2011 Chevrolet Cruze LTZ: The Ultimate Hot Weather MPG Test - Regular vs. Premium

great info! dispels the notion of cheaper gas saves money (in this case, at least)
i say, every car on the fleet should have a few tanks of different-test gas thrown in the mix. i'd love to hear other car's results, turbo v n/a, hybrid, etc.

dispels the myth that turbos run as well on regular gas.

I noticed the same difference in my '04 Impala on a roadtrip after I mistakenly put in a tank of premium instead of regular. I went from 30 MPG to over 32 MPG. Older car and normally aspirated motor compared to the Cruz, but still, the premium fuel did seem make a difference. At today's higher gas prices it is enough to warrant the use of premium and actually even same some at the pump and get better performance.

wow, I didn't see that coming.

could you feel a difference in the power with the two grades of gas?

The only way this would be irrefutable is if you did the same trip, with similar conditions/weather, and drove pretty much exactly the same on both trips, which is unlikely, to understate it.
Interesting results, though.

Thumbses up for informative post.

How is this result surprising when the PREMIUM fuel was used during the EPA test?

In other words... you are not likely to achieve the EPA numbers with REGULAR fuel even the car is certified to run on it.

Get it people? The EPA numbers were achieved by using PREMIUM fuel.

Excellent test - that's LOTS of miles, much more than most tests 'one tank of this, one tank of that' approach. Confirms my thought that turbos should get premium.

louiswei,

Are you sure the EPA test used premium? In its "fuel cost" calculations, the EPA uses the cost of regular fuel (it uses $3.67) for the Cruze 1.4 instead of premium (which it puts at $3.91).

A month in Death Valley? At this time of year? Spy shot hunting, I guess?

Im getting shit gas mileage in my truck this summer compared to last summer and I've tried a lot of things I think I'm going to do a tank of 93octane just to see worst case scenario I lose 4 dollars

Great, informative post. Chevy recommends premium for the 2.4L in my Chevy HHR. Where I live, the difference between premium and unleaded is 26 cents; assuming I put 13 gallons in my 16 gallon tank, the difference is $3.38.

In South Carolina, we don't experience Death Valley temperatures.

I have observed the same in my 05 Infiniti G35x and I live in much cooler temperate New England. The owner's manual says it can run on regular 87 octane gas, while it also suggests to use premium gasoline for maximum performance. I have done this test quite a few times, and have oberved 40-60 miles more per fill-up when using higher octane gasoline when compared to the 87 octane grade. In the end, I calculated that I save atleast $3.50-$4.00 per fill-up with premium gas. And also the power delivery response is much smoother with premium gas. It is a win-win situation. I have also observed better gas mileage, when I have filled up from branded gas station (Mobil, Shell etc.) than un-branded gas stations. Hence the 40-60 miles/tank range commented above.

I agree with the others who have observed better economy with premium. My last car was a '99 Galant with a 3L V6 that recommended premium. In Chicago winters I tried regular, mid-grade, and premium fuels and noted approximately 0.5 MPG (city) difference between each grade. Based on prices at the time, it was financially a wash so I stuck with premium.

So this post doesn't surprise me at all. I'd further say that as fuel prices rise, as long as the difference between regular & premium remains 20-26 cents/gallon, premium will be come an even better "bargain" from an economy standpoint for cars that benefit from it since the percent difference in price will shrink.

Congrats and thanks for a very worthwhile test. I have also noticed a very slight improvement in mpg when running premium in my Sonata 2.0T versus regular.

If its available at your gas station try mixing-in a bit of E85 to regular gas.. I usually do about 1 gallon in a 10 gallon fillup, thats enough to get rid of slight pinging climbing a hill in the summer. A huge boost in octane at lower cost. Back when you could get pure gasoline the addition of E85 was even more effective, now the blenders are using the ethanol to adjust the octane of regular gas to 87 so you lose some of the benefit. Some people like to mix in about 20% with better results.

Pure ethanol has an octane rating of about 106, once its adulterated with 15% gasoline it drops to 96 octane.

So, are you ready to officially withdraw your advice to use regular in the GTI, yet?

If 91 will get you better mpg in a turbo car that is nominally at least designed to run on 87, just think how much better mpg it will deliver (than using 87) in a car that is supposed to actually have 91!

Waiting...tick, tick, tick...

This is the PERFECT reason that Chevy was stupid to put a Turbo engine in an economy car. I would be pissed to see that I HAD to put in premium in a cheap car like a Cruze. A Vette or a CTS no problem.....but this car? Dream on.

BB, better get used to it. All the carmakers are jumping on the 'if it moves put a turbo on it' bandwagon. I imagine they get better mpgs on the EPA test, but I have my doubts about real-life driving, compared to an NA engine of equal power.

bodyblue says:
07:56 AM, 09/ 9/11
This is the PERFECT reason that Chevy was stupid to put a Turbo engine in an economy car. I would be pissed to see that I HAD to put in premium in a cheap car like a Cruze. A Vette or a CTS no problem.....but this car? Dream on.

This is a silly rant. You don't HAVE to use premium fuel. The ECU is perfectly capable of retarding timing. What they're saying is that if you WANT to save money, you'll use premium fuel because the engine has been tuned for it. But if that angers you, by all means fill up with 87.

Wonder if this would work on Fiat 500 that also suggest premium for best performance.

When is the EPA going to update their horrible testing standards?? What is the point when the numbers are so wrong for so many cars? All of GM's 4 cylinders get nowhere near their highway estimates. I know it, you know, GM knows it...

My car, which has a turbo four cyl has an EPA est of about 20 or 21 city and 28 or 29 highway... Guess what?! It never gets worse than 21-22 in the worst traffic, and always gets around 28-30 on the highway. You see, pretty simple.

"This is a silly rant. You don't HAVE to use premium fuel. The ECU is perfectly capable of retarding timing. What they're saying is that if you WANT to save money, you'll use premium fuel because the engine has been tuned for it. But if that angers you, by all means fill up with 87. "

It is silly to expect an economy car to be able to get its best MPGs on the cheapest fuel? Other car makers dont do it in their cheapest cars....why did GM? Oh thats right....it sounds cool to say it has a turbo. If this was a performance car then using 91 is expected, but this is not a performance car...in fact it is a bit of a dog....so dont be angry at me....its GMs fault.

I have also noticed increased fuel mileage when I use premium in my HHR-SS, as opposed to mid grade fuel. The difference is about 2-3 miles per gallon in my typical 120 mile round trip commute. I now only put premium in the car.

@stoppre75, couldn't agree more. Plus, even on a car that only requires 87, what is there to lose by making it take advantage of higher-octane fuel?

@texases, not all the carmakers. Chrysler in particular stands out as not seeming interested in forced induction except in specialized cases.

What's interesting to me is that this is one of the many ways that Volvo has quietly led the industry -- no other automaker has offered forced-induction across their entire engine lineup for longer, notwithstanding their Yamaha-made V8 that Ford made them use during the time that everyone in the US was clamoring for a V8 in an SUV.

Esoterica: I guess you dont understand what economy cars are all about. Cheap operation. If this was a BMW 328 then fine...put the best fuel in it. But GMs marketing department like the sound of "Turbo" in this price range.....a stupid decision as indicated above from the desert experience. And just where in the GM owners manual does it say that the best MPGs and desert performance will be realized on 91? Just saying "best performance on 91" does not make it. How many people would be interested BEFORE buying a Cruze that you need to use 91? Think a lot of salespeople talk about that fact? Of course not....they talk about how nice the Cruze is and how good of MPGs it gets.......Again if this was a Vette or some kind of SS model of the Cruze then it would be no big deal....Ford or Hyundai or Kia or Toyota or Nissan or Honda dont play this game in this price range.....nor should they. But then again they are not GM.

PS Saab was using Turbos at the same time if not longer than Volvo.

@ bradyholt,

Yes, I am 100% positively sure that EPA used premium fuel, I have an email from EPA to back that up.

texases: I agree with what you said.....when you are in the boost MPGs go down....but as of yet for small economy cars in the US, GM is the only one doing it....now it is in the Sonic as well.

I call BS on these cost numbers. Premium is only 22 cents a gallon more than regular in Phoenix?

In Northern California it is 50 cents more a gallon.

Turbocharging seems to be a mixed bag. Some cars seem so lousy relative to their EPA estimates, and some seem so exceptional.

Hyundai/Kia offers a turbo 2.0 that Edmunds.com can't seem to get to its EPA ratings. Their Cruze doesn't seem capable of hitting its EPA estimates either. They just bought an Explorer with the Ecoboost 2.0 too; we'll see how that works out. (Interestingly, their Buick CXL turbo EXCEEDS its EPA estimates... And their old Cooper S was able to exceed its ratings too.)

@pc123456

Nope, completely right. Usually it's only 10c more for each different level, so 22 is more than normal. Oh noes, a whole 2 cents, I know, but still. Too bad we still only have 91 :(

This is why I usually just throw premium in. Seems to give a pretty decent chunk better mileage, and more power never hurts either. Offsets the price difference nicely, I think.

interesting results. i would like to know the average daily temperature during the operation of the vehicle both months though. it seems that would be a data point that could dispell the mpg gain if the temps during operation in month 1 were warmer than month 2. avg daily temp won't do if the car was driven at noon every day on regular and dawn/dusk on premium, need to know the temp when the car was being driven.

In TX it's 30 cents difference, pretty much all brands. So it'd be breakeven here, I'd still go for premium.

can you guys test this on an NA car?

Yes, drive-away power was notably improved, though "brought back to normal," is probably a more accurate description. There's a case to be made for using premium in hot weather on this basis alone.

We are planning on doing something similar with our other long-term cars, including NA (normally aspirated) ones and some with larger displacements.

I just looked on gasbuddy.com for San Francisco - regular looked to be $3.85 and premium about $4.05. Eureka, CA was $4.10 and $4.30. Where is it $.50 more for premium?

Of course, here it is $3.63 for regular and $3.83 for premium. Oh, yeah - and that's full service. And the premium is 93, not 91...

I typicaly use mid grade or premium in my Jetta 1.8T during the hot summer months, then go back to regular in the winter. I did the same thing with my Taurus SHO V8 and for my old Saab 900 turbo.

Here in the Chicago suburbs the price difference between 87 & 92-93 octane (all of it E10, BTW) runs from 20 to about 35 cents. Probably 60% or more of the station are 20 cents; 10 cents for each bump: regular to mid-grade and again to premium. Some, and BP & Shell are the worst offenders around me, jump by as much as 16 cents/grade.

@bodyblue, your anti-GM bias has been well noted in the past, as have your ad hominem arguments. "I guess you dont understand what economy cars are all about." I do. However as long as we're engaging in ad hominem again, I'll presume you don't understand what octane ratings mean. A higher octane fuel is more resistant to compression ignition, which a turbocharged car can take particular advantage of by adjusting not only the timing, but also the wastegate. Just because it runs more efficiently under certain conditions with higher octane fuel does not mean they're leaving efficiency on the table at lower octanes.

I'll put it another way: I got under 26mpg average in a rental Nissan Versa hatchback driving from LA to Phoenix and back (the first and last time I ever rent one of those). The difference is that I didn't have the option of increasing my fuel economy by switching to premium.

But I can see why in the interest of having a vendetta against GM that you would prefer to look at it as the glass 10% empty.

P.S. I did not say Volvo was the first to use turbocharging, but you're more than welcome to reframe the argument if it's that necessary for you to be right about something.

Great info, IL. Thanks for dispelling two common myths: a) that turbos can run well on regular and b) that premium costs more.

@ BB

Sure, premium may cost more at the pump, but if you look at it, it costs LESS per mile, thereby justifying it's use in this car. I get that it's an economy car, therefore people are trying to save monies. Therefore, if they want to save the most, they should fill up with premium as it will cost them less per mile. Not sure what part of this you don't get. If people REALLY want to save money over the long haul, they will do some simple maths and realize that while it costs more at the pump, premium will cost them less long term. Unless of course, your gas prices vary from this and the maths don't work out in favor of Premium. In which case, your point is valid. But here where I live, gas prices are for the most part the same as what IL has posted. So your argument that because it's an economy car it should run on premium is an invalid argument here, seeing as running it on premium is actually CHEAPER than running it on regular.

"@bodyblue, your anti-GM bias has been well noted in the past, as have your ad hominem arguments. "

I am glad you took the time to look up "ad hominem" as you are a pro in doing that.

"P.S. I did not say Volvo was the first to use turbocharging, but you're more than welcome to reframe the argument if it's that necessary for you to be right about something."

LOL that is not what you said....let me refresh your memory:

"What's interesting to me is that this is one of the many ways that Volvo has quietly led the industry -- no other automaker has offered forced-induction across their entire engine lineup for longer, "

I said that Saab used turbos longer...no re-framing required....

Speaking of re-framing arguments....I know exactly what RON ratings means......THE POINT was that an economy car should not REQUIRE 91 to run at its best as the Cruze has too. A person buying such an underwhelming performing car forced to put the most expensive fuel in it is stupid. Your argument with the Versa is a non sequitur ...it has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

"But I can see why in the interest of having a vendetta against GM that you would prefer to look at it as the glass 10% empty."

LOL another GM apologist-whiner! If Ford or Hyundai does such a thing then I will trash them too. I dont have lips attached to the ass of any car company.

texases says:
08:05 AM, 09/ 9/11
BB, better get used to it. All the carmakers are jumping on the 'if it moves put a turbo on it' bandwagon. I imagine they get better mpgs on the EPA test, but I have my doubts about real-life driving, compared to an NA engine of equal power.

I beg to differ, altho the juke is RATED at 27 I never get that... I average a solid 23 in oklahoma temps... When compard to other "sporty cars" like the less powerful kia forte, tc, or other cars with around this much power you see that the juke is getting REAL world mpg that's the same as the other cars RATED mpg... Btw I have a lead foot and have NEVER achieved epa jn the city w/ any car

"So your argument that because it's an economy car it should run on premium is an invalid argument here, seeing as running it on premium is actually CHEAPER than running it on regular."

Team, what part of "an economy car should not need to run on Premium to run at its best" AND "no other car in its class has the same requirement" dont YOU understand? I totally get the part that 91 makes a turbo engine run better...a no brainer......another no brainer is that economy cars should be AS ECONOMICAL as possible to run. An Elantra get the same or better MPGs (better than when the Cruze is in heavy boost) on 87 every single day...hot or cold....A Focus has more HP and almost the same tq on 87. Just like I said when the MPG numbers IL first started posting....a turbo engine is stupid for this heavy little car...what more proof do people need?

IF I were to spend 33K like IL did for the Eco-Boost Explorer (which I would never do) then I would not mind as much to put 91 in it as I would expect a big heavy car with a small turbo engine to need it. But to expect to put 91 in a car like the Cruze is crazy. Now do you get what I am saying?

bobyblue: If you're so upset about the availability of a Turbo engine that performs better on premium in a compact car, just get the Cruze with the NA engine. You're also making another mistake that I think a lot of Americans make, in that you insist on calling the Cruze an "economy" car. It's a small car, but as IL's test car shows, small does not have to mean "economy".

"I said that Saab used turbos longer...no re-framing required...."

Since you've now not read what I said twice, I said "across their entire engine lineup." Or perhaps you're just trying to call one engine a "lineup."

"THE POINT was that an economy car should not REQUIRE 91 to run at its best as the Cruze has too."

First, "to." Second, if a car doesn't run more efficiently on 91 than on 87, it's leaving efficiency on the table. So you're either asking GM to make the car run less efficiently than possible on 91 octane, or you're asking GM to break the laws of physics.

"A person buying such an underwhelming performing car forced to put the most expensive fuel in it is stupid."

Your definition of "forced" is clearly different from everyone else's.

"Your argument with the Versa is a non sequitur ...it has nothing to do with the matter at hand."

Au contraire, but since the point clearly escaped you, I'll spell it out: the Versa is a smaller, lighter vehicle with a similar power-to-weight ratio that gets equally underwhelming fuel economy as the Cruze under similar circumstances on 87 octane. But because the Cruze is turbocharged, it gives you the option of increasing the fuel economy by using higher octanes. The Versa does not. And yet you think it's "stupid to put a Turbo engine in an economy car."

"equally underwhelming fuel economy"

Really? You base your argument only on your experience of driving it ONE time? Hardly a scientific sample. If you know of a test where both car were tested in the same conditions then please feel free use that as an example of what you said above. Until then it is a "non sequitur".

"Your definition of "forced" is clearly different from everyone else's. "

If you MUST put 91 in a car to get the best performance AND you want that performance what other word should be used?

"First, "to." Second, if a car doesn't run more efficiently on 91 than on 87, it's leaving efficiency on the table. So you're either asking GM to make the car run less efficiently than possible on 91 octane, or you're asking GM to break the laws of physics."

No, I am asking them not to put such an engine in a economy car like the Cruze. That point escapes you. All you are doing is defending that a turbo engine will be more efficient on 91 than 87...a point I concede. You are so enamored of GM that you wont even concede that it just MIGHT have been a wrong choice of engines for a small economy car. (maybe that is why they hedged their bets and offer two engines in the Cruze)

GM is not infallible....they make mistakes and this just might have been one of them. If you can't even consider that might be the case then I dont know what to tell you. You the same dodges and feints that another "defend GM to the limit" poster use to use. He would be proud.

"bobyblue: If you're so upset about the availability of a Turbo engine that performs better on premium in a compact car, just get the Cruze with the NA engine. You're also making another mistake that I think a lot of Americans make, in that you insist on calling the Cruze an "economy" car. It's a small car, but as IL's test car shows, small does not have to mean "economy". "

I am not upset about anything.....I just think it is stupid to put such a small turbo in ,yes, a small economy car. Any car offered as a MPG leader is an "economy" car one would assume, right? I would have no problem with the 2.4 Ecotec in the Cruze at all. But using such a small overworked engine in such a tubby little car was a bad decision IMO.

Anyway there is not a lot more to be said.....I think the Cruze Turbo is silly to require 91 to get its best performance. I do think that most people wont actually care since they just put 87 in it anyway and rarely push their cars to the limit as IL does to their cars once in a while. NObody but GM does it that way and there seems to be a reason why....but that does not matter to GM fanbois. Oh well.

I look forward to the Explorer and how it performs under the lead foot of IL editors. I bet it will be the same as the Cruise...far below its EPA estimates.

"Really? You base your argument only on your experience of driving it ONE time? Hardly a scientific sample. If you know of a test where both car were tested in the same conditions then please feel free use that as an example of what you said above. Until then it is a "non sequitur"."

I'm sorry, this coming from the person who just made the purely hypothetical conjecture, "An Elantra get the same or better MPGs (better than when the Cruze is in heavy boost) on 87 every single day...hot or cold"? My assessment is based on personally driving a Versa 800 miles in almost all 110-degree heat. Your assessment is based on … well, absolutely nothing.

"You are so enamored of GM that you wont even concede that it just MIGHT have been a wrong choice of engines for a small economy car."

And you ignore the fact that when comparing apples to apples the 1.4T gets better EPA fuel economy than the 1.8NA. Of course, you're welcome to wildly conjecture about what scenarios might hypothetically make that not true, and clearly hypocrisy would never stand in your way of doing such.

"You the same dodges and feints that another "defend GM to the limit" poster use to use. He would be proud."

One would think you would have bothered to at least look up "ad hominem" by now. Or "irony."

"Team, what part of "an economy car should not need to run on Premium to run at its best" AND "no other car in its class has the same requirement" dont YOU understand? "

Hmm...I don't have an issue with an economy car running on premium if it is offering better economy. VW sells a ton of turbo Golfs in Europe with 1.8T engines. They seem to be extremely popular. They also are highly praised. A friend drove one when on vacation in Germany, said it was better than the Jetta 2.5 he owns. I don't have an issue putting premium in the tank of an economy car. Maybe we'll just agree to disagree there.

"An Elantra get the same or better MPGs (better than when the Cruze is in heavy boost) on 87 every single day...hot or cold...."

Nice 1487 fact, BB. There is no proof that the Elantra could achieve "the same or better MPGs" when driven in the same conditions as the Cruze, over the same period of time, for the same distance. I'd love for IL to test them both and see what the results are, but until then, your argument is pure speculation. A hypothesis, if you will. Is it a well thought out hypothesis? Yes, given that the Elantra has superior mpgs to the Cruze on the EPA scale. That said, until there is factual evidence to support said hypothesis, your argument is weak but stable at best.

I'm not saying that this car's particular engine was well thought out either, as the GM 1.8T lags the VW 1.6TSI in combined fuel economy (40 mpg (imperial) vs 45 mpg (imperial)) and bhp (140 vs 160). However I don't subscribe to your belief that economy cars should not have to run on premium.

^ Edit: The VW engines I'm referring to is the 1.4TSI Twincharged one (not a 1.8 or 1.6).

I remember when the 3rd generation Altima came out in 02, all the car mags bashed Nissan for daring to suggest recommending premium fuel for peak performance and fuel economy. Chevy says it so it is ok? I realize we as tax payers own more share of GM than we do of Nissan, but I still think that's a bit biased. Nissan in the case of the Altima and most of its cars since the 02 Altima has only recommended not required premium fuel for their cars.

The only Nissans that Nissan says require premium fuel is the Z and GTR.

I think this has gone far enough. None of us here are scientists or engineers (at least i presume, for now, at none of us are). It's normal for us to run into new facts everyday. That said, there seems to be one of us here who's incapable of appreciating an interesting piece of info that IL has just supplied.

Fact of the matter is, in higher-end vehicles, switching over to smaller displacement turbos over the original larger displacement NA engines is, indeed, already becomming the norm for the sake of better fuel economy to go along with the performance (like what we're seeing in BMW M and AMG). To emphasize: the important part of this is the higher fuel economy compared to the NA counterparts.

I'm no fan of American car companies, but I don't think any of us should blame Chevy for trying out the same principle in a small car. Turbo gives more torque, so its easier to get up to speed than an NA that you'd have to rev more. True, on engines w/ the SAME displacement, a turbo will drink more gas, but if offset by smaller displacement, it seems to be that case, in application, that it provides better economy. In turn, on a car this size, given an NA 1.4 (hypothetically, since no such NA 1.4L exists on a stock Cruze) , I'd expect fuel economy to be worse since it just wont have the torque to pull the bulk, so you'd have to rev the shit out of it all the time.

Thus, why even complain about the turbo on an economy car if its offset by the displacement, and that the NA version of the smaller engine is unlikely to return better mpg's 'cause it doesn't have enough torque to run efficiently? If it works, then we'll be seeing more for the same application in the future soon enough. I'll confess that it's a fact that I don't really like 'cause I, myself, love high revving NA engines and still think they have a place in the economy car segment as a tuning enthusiast's option. But if a turbo w/ smaller displacement gets better economy, then it belongs on an economy car. Simple logic!

That said, I agree entirely that trying to ask a car company to build an engine that runs more efficiently on lower octane gas is asking them to defy the laws of physics. Engines will always run better (in general, not in any particular criteria) on higher RON gas. The POSSIBLE (I'm not assuming anything, for sure, just yet) misconception that IL seems to be implying through this post and with possible future tests is that there's an assumption that more octane = more expensive and, therefore, octane is purely a speed and power jungle juice, and that it MUST, therefore, be mutually exclusive to fuel economy; that cheaper MUST be more fuel economic. One of us here exemplifies this mentality and won't let it go no matter what. Admittedly, this one instance isn't conclusive, but that doesn't mean that the usual commonsensical position is any more correct:

Fact of the matter is that octane is an overall quality enhancement to fuel, not just in outright performance. It may surprise our common sensibilities that the more expensive fuel may result in better economy, but we should also look back at our presuppositions and see the fundamentally fallacious assumption we made: we've been misled by the idea that octane is too often advertized or presented by motorsport solely for its performance enhancements. We never tried standing back and seeing that it is a quality enhancer for fuel, not merely a speed additive. It shouldn't surprise us, then, that better performing fuel may result in better fuel economy, and that if prices permit, helps save some money in the long run.

I say, then, that IL should do the same test on an NA car of the same class so we can see if the same conclusion follows. As a hypothesis (a necessary part of the scientific method), I'd say that even on an NA, we'll be seeing better fuel economy numbers, although not necessarily bigger savings, which depend on regional price differences. That said, if prices do not permit you to take advantage of this, then buy regular gas! No use whining about what you, nor Chevy, nor any car company are unable to change: better fuel is better fuel, not just faster fuel.

@damaje, so you agree that it make sense for higher octane to allow for better efficiency, but you're chastising people for agreeing? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I don't think that any of the people here who understand physics (and that obviously includes Dan Edmunds) would have argued against the Altima several years ago.

@dghstlstrdp, Dan Edmunds worked as a chassis engineer at Hyundai.

Isn't anyone else questioning IL's testing methodology here? Anecdotal at best. Hardly a controlled testing environment. There were many variables over the two months that affected the results.

I had a new '06 HHR 2LT when they first came out (2.4 EcoTec 4AT). The manual said premium fuel was "recommended" as with this new Cruz.

After running a couple of tanks of 92/93 octane (Pennsylvania), it managed to average about 4 MPG better mileage.

On a trip from my place in Bellwood, PA to Niagra Falls Canada and back (and getting lost for an hour), the trip computer turned 511 miles as I pulled onto my street, and the low fuel light came on. I filled up the next morning at 512 miles, and it only took about 14.5 gallons to fill it; roughly 35 MPG. Since mine was an early model, it wasn't yet EPA rated, but GM posted 30 MPG highway on the sticker. 2008 EPA changes later dropped that number to 28 MPG.

If you map out that trip, you'll find it's nowhere near being a non-stop, all highway trip. If it would've been, I probably could've squeaked out 37+ MPG. Oh, and when I realized I was lost, I drove at full throttle for about 20 minutes to get back to the point where I made the wrong turn. Taking that into consideration, I might've squeaked out closer to 40 MPG.

Wow, everyone is worried about how IL tested the MPG, but has anyone tried this themselves? I have! My car on a tank of 87 octane gas can go 325 miles tops before I have to fill up (gas light on and everything) And I measured this as the 2nd full tank of 87 octane I used.

Then I did the same thing 2 tanks full of 93 octane from sunoco. By the 2nd tank, my car was able to get 415 miles before the gas light went on, and this was similar driving patterns.

My car sounds better with the higher octane under WOT, feels more powerful but that's just seat of my pants and definitely goes farther on a tank of gas.

I agree with IL's testing and have known this for years. Even my old 1984 chevy cavalier did much better on premium than regular.

The mileage increase alone is worth it financially, and you have the added benefit of more power and a cleaner sounding engine.

Talking about fallacies, just remembered how common was for 1487 the ad populum argument! Ha!

"Fact of the matter is that octane is an overall quality enhancement to fuel, not just in outright performance."

Really? I would like any links to read about that. I have spent the last two days on this subject all over the internet. Nowhere have I see where there is any difference in refining and cracking of gasoline with 87 and 91 ratings.

"Nice 1487 fact, BB. There is no proof that the Elantra could achieve "the same or better MPGs""

What I was referring too was the EPA ratings for MPGs between the Cruze and Elantra. The Chevy has about the same performance as the Elantra and the Hyundai runs on 87. I do admit it is an assumption that the Elantra would not have the massive heat soak that the Cruze had the time it was blogged about.....

"Hmm...I don't have an issue with an economy car running on premium if it is offering better economy. "

But that is the point....Ford is running 160HP on 87 with only a bit less tq than the Chevy. What would you rather have? 160 HP that runs just fine on 87 in any weather or 138hp that needs 91 or more in really hot weather or to get its ADVERTISED MPGs? The point is, that its just BS GM marketing that nobody else is doing. And it flat out sucks IMO. If you or others thinks its cool to spend more money putting expensive gas in a Chevy when you can get the same performance (or better in another brand) in another brand then more power too you.....its your money (or your parents)...blow it how you want. But I bet that if more people really knew about this BEFORE they signed that contract in the Chevy dealership I bet they would think twice. I have no doubt the Cruze runs better on 91.....but if you have to spend more to get the same 40MPG in the Chevy that you do in the Focus, that is cool?

I can link 50 articles from respected sites that say that cars that are not designed to run on higher octane DONT run better on it, period. If you car is designed to use different grades then sure, it will do better (the difference is debatable and still in question however).

The Sonic (which nobody on here can possibly construe as anything but an economy car) will have the same engine now as the Cruze.....so does anybody really think people will like putting 91 or more in it Really?

"nd you ignore the fact that when comparing apples to apples the 1.4T gets better EPA fuel economy than the 1.8NA."

The EPA test of the Turbo was run on 92, NOT 87 like the 1.8...you are ignoring that fact. So you think it is ok for GM not to tell people straight out that IF you want the ADVERTISED MPGs, you HAVE to us 91 or more? A simple yes or no will suffice.

"I'm sorry, this coming from the person who just made the purely hypothetical conjecture, "An Elantra get the same or better MPGs (better than when the Cruze is in heavy boost) on 87 every single day...hot or cold"? My assessment is based on personally driving a Versa 800 miles in almost all 110-degree heat. Your assessment is based on … well, absolutely nothing."

I was referring to EPA ratings....as I told teampenske above. A sample of ONE (you and your drive in a Versa) is hardly scientific now is it? Have you not read the threads on this car? When in the boost, MPGs drop quickly....more quickly than it seems for a NA engine. Do you dispute that?

So tell me again why it is a good idea to put a turbo engine that requires 91 octane to even get close to its EPA ratings in the real world and has poor drivablility in a 19K Chevy.....when other car makers get the same performance in acceleration (or better), and MPGs and BETTER drivability from engines that only requre 87?

"Hmm...I don't have an issue with an economy car running on premium if it is offering better economy. VW sells a ton of turbo Golfs in Europe with 1.8T engines. They seem to be extremely popular. They also are highly praised. A friend drove one when on vacation in Germany, said it was better than the Jetta 2.5 he owns. "

Do you have a job and support yourself? When you are out on your own and putting your last few bucks in fuel in your tank for the week then you can tell me how you really feel. There are a lot of people on here with elitist attitudes. When gas is as expensive as it is it is difficult for people to make ends meet, and even a few pennies a gallon make a difference. Times were tough for me when I had a young family...one of the reasons I have a few bucks to rub together now is that I am frugal....I dont have to be now but what I learned from back then still applies now. When gas was $2.50 a gallon for 87, .25 more a gallon is not that big of a deal. But today at Sams Club 87 was $3.79 and 91 was $3.99. That is a hell of lot of money for a gallon of gas and for someone struggling it means a lot. I have seen comments on here like"if you cant afford a bit more for 91 then you should not be driving" and frankly that attitude is disgusting to me.

On a compact Chevy, it is crazy to require expensive gas to get the best economy. On a BMW, who cares?

"The EPA test of the Turbo was run on 92, NOT 87 like the 1.8...you are ignoring that fact. So you think it is ok for GM not to tell people straight out that IF you want the ADVERTISED MPGs, you HAVE to us 91 or more? A simple yes or no will suffice."

1) Please stop confusing "fact" with "what bodyblue assumes." You'll never manage a compelling argument until you at least master this basic skill.
2) GM does not control any of the regulations that go into EPA fuel economy numbers or testing. If it is acceptable to use 91 octane on a fuel economy test, and that provides an increase in efficiency, do you have any reason to believe this isn't a pervasive practice? Of course you don't. Your thought train is "GM is evil, therefore due to my trusty capacity for ad hominem and confirmation bias it must be evil for the EPA to perform fuel economy testing on premium fuel, and because I've just proven to myself that doing that is evil and GM is evil then no other automaker must allow the EPA to do that." Top-notch logic. I mean, really sharp.

Could a case be made that the EPA should report what octane was used to achieve a particular fuel economy in each car? Of course. But acting like this is a GM problem when it's reasonable to assume that the entire auto industry does the same thing is beyond disingenuous.

"I was referring to EPA ratings....as I told teampenske above. A sample of ONE (you and your drive in a Versa) is hardly scientific now is it? Have you not read the threads on this car? When in the boost, MPGs drop quickly....more quickly than it seems for a NA engine. Do you dispute that?"

Just to be clear, your hypocrisy regarding your accusations of "non sequitur" now extends to conjecturing on an Elantra's EPA ratings vs real-world fuel economy, conjecturing on an Elantra's fuel economy in high temperatures vs. EPA ratings, conjecturing on fuel economy dropping when "in the boost" (and in fact I don't agree, my Volvo S60 T5 actually suffered less when driven hard than naturally aspirated cars that I've owned), and saying that "threads on this car" count as empirical evidence. It's actually impressive to me how many hypocrisies you managed to fit into one paragraph.

"So tell me again why it is a good idea to put a turbo engine that requires 91 octane to even get close to its EPA ratings in the real world and has poor drivablility in a 19K Chevy.....when other car makers get the same performance in acceleration (or better), and MPGs and BETTER drivability from engines that only requre 87?"

Which other carmakers? The only example you keep tediously trotting out is the Elantra, which is smaller in every exterior dimension and weighs 400 lbs less (and yet has more horsepower and is... slower). Or maybe you'd like to go on the record stating that you believe that frontal area and weight don't affect fuel economy.

"On a compact Chevy, it is crazy to require the lowest octane to save the most money."

There, fixed that for you.

@ BB

I don't mind using premium so long as the cost per mile is cheaper. Ultimately, that's kinda the important thing. You may have a bigger bill at the pump, but what's saving you monies in the long run? I'm not defending this particular car by any means, but if using premium could get you better mileage than using regular and cost you less per mile, I wouldn't mind. That may not be the case here stateside right now, but if we were to get a car like the 1.4TSI Golf with 160 bhp on tap and 45 UK MPG, I'd be a fan.

All I'm saying is that don't write off using premium just 'cause it costs more per gallon. If it saves you money in terms of being cheaper per mile (against cars using regular), then it's a good thing.

Regardless of what octane you use. That mileage is pathetic for 1.4L engine. My wife's altima, with a 2.5 and cvt gets 27.5 combined and 30 on the hwy. We live in Phoenix and the AC is on all the time.

@cml, you must be new here. In the entire history of this site, no one has ever claimed that they've gotten worse fuel economy than Edmunds writers.

I used the Elantra because it is one of the newest cars on the market and gets its hightest MPG ratings without a special "MPG" model, like the Focus and Cruze. But above I actually used the example of all the other cars in its class. Civic, Sentra, Forte, Focus, 3 (non Mspeed), Corolla. All of them dont use Turbo engines and dont recommend 91....Cruze is the ONLY one. I have driven a Cruze...have you? As is stated by the editors and others on here, the moderate speed driving is really clunky. And the re-programming of the trans by the dealer has not solved the problem. The trans upshifts so quickly that the engine falls out of boost, then one had to floor the throttle to get it going again.

"Your thought train is "GM is evil, therefore due to my trusty capacity for ad hominem and confirmation bias it must be evil for the EPA to perform fuel economy testing on premium fuel, and because I've just proven to myself that doing that is evil and GM is evil then no other automaker must allow the EPA to do that." "

Not true at all (nice run on sentence BTW). My thought train (without your lying to distort what I am saying) is that GM made a mistake that no other car maker has made in this class, PERIOD. That you get sensitive over anything negative said over a faceless car company is not my fault. I am really not sure what you problem is but you refuse to address my argument directly.

"If it is acceptable to use 91 octane on a fuel economy test, and that provides an increase in efficiency, do you have any reason to believe this isn't a pervasive practice? "

I have pointed out that (Louis confirmed it) that the Cruze used 91 for its EPA tests. The EPA uses the fuel recommended by the vendor of the car for testing. Some cars "recommend" a rating but say that another is ok to use. That is fine and probably the same thing happens with those cars as the Cruze. Again, what I am saying is that GM is the ONLY vendor that does this in this class of vehicle. Why is that so hard for you to acknowledge? Simply pointing out the truth of the matter does not make me think GM is evil. I think they (like most other huge companies) will do anything they can to skirt regulations to their benefit. The simple fact is that they sell a compact car that recommends 91 octane but says that lower octane is acceptable. BUT the EPA tests were done on 91. OK fine, we both assume other car makers do the same. BUT no other car in its class does the same (MazdaSpeed 3 accepted). IF this was a performance version of the Cruze there would be no bitching from me at all.

I think GM is being slightly deceptive about this. If you dont, ok, I dont know where you come from but I can accept that.

Although I like the Cruze, this test points out a couple of primary factors why I believe a naturally aspirated engine is a better over all option than a turbo. Cast Iron blocks are durable, but burn gas and oil faster at high temps and large load capacity. A DI i4 in the Focus or Elantra may have slightly lower EPA estimates, but achieve better averages in real world driving conditions.

"I used the Elantra because it is one of the newest cars on the market and gets its hightest MPG ratings without a special "MPG" model, like the Focus and Cruze. But above I actually used the example of all the other cars in its class. Civic, Sentra, Forte, Focus, 3 (non Mspeed), Corolla. All of them dont use Turbo engines and dont recommend 91....Cruze is the ONLY one. I have driven a Cruze...have you? As is stated by the editors and others on here, the moderate speed driving is really clunky. And the re-programming of the trans by the dealer has not solved the problem. The trans upshifts so quickly that the engine falls out of boost, then one had to floor the throttle to get it going again."

Straw men. Your statement was, "other car makers get the same performance in acceleration (or better), and MPGs and BETTER drivability from engines that only requre 87?" And yet you haven't provided an example of one single car that's the same size/weight as the Cruze that fits your criteria.

"Again, what I am saying is that GM is the ONLY vendor that does this in this class of vehicle. Why is that so hard for you to acknowledge?"

Um. Straw men and ad hominems aside, I can't respond to another one of your screeds as long as you can't make the mental distinction between what is fact and what you assume. Or let me put it another way: esoterica says that all Japanese automakers have their vehicles tested on 93 octane. Equally pulled out of my ass, and equally impossible for you to disprove.

Oh, and "nice run on sentence BTW." Yes, it was a rhetorical device used to illustrate a thought train jumping the tracks. Clearly you didn't find it absurd at all, however.

So nearly 9000 miles it got..........25 MPG?
That's pathetic!
BD

So nearly 9000 miles it got..........25 MPG?
That's pathetic!
BD

@esoterica, I understand that nobody claims to get worse mileage. I don't care how you drive. For a 1.4L engine, that mileage is pathetic.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the amount of ignorance, or just failure to read online.

The result just showed everybody that it's CHEAPER to run 91 than 87 in their test, so if you can't understand it in that length of text....YOU SAVE MONEY by running the fuel it was designed to run on. Again IT's CHEAPER, MORE ECONOMICAL whatever you need to hear to put the more EXPENSIVE fuel in, but you save money because you get better MPG.

I think I lost brain cells being on the same internet.

Living in Phoenix and having a Kia Optima SX 2.0T I may just try this out come summer time and see if I see much of a difference. I can certainly tell a difference when the ambient temps drop = more power!