Test drive report - Cruze Eco 6MT

[sciphi]

I'm highly considering a Cruze Eco 6MT for a future car purchase, so I test-drove one today. I must say, it's by far the sportiest Cruze variant. The little turbo engine really comes alive when it's not being buffered by an automatic, and acceleration is far brisker than the AT version. 60 mph from a dead stop came quickly without needing to redline the engine. The transmission was predictable, if a bit notchy. Shifting was positive and well-gated. The clutch was light and a bit numb, but the engagement point was linear and predictable. I disliked the shift knob, as it was far too big to be comfortable. The car's handling was pretty good, responding to steering inputs readily and going around corners without drama. Ride was a tiny bit more unsettled than the AT Cruze, with bumps being felt a little bit more. Really it was the difference between having a passenger and not. I'd expect that considering the car weighs 200 lbs less than an AT cruze.

The car I drove had 7 miles on it, and was averaging 29 mpg according to the on-board MPG display. Considering that's moving it around the lot, idling long periods with the A/C on, and getting tested on a test drive, that's not bad.

My final impressions: The Cruze Eco 6MT is the "jock" version of the Cruze. It's faster-feeling, a little nimbler, and a little sportier-riding than the AT versions of the Cruze. If somebody wants a sportier-feeling smaller car, give this one a look.

 

[silverrat]

Another MT win.

 

[needsducktape]

God save the manual transmission

(and no, the dual clutch doesn't count)

 

[d00df00d]

I support all of the above posts.

 

[Lead Shoes]

They look to be rather nice small cars that are fun to drive and still get good MPG, a rare double win

I will be looking at buying one when they get 2-3 years old.

 

[SLCraig]

Originally Posted By: needsducktape
God save the manual transmission

(and no, the dual clutch doesn't count)


For life!!!!

 

[The Critic]

IIRC, the Cruze Eco has a different suspension than the MT version.

 

[rat]

The only downside, at least for me is that in order to get a moonroof with the 6 speed, you have to get the leather interior trim option, and make the price jump by a few grand.

 

[IndyIan]

What was the rpm at 60mph in 6th? I find almost all the newer manual trans cars I drive have very short top gears. Hopefully the eco version doesn't!

For example an '03 Pathfinder with a VQ3.5 had the same gear ratios as my Tracker... Near 3000rpm at a 60 mph so I think you could tow 5000lbs up a 10% grade at 60mph with that ratio... Or an 03 manual Neon RT had the same top gear as my 3 speed auto Neon...

 

[sciphi]

IIRC in 6th at 60 mph the RPM's were a hair under 2000. There was a big difference between 5th and 6th. The car really came onto boost in 5th at 60 mph, and could easily climb a good hill at 2500 RPM in 5th at 60 mph.

There's a large difference between this engine being on-boost and off-boost. It's absolutely gutless below ~2200 RPM, but wakes up very nicely once the revs climb a little. It needed a downshift to do any meaningful acceleration if one was below 2000 RPM or so. Keeping 55 mph in 6th on a gentle upslope wasn't an issue, but accelerating to pass would need a shift to 4th or even 3rd.

I'll give it a pass since it's the "eco" version, and is meant to get sky-high MPG numbers, not blistering 0-60 or 40-70 times.

The "legs" on this transmission are long so the car stays off-boost as much as possible when cruising. It also makes it a riot to really nail since it can hold the higher gears longer before running out of steam. Accelerating quickly but not all out, it was topping 65 mph in 3rd and still pulling quite well before I realized how fast it was going.

 

[Spazdog]

IIRC, peak horsepower is at 4900 rpm.

I guess that is forgiveable since it is a fuel economy oriented vehicle but it does not sound like a very interesting vehicle to drive. All the useable power is in that 2000-5000 rpm band. Relatively small powerband.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
IIRC, peak horsepower is at 4900 rpm.

I guess that is forgiveable since it is a fuel economy oriented vehicle but it does not sound like a very interesting vehicle to drive. All the useable power is in that 2000-5000 rpm band. Relatively small powerband.

Well, it wouldn't be much different than your Mazda 3 though, just the torque comes on and ends 1000 rpm lower. I guess it wouldn't reward rowing through the gears like a small NA engine would but that's kind of the point of putting a turbo on it. It has a torque curve like a low tech V6 when needed, but with small 4 cyl parasitic losses when cruising.
Any time I've driven a turbo engine I'm always fascinated how the pressure and power builds and falls with throttle and rpm.

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
IIRC, peak horsepower is at 4900 rpm.

I guess that is forgiveable since it is a fuel economy oriented vehicle but it does not sound like a very interesting vehicle to drive. All the useable power is in that 2000-5000 rpm band. Relatively small powerband.


Not really, most modern engines have peak torque at around 4k RPM and peak HP at about 6.5k RPM. There is nothing forgivable about this engine.

 

[needsducktape]

I think you are missing the point. This car is meant to be practical first.

Practical > Performance


And I am ok with that- Its not like they are marketing to compete with The BMW M3...

 

[Nick R]

When I drove the automatic version a month or so ago, I thought the little 1.4L had plenty of torque even at low revs, I quite liked it. It had strong, linear power delivery.

 

[sciphi]

The AT versions are shorter-geared, so it'll feel torquier at low RPM's.

Without the buffer of the TCC, this was much more "direct" in its delivery of power.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
IIRC, peak horsepower is at 4900 rpm.

I guess that is forgiveable since it is a fuel economy oriented vehicle but it does not sound like a very interesting vehicle to drive. All the useable power is in that 2000-5000 rpm band. Relatively small powerband.

Well, it wouldn't be much different than your Mazda 3 though, just the torque comes on and ends 1000 rpm lower. I guess it wouldn't reward rowing through the gears like a small NA engine would but that's kind of the point of putting a turbo on it. It has a torque curve like a low tech V6 when needed, but with small 4 cyl parasitic losses when cruising.


It's probably more in line with my Chrysler than my Duratec30/MZI Mazda6 except the Chrysler is twisting out 245 ft lbs at 2400 rpm and you know....the Chrysler is a huge premium fuel pig. The Chrysler hits it's peak at 5100 rpm but doesn't fall off after 5100 rpm too much.

If you are trying to use the AutoStick in 1st gear, you had better slap the shifter to the right at 3000 rpm. Any later and by the time the 41TE gets around to upshifting, the tach has rocketed past 4000, 5000, 6000 and is slamming into the fuel cut.

It's just the 4900 rpm part on the Cruze. It's really only a few hundred rpm higher than the peak for the VW TDi. Seems like you would have the low revving fuel efficiency of the TDi without the extra 100ft lbs of torque. I'll have to see if I can find a Cruze eco with a manual. See if it falls on it's face at 5000 rpm or continues to pull with force like the SRT/4/PT-GT.

 

[sciphi]

I didn't get my test driver past 5k RPM's so as not to give the eventual owner a pre-beat-on car. It was pulling nicely right up to shifting at 5k RPM to test how it would accelerate at mid-range RPM's.

 

[GMBoy]

Maybe the new Chevy Spark would be better as far as MPG/value for the dollar...has the same turbo 1.4...and starts at $14,995 with a good deal of standard features.