2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco: Pittsburgh to Big Apple on One Tank?

Not sure how you make a 3100 lb car with a gas engine achieve nearly 40 mpg, so this result doesn't surprise me too much. 31 mpg is about what my 3300 lb Jetta pulls on the highway at those speeds. Mr. Visnic obviously wasn't hypermiling, but the limited mileage reports so far on TrueDelta don't show anyone getting over 33 mpg. Corolla "drivers" on the other hand are frequently reporting upper 30s and 40 mpg, so at least that bargain bin of a car can do one thing right.

30% off claimed highway fuel economy .... seems to be a running trend among GM cars these days. I've gotten 34mpg from a 2005 Camry on a Highway trip to from NY to Washington DC. Steller job GM, steller job.

20% off claimed highway fuel economy seems to be a running trend among GM cars these days. I've gotten 34mpg from a 2005 Camry on a Highway trip to from NY to Washington DC averaging about 65-70mph. Steller job GM, steller job.

Emajor is right though, these small cars are getting WAY too heavy

"Not sure how you make a 3100 lb car with a gas engine achieve nearly 40 mpg"

Good point.....the answer is, you can MAYBE but only under perfect circumstances. And if you are in the Turbo at all you dont have a prayer of doing it.

"And if you are in the Turbo at all you dont have a prayer of doing it."

That's the case with my MS3; keeping the motor out of boost as much as possible nets me @4 extra mpg in suburban driving. On the track I get @10 mpg. In contrast, my ti gets 16 mpg on the track- but also only has 150 bhp to the MS3's 287. Robert Heinlein was right; there ain't no such thing as a free lunch...

Happy Good Friday to you RB...and to everyone else as well.

Another GM car that can't hit the EPA highway numbers in the real world (except for those running windows up, on A/C, no passengers, no cargo, and a feather's tough on the throttle). It's obvious they're tuning their cars to match "the test" for advertising reasons. A lot of automakers do this, but it'll lead to disappointment and a sour opinion with some buyers who will remember that the next time they go to purchase.

Some companies do the opposite. Mazda's EPA numbers, for example, suck. They clearly don't tune the cars at all with regard for EPA testing. It hurts them tremendously in comparison shopping, I bet. But in the real world? All three of my Mazdas BEAT the EPA highway ratings easily. In the real world, they pretty much match the competition's real world ratings.

Basically, all cars of a similar type, size, power, etc. are going to all be about the same regardless of what they're rated at (there are exceptions like the Sonata which does seem to be truly efficient, but they're few and far between).

So I'm not knocking the Cruze for being in the low 30s on a trip from The Burgh to The Apple at 75 mph (and central PA can be pretty hilly -- that hurts mileage). It's class competitive. But I am knocking it for gaming the system. It's nice that it can pull in the high 30s to low 40s under lab-type conditions. And I guess it puts asses in the seats (something I bet Mazda wishes they could do more regularly as opposed to just selling to a small pocket of enthusiasts like me). But in the long term it's another one of those 'little things' that will hurt GM's rep (and others') and leads people to form these opinions they can't seem to overcome even when the company does try to do things that are right and build competitive products.

They're on a bit of a roll right now with good press. But they've shown the ability to turn around a rep from positive to negative as fast as anyone. And they do it by overpromising and under-delivering -- a legacy they just can't seem to shake.

Now he needs to drive a 6MT version home so we can get some comparison.

And to you, BB!

The amount of power (and thus fuel) required to overcome drag as speeds climb increases exponentially. If you are going to run 75 on the highway you are going to achieve lower than EPA mileage, and the less aerodynamic the vehicle the greater the disparity will be.

Visnic's mileage (which includes some quality time in Manhattan traffic) isn't an indictment of GM in any way.

I would like to see if it's possible for you or someone to get 37+ on highway. Take it as a challenge . Try harder ,maybe slow down a bit.

bd:

Yep. I know how airflow affects fuel econ @ speed. Every small (5-to-10 mph) move has a large effect on (up to 10% on some cars for each increment) affect on fuel econ. At 75 mph you are in some cases up to 20% off (though closer to 10% is more likely as I believe the EPA upped the highway speed test speed and imposed harsher conditions such as loads and A/C).

And I still think it's too much of a gap. I can average over 30 in my Mazda6 (31.2 in one trip of about 260 miles) @ a steady 70-75 (and I live in PA -- the same state he travelled through to make the trip with the same fuel and in the same conditions). I have the fuel logs to prove it.

My point stands. In the end, they deliver nothing better in real world driving than the compeition.

Vehicle weight has nothing to do with the force of drag experienced by a car on the highway. Weight will affect the rolling resistance in the tires and drag on wheel bearings, that is about it.

Also, velocity is a cubic (v^3), in the equation of the power to overcome aero drag, so going from 65mph to 75mph uses 65% more power and has a very real affect on your mileage.

P.S. Here is some info on vehicle test cycle for fuel economy, they now have a high speed test where the vehicle will hit 80mph, but I think it plays a small roll in larger test procedure to determine gas mileage.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

@oxmead:

I believe they've tried this before, but with a different car (also a GM if you're curious). They failed. Maybe it was the Traverse? It was like a month or two ago - but where EPA was 32mpg, they got something like 28 after trying like mad. Odds are unless you're going downhill at 55mph with the windows up and a/c off you won't see 37mpg for an extended period of time.

I think most people are right here; in the long term this is going to hurt GM's reputation as a fuel efficient brand. Leaving out the whole Volt issue and GM's giddyness to publish claims of "800mpg" or whatever that nonsense was. You're still paying to charge it.

"my gasoline purchases are nearly nothing these days.....oh wow, look at that, my electricity bill has doubled" When you over-promise you're going to leave people feeling short changed.

"Now he needs to drive a 6MT version home so we can get some comparison."

Yes, absolutely.

Stop: it was the GMC Equinox with 4 banger. The fuel sipper smackdown article........

bonzjr: While I don't condone GM's, or anybody's gaming of the EPA system, I do want to play Devil's advocate a little here. You compare to Mazda, which has follow the same CAFE guidlines as GM. Where Mazda is a relatively small player in the total US market, and sells almost exclusively small vehicles, it can afford to be a little more "real world" with thier ratings/tuning. GM on the other hand has to meet the CAFE average while still selling fullsize trucks and SUV's. And while those vehicles are a common scapegoat, people still buy them all up. Let's face it, if I want to load up my family and tow my boat to the lake for a camping trip, I'm not going to be looking in Mazda's direction. It's kinda like complaining that a Big screen, 3DHD TV earned it's energy star rating on the dim, colorless eco setting. Sure the smaller ones might do it on all settings, but lot's of people still wish they had the big one.

Sat in the new Civics yesterday....they were okay. Nothing special, but Honda did just enough to stay somewhat competitive.

The same test trip was done with the new Focus and it averaged well over 36 mpg combined.

" . . . magnificently supple and controlled ride, and crisp handling."

Uh . . . srsly?

hopster, the rolling drag is at least proportional to weight, and while most tire OEM's won't share their models, some of the most common have rolling resistance increasing at a rate proportional to an exponential of the increase in speed (between the power of 1.5 and 2 if memory serves).

So, weight does matter. A lot of power goes into overcoming rolling drag and tire deformation and weight only makes that worse.

I have been a bit surprised and disappointed at how poor some of the latest GM models have done in highway economy (in Edmunds' testing) relative to their EPA ratings. In the past I (and others) have found that GM vehicles did pretty well. Historically Corvettes have been pretty easy to meet or exceed EPA with. And our Tahoes were right on the EPA most times and occasionally above it (if we kept them at the speed limit, but even at 75 mph they would still be right at the EPA highway numbers). But everyone seems to be gaming the system these days with few exceptions (Sonata apparently, VW GTI as well). I've also been pleasantly surprised with my 2010 G37 6MT. My last G35 6MT was just below EPA, but the more powerful and heavier G37 has exceeded EPA by 1-2 mpg.

I'm in 100% agreement with bankerdanny and oxmead. It is counterproductive to drive at speeds that much above the legal and then lament that it wasn't possible to achieve an mpg close to the EPA hwy rating. Duh! Had Bill kept the speed to no more than 70 mph, chances are the mpg would have been higher. Have certainly been across PA more than a few times and admittedly it's hilliness is also a detriment to optimum fuel mileage. Driving across a flat state like OK at a smooth sane speed would almost certainly achieve better mileage. This single test cannot reasonably constitute an indictment of GM in regards to their advertised fuel mileage. We all understand that, don't we?!!

Was glad to read this report, yet I'll suggest that the results were perhaps meaningless. It is almost certainly posssible to achieve that 37 mpg highway rating. This drive was not a realistic opportunity to show what is possible with the Cruze. Especially when driven at speeds of 75-80 mph.

Okay, my Cruze Eco isn't the automatic transmission version but I always get 40 to 43 mpg on the highway; my average for city driving is over 30 mpg .. and .. I'm definitely not a hypermiler, I don't even like being on the same road with those folks. By the way, this is the first car I've owned where the indicated mpg comes out the same as the calculated mpg, the others tended to exaggerate by a couple of miles per gallon.

My last two cars were a VW GTI and a Mini Cooper S, both with manual transmissions. The transmission / turbo combination in this car is VERY different from the others. This combination works most effectively taking more than full advantage of the torque in the lower gears (higher revs - pulling out from the lights at a quicker rate than most) making transition to those overly tall fourth, fifth, and sixth gears feel more comfortable. It took some getting used to but it's finally gotten to where I really do enjoy driving this car - it's fun to drive.

I only butted in here because of all the bashing going on. I really do love this car, so comments like some of these make me feel that I should provide an owner's perspective. My mileage is as advertised .. and .. once you learn to drive this car the perceived sluggishness becomes a thing of the past.

stoppre75: I see your point. And I agree with you; sort of. The Volt/Leaf/Prius are an alternative to the automotive world highly reliant on fossil fuels. Last time I checked it is gasoline prices that is going up. Therefore, the less you use, the less you spend, right? I may be wrong in my approach but gas prices are way more volatile than the price of electricity. Driving more efficient vehicles makes you use less gas. So by me driving an efficient 4 banger, I'm traveling same distance using less gas, and the Volt, Leaf and Prius are very good at that.

Furthermore, I've owned most brands of vehicles and so far my biggest disappointment with MPG has come from Nissan products (Maxima and Juke) Best? 2009 Audi A4 Quattro (better than EPA claims). A 2006 Civic Si had mediocre MPG, way lower than EPA.

"30% off claimed highway fuel economy .... seems to be a running trend "

Did you read the initial post where he said he was not an economical driver? Why would anyone that isn't going to try to get good mpg going to buy a car designed to do that?

Once again, if you don't buy the right car for your style then it is a stupid thing to do. Don't buy anything designed to get good mpg if you enjoy driving quickly. All these people take 'economy' cars out and flog them and then go "wow, it didn't get the listed mpg." DUHHHHHHH, ya bone bag.

at 80mph you wont get 37mpg. Not rocket science folks. Buying a cruze eco and then driving 15mph over the limit and then complaining about subpar mileage doesn't make sense. Drop the speed to 65-70 and mileage would've been much better.

"Stop: it was the GMC Equinox with 4 banger. The fuel sipper smackdown article........"

I think you meant GMC Terrain. And yes, it holds the dubious honor as the only car ever that failed to achieve its EPA highway rating in the 'Fuel Sipper Smackdown' tests.

I bet Edmunds will be doing another one soon with the Cruze Eco, Focus SFE, new Elantra, etc.

@conbrio

Thank you! Please chime in on other Eco threads as there are doubters.

I will also say, in regard to your comment about the computer displayed MPG, that my 05 CTS-V has been averaging within 0.24mpg optimistic over 7 tanks. It is right on.

conbrio:

Trust me, the folks who read about the car know much more than you would as an owner. Based on one post they have determined the Cruze ECO doesn't get its EPA mileage and I think we need to accept that as definitive proof.

You guys do realize that the EPA test these cars not GM. So once you get your heads out of your arses and read it you will see that he was averageing 75 mph. So keep talking good about your asian cars when in reality they will do 20-30% less than they are rated at them speeds as well. Oh and for the record the made "in the usa" toyota's, looks like really are just assembled here.

Have a good day and remember if you keep sending all your money to Japan someday your kids or grandkids wont have any money.