-cyl variants, rated very closely to my Mazda and I can't help but wonder who on earth believes these numbers?
Are they too high or too low?
In my case, I usually exceed the US EPA numbers. My Camry is rated 22 city/32 highway, and I average about 29-30 with it. What is a 2011 2.5/6AT Camry rated in Canada?
When I bought my car the fuel rating was very accurate, at least in my case for my car.
But current numbers seem to optimistic.
The Canadian Toyota website lists 4 cyl Camry at 9.0 L/100Km (26.1 US gal) city and 6.0 L/100KM (39.2 US gal) highway.
This is what my Mazda 3 gets and there is no way that a Camry can match my Mazda in same driving conditions, so the test method must've been relaxed to show higher fuel economy for the test, but it will be hard to achieve in normal driving conditions.
http://www.toyota.ca/toyota/en/vehicles/camry/specifications/capacity
Last edited:
Thanks for your reply.
A Camry could probably squeak that out under some very ideal circumstances, but not under prevailing highway conditions, where speeds are 70-75mph, etc. I average closer to 33-34mpg with mine when traveling at high speed like that.
The city rating seems closer to reality to me. The worst tank ever on my car was 26mpg, and most are in the 27-30mpg range. But again, my "city" and your "city" and someone else's "city" are all different.
A Camry could probably squeak that out under some very ideal circumstances, but not under prevailing highway conditions, where speeds are 70-75mph, etc. I average closer to 33-34mpg with mine when traveling at high speed like that.
The city rating seems closer to reality to me. The worst tank ever on my car was 26mpg, and most are in the 27-30mpg range. But again, my "city" and your "city" and someone else's "city" are all different.
I think the mileage test for Canada is significantly different than the EPA one. Our speed limits are lower, 80kmh(50mph) and 100kmh(62mph) which helps abit I guess.
Twinned highways in Saskatchewan and Alberta are 110 km/hr (68 mph).
I've always viewed the EPA numbers as the mileage a person would get driving 80 mph on the highway with the A/C on and racing from stop light to stop light in the city, while the Canadian numbers are about what you'd get by driving more conservatively. But after discovering that unrealistic shift points are mandated for manual transmissions and that some manufacturers game their automatics specifically for EPA test conditions, I have trouble taking them as seriously as I once did. Of course, those Car and Driver numbers are well below what I would experience, so I'm not sure that those apply to my driving style either. I guess you just have to look at as much information as you can and form a subjective opinion.
I've always viewed the EPA numbers as the mileage a person would get driving 80 mph on the highway with the A/C on and racing from stop light to stop light in the city, while the Canadian numbers are about what you'd get by driving more conservatively. But after discovering that unrealistic shift points are mandated for manual transmissions and that some manufacturers game their automatics specifically for EPA test conditions, I have trouble taking them as seriously as I once did. Of course, those Car and Driver numbers are well below what I would experience, so I'm not sure that those apply to my driving style either. I guess you just have to look at as much information as you can and form a subjective opinion.
- Status
