Chevy Cruze Eco: So What'll She Do?

I know the Eco 6-speed manual has been shown to get low to mid 40's on the highway (and even break into the 30s in the city!), but I don't think this car will be capable of the same.

Really 37 MPGs? That's the eco model? That's pretty sad.

@ bgdc,

You and I agree for once...

I'd like to read this entry, but i'm too distracted by those unflattering alloys and that C pillar fake window blackout piece that looks bigger than a fish platter!

You'll save a few pints of gas if you don't use the AC. Just take a good Jacket and a AAA card in case you run out of gas.

If I could get a solid 29 out of a Malibu 4 speed auto on varied roads then 37 with a Cruze Eco shouldn't be a problem. (granted it dropped to 25 when I started taking the switchback corners hard enough to kick in the traction control)

Just keep the dash display on the long term mpg and change your driving style accordingly.

The already bland looking Cruze looks even worse in Silver...............good lord that is horrible. Compared to the new Focus it looks so blah. In the recent Motor Trend Comparo the Focus got a lot better MPGs than the Cruze.....a lot slower, less HP and worse MPGs.....this was a good idea?

I hope you're not trolling, bodyblue. The clean lines of the Cruze profile look good to me!

Erin said: " . . . but that’s based on the less-than-admirable 22 mpg I got from hooning the Cruze Eco around town for the past several days."

Hooning the Cruze Eco . . . That amuses me.

Yellowperil:

You shouldn't have to ask that about Bodyblue.

The comment about the Cruze being a lot slower in the Car and Driver article doesn't stand up to the numbers.

Cruze 0-60, 8.0 seconds, with the auto, 16.4 seconds in the quarter mile.
Focus, 0-60, 7.6, seconds with the auto, 16.3 seconds in the quarter mile.

I will grant the Focus got better mileage, 21 versus 18, but each is horrible, however since all the cars got horrible mileage, that is on Car and Driver, not the cars.

In this case, IL should have gotten the ECO with the 6 speed. I have seen mileage as high as 48.6 on the highway with the 6 speed in some reviews.

I don't understand why the manual version has such a smaller tank... seriously why do they do stupid stuff to the manual versions to make them less desirable. Its a conspiracy I tell you!

I guessing GM knows the manual version will get so much better real world mileage then the automatic that people will be happy with the smaller tank and cheaper fill ups.

37 mpg is not bad. I'd rather have a 37 mpg gas motor than a 45 mpg hybrid.

Thats just me.

There are other economical cars that look better but still...

I know the manual is geared considerably taller than the auto, at least in the top gears (like on the highway). This must have something to do with the difference in rating.

Aura...how about you actually KNOW what you are talking about before you make a fool of yourself?

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1104_2012_ford_focus_titanium_2011_chevrolet_cruze_ltz_rs_comparison/index.html

ITS MOTOR TREND....Duh WINNING! (sorry could not resist):)
Chubolet Ford

0-30 2.9 sec 3.0 sec
0-40 4.5 4.4
0-50 6.7 6.1
0-60 9.0 8.3
0-70 12.2 10.8
0-80 16.0 13.6
0-90 21.7 17.8
0-100 27.7 22.7
PASSING, 45-65 MPH 5.1 4.4
QUARTER MILE 16.9 sec @ 82.1 mph 16.3 sec @ 86.7 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 119 ft 110 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.85 g (avg) 0.88 g (avg)

MT FUEL ECONOMY 22.3 mpg 28.7 mpg

Any more of the GM fanbois want to chime in now?

OH and I really want to see a scientific test of the Cruze Ecos MPG...not just some blogs talking about it.

I agree, though I am encouraged by the consistently high results reported by the auto rags as well as the mpg-o-matic blog. I am afraid that only the manual trans version will really impress, however.

An Edmunds Pittsburgher? Interesting...

Depending on what part of the city you're traveling from, it's doubtful that you'll make it the whole way. People drive too slow around here, and if you'll be traveling through a tunnel or two (not to mention the continuous construction), you'll be wasting a lot of gas at low speeds. Good luck.

"37 mpg is not bad. I'd rather have a 37 mpg gas motor than a 45 mpg hybrid."

My 2007 MS3 gets 30 mpg at 70 mph; I'll gladly trade seven -or even 10- mpg in exchange for another 149 bhp...

Bodyblue:

I had not yet seen the Motor Trend numbers yet. I had the Car and Driver numbers. I just read the article and I wonder how much the sport tires versus the all season tires helped the Focus in some areas. Concerning the mileage difference, it is apparent that the 1.4 turbo is not the best engine with the automatic for sure.

I, too, would like to see some tests as well. I like the Focus as well, quite a bit in fact, but I think it has a smaller back seat than the Cruze, which is too small for my family's requirements, ie 17 year old son who is 6foot1. Today my wife and I were discussing which car might be our next car. We were talking about the Cruze or the Focus, because although neither works with our son in the car, she reminded me he will be going to SDSU(Go Aztecs) in a little over a year, we could get what we wanted. About that time a new Regal pulled up next to us on the street and I asked her about a Regal eassist. She decided right then and there that it would be a Regal eassist. I do like the Focus hatchback a lot though, maybe the price difference will make her change her mind. Chevy is blowing it not selling a hatchback version of the Cruze in the US.

I wish we abandoned mpg for gallons of gas per 100 miles. It makes comparisons much simpler.

People whinging over 3mpg when you are close to 40mpg need to crunch the numbers and see that it doesn't add up to that much gas (or $$$) compared to the price of admission for a new car.

P.S. @75mph I predict 35mpg

On completely flat terrain @ exactly 75 mph, my '09 Mazda6 (4-cyl, 5-speed auto) gets 36.3 mpg per the trip computer. It's very consistent. Add a slight incline and it drops to the low-30s, a slight decline moves it into the 40s, and so on. And the trip computer's stats re: fuel econ are NEVER off by more than 1% based on all of my fill-ups -- I log everything and calculate and compare after each fill-up -- so that's accurate. City mileage stinks so it brings down the average tank to 24-27 mpg depending on season, fuel blend (PA has multiple types depending on time-of-year and locale) and city/highway mix. But a trip over a few hundred miles that's all highway and pushing it int he 70s-80s yields into the 30s easily.

And a Mazda6 is about 200-lbs heavier than a Cruze (4-cyl auto to 4-cyl auto), has 30 more ponies (PZEV model), probably the worst gearing for economy imaginable in a modern car (turning about 2700 rpm @ 75 in 5th -- it cries for a 6th gear with a 20% lower ratio), and the most trigger-happy (to unlock) torque converter of any car I've ever driven (flinch on the accelerator and it unlocks which, of course, is less efficient).

So if the Cruze can't hit 37-mpg @ 75 mph with all of the trickery going on? Then that's sad.

aurakr:

My boys are about the size of yours so I understand. I did not plan on getting something as big as an Avenger but it does fit the family better. The first tank on my new car I got 18....I want to take it on a longer trip as soon as it is broken in to see what the Pentastar can get MPG wise.

bodyblue:

How is the Pentastar? I have been impressed with the changes that Dodge has made across the board. I agree with you, the Grand Caravan has the best interior out there.

I think that Ford might have hit the sweet spot with the Focus, in terms of power, sportiness, looks, especially with the hatch. The mileage seems to be where it should be, I just would like a test of the Focus with all season tires, and highway mileage.

"People whinging over 3mpg when you are close to 40mpg need to crunch the numbers and see that it doesn't add up to that much gas (or $$$) compared to the price of admission for a new car."

Exactly. If I traded my MS3 for a car that returneed 40 mpg AND I only had to pay $10,000 + my trade I would have to drive over nine years just to break even(based on driving 20,000 miles per year, MS3 26 mpg/new car 40 mpg $4.00/gallon gas).

That pic certainly isn't flattering, but I don't know if it's the lighting, angle, or color, or maybe a combination of all 3. I'm also curious to see what kind of fuel economy the Eco achieves.

Aura, So far the Pentastar has been very nice. It still has less than 1000 miles so I have treated it pretty easy but is has good torque down low and you dont need to floor it to move smartly. When it gets above 3500 or so it really starts to pull and there is some torque steer with a nice growl. On the freeway it is almost silent....that is what I really like, the quietness. When I drove a 200 I commented on how nice the interior was compared to the Regal and I was not kidding. Mine has the red leather and it is really striking with the red stitching on the black on the back of the seats.

I actually wanted a Focus but they really would not deal on one much so I decided to think some more. The same day my buddy called me about this car (ordered then cancelled/used as a demonstrator) and told me the price I could get it for. I did not really believe him but he was right about the price (21K with tax out the door) so how could I pass it up? Smooth and quiet does not have to be boring at all. It does not have nav or a sunroof but does have the Boston Acoustic speakers that have awesome sound. I like it so far.

bodyblue:

Sounds like a heck of a deal. I too like quiet cars at speed, the easier to get the wife to fall asleep :) and let me make good time :)

I just read about the Malibu Eco, interesting, with up to 38 mpg, obviously to be seen and verified.
If it does get even close to the 38 mpg, the Malibu almost eliminates the Cruze Eco auto, depending upon the price of course. Still liking the Focus and Cruze Eco(manual) as well.

$4.00 + gas here in San Diego sucks, but I like the choices in the near future for fuel efficient vehicles. I will check out the Avenger this week, since I have some time off.

I'm getting 38 mpg with my TDI when it is driven agressively and in heavier traffic and 40 mpg when I ease up on it. During the past two weeks diesel has been less per gallon than regular gas. Finally!

Disappointed that Cruze has to resort to an Eco model to obtain 37 mpg. Would be fantastic if the rumors of a diesel Cruze become reality, in reality chances are slim.

All things considered, the Cruze is a very decent vehicle. Quite an improvement over the Cobalt.

What I need is a four wheel drive truck that will deliver 25 mpg city! Perhaps the new Colorado will deliver if it is offered with a diesel.

"Quite an improvement over the Cobalt.'

That is not saying much at all....the Cobalt was pretty bad.

Kind of like saying, "You don't sweat much to be a fat girl."

"That is not saying much at all....the Cobalt was pretty bad."

Its better than Cobalt and as good or better than any Asian branded compact on the market. How about that? I think its hilarious that so many people that are predisposed to hating the Cruze because its a Chevy totally ignore every competitor on the market that's not named Focus or Elantra. That said, the Cruze doesn't even lose out to those cars across the board. Its inferior in some ways but superior in others. I'm not sure why Cruze haters are revelling in the Focus as if that makes the Cruze a bad car, both are nice and both are more desirable than what Toyota/Honda are selling.

And its idiotic for a Ford booster to be wasting time bashing the old Cobalt- I don't think we really need to start talking about the 2011 Focus. Hardly a benchmark.

I don't understand why so many of the reviews on this car choose to test an automatic. Much of the design of it is for the manual and its gearing. I have a Cruze Eco with a 6spd manual, live in the Pittsburgh area and am nailing an average of 37 mpg in mixed driving during the first 3,500 miles, including daily work commutes. I imagine the car is a dog with an automatic, but is great to drive with the manual. Great commuter.