2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco: Cruising from DC to Indy

Cool that it's gets the 42 mpg US rating but now lets see it get the 51.16 mpg (US) rating that the Canadian gov gives it (4.6 L/100km).

The 2012 Cruze will have a six speed manual standard equipment on the 1LT and 2LT models. This transmission will NOT be the triple-overdrive model from the ECO. It will also not be, if I am reading the Cruze spec sheets right, the same transmission from the LS.

Note: The 2012 2LT will come standard with a sport suspension. Combine the new six speed manual, sport suspension, sunroof, etc., and you have a no-compromise, fuel efficient, compact car. And, one more thing: The !LT and 2LT will have the normal 15.6 gallon gas tank. If I were to project a 38 mpg highway number, and leave 1.5 gallons in the tank, the car will go 536 miles on a tank. (14.1 X 38)

Again we see that on board MPG readings can NEVER be trusted on any car. Good to see it can be done however!

That is pretty good! The eco was not available yet when I bought my LS with a 6-speed manual. With 4400 miles I am averaging 34 MPG overall (80/20 hwy/city) and pure highway going 60 MPH I average 45.5 MPG!!!! I keep wondering what I could have got with the eco model. BTW my trip computer is always a little less in the car then in real life. My real/average MPG figures are actually somewhat higher!

-FLYUSMC

"and you have a no-compromise"

Just think if it had a lighter curb weight.....

I have no doubt that the Cruze will get good MPGs on the freeway when the turbo is not being used much....but in town? It will never get as good as a NA car of the same specs. The turbo unit was the wrong one to use in this heavy little car. GM can build a NA unit for this car....and it should.

the worst trend with MPG I've seen is with the salespeople, shocking I know.

Since the mpg listings show not only the city and highway but a range for both the salespeople now love to point out the highest possible number under the main hwy mpg. Had a GMC salesman point at an awd terrain and comment that with the cruise control set on the highway it could probably get around 34 or 35. And this after I told him we rented one for a week.

I've had 2 other salespeople at different dealers for different makes do the same thing. It is bad enough the manufactures push the number so high that they are often unattainable but then they stretch it even more.

And as we know, Inside Line hates ALL GM vehicles...

Anyway, I don't think I'd buy the cruze (hate the name, don't like the styling), but those are some pretty impressive numbers I'd like to see a similar test with any Elantra.

44 mpg average from Indiana to Waterloo, Iowa this weekend and this is through all the terrible construction on I80 in Illinois between Joliet and Iowa/Illinois border. 70 plus mph when not stuck in construction traffic in a Jetta TDI with DSG.
It's bigger, more comfortable and and it will out mpg the Cruze any day of the week, even giving the Cruze the advantage of a manual compared to the Jetta DSG.
Cruze is a step in the right direction, I would welcome the diesel and the hatch versions of the Cruze being sold in Europe.

@ moparbad

"It's bigger, more comfortable and and it will out mpg the Cruze any day of the week"

And about $6500 more based on MSRP. If all you're concerned about is fuel cost, that would pay for a lot of gas.

Of course if it had a lighter curb weight it wouldn't have the stiff structure, well-composed ride, quiet comfort and overall big-car feel that makes the Cruze a better choice than the usual Asian tin can econobox for people to whom comfort is important. Different strokes...

"makes the Cruze a better choice than the usual Asian tin can econobox for people to whom comfort is important"

Have you driven an Asian compact in the last 20 years?

My guess is no.

it's certainly better than the corrolla and the civic in many ways, although i can't speak personally for the new model civic. it's a more comfortable, quiet ride, for one, than either machine.

autorags tend to beat on the cruze because of the transmission programming and the slothlike acceleration. that means it's not a porsche, but it's certainly a good car despite that.

"Again we see that on board MPG readings can NEVER be trusted on any car. Good to see it can be done however!"

WTF are you talking about? This is one car. How did you get "any" from this example?

"Just think if it had a lighter curb weight.....

I have no doubt that the Cruze will get good MPGs on the freeway when the turbo is not being used much....but in town? It will never get as good as a NA car of the same specs. The turbo unit was the wrong one to use in this heavy little car. GM can build a NA unit for this car....and it should."

Just imagine if EVERY car on the road was lighter. Life would be perfect. The cruze ECO is lighter- thats the point. They shaved 200lbs from the LT model. A turbo is ALWAYS working- it never stops as long as the engine is spinning.

"Of course if it had a lighter curb weight it wouldn't have the stiff structure, well-composed ride, quiet comfort and overall big-car feel that makes the Cruze a better choice than the usual Asian tin can econobox for people to whom comfort is important. Different strokes..."

Exactly. If they stripped airbags, sound deadening, gave it a less robust structure, compromised ride quality, etc. it would be lighter and less refined. Why would you make that trade off if you can get 42mpg in this model? For 2012 auto models gain 2mpg on highway so range for the eco auto will be quite impressive.

"And about $6500 more based on MSRP. If all you're concerned about is fuel cost, that would pay for a lot of gas."

plus diesel inst available at every gas station and its more than regular gas. I love when people leave that out.

"A turbo is ALWAYS working- it never stops as long as the engine is spinning. "

You must be kidding.....even though the turbo is spinning because there is exhaust gas running through it, it is NOT producing boost.....remember you know next to nothing about how engines work....stick to hubcaps and climate controls.

I recommend this to help you out..

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm

"WTF are you talking about? This is one car. How did you get "any" from this example?"

Did you not read the above linked article from Dan Edmunds (you know, a REAL engineer) about this subject? Every car in the test fleet is like this and if you read the article it will include comments from several automotive engineers. Again, you really dont know everything...try reading and learning about things first.

"plus diesel inst available at every gas station and its more than regular gas. I love when people leave that out. "

I leave it out because it isn't an issue here. Diesel is available at most stations and is 5 cents a litre cheaper then regular.

"Exactly. If they stripped airbags, sound deadening, gave it a less robust structure, compromised ride quality, etc. it would be lighter and less refined. Why would you make that trade off if you can get 42mpg in this model?"

Why? So you can get 5 mpg better in the normal driving that people do. Also you don't have to give up any airbags or make the car any weaker, just do a little more engineering and a little less piling on the bandaid fixes like sound deading and extra steel.

Of course if you really want a small car that dives like a big car then the Cruze is the way to go.

@120mmgun

$21,140 MSRP for a Cruze with options of cruise control and spare tire. Yep, cruise is optional on Cruze and spare tire is not standard either.

$23,765 MSRP for a 2011 Jetta TDI.

That equals $2625 on my calculator. How the heck do you get a $6500 difference? Gasoline fumes must be causing your calculator to malfunction.

Diesel has been less expensive than regular gasoline for the past few months as I've been filling up, though it was $3.89 today, same price as regular gasoline.

I like the Cruze, may even own one at some point in the future (stranger things happen everyday), however I am disappointed GM has to resort to a special "ECO" model and manual transmission only to achieve 40 mpg.

"Did you not read the above linked article from Dan Edmunds (you know, a REAL engineer) about this subject? Every car in the test fleet is like this and if you read the article it will include comments from several automotive engineers. Again, you really dont know everything...try reading and learning about things firs"

No trip computer is going to be 100% accurate, but to claim that none can be trusted because this one was less than 5% off is absurd. Which is why only an idiot would make such a claim. Any owner can figure out how far off their trip computer is and whether or not its so wildly inaccurate that it shouldn't be used for reliable data. To say that they all are inaccurate is dumb. Even you can figure that out.

As for turbos, aside from the initial start up point when you first hit the accelerator they are spinning and producing boost. Turbo lag is more prevalent in larger turbos due to the inertia that has to be overcome. As you know the Cruze has a tiny engine and likely a small turbo which means lag should be minimal which means that you are getting boost almost immediately. The bottom line is this, you have erroneously stated many times that turbocharged engines are inefficient when this real world test nor EPA tests support that notion. I already pointed out that the GTI is slightly more efficient than the lighter Civic Si in spite of having a turbocharged I4.

"I like the Cruze, may even own one at some point in the future (stranger things happen everyday), however I am disappointed GM has to resort to a special "ECO" model and manual transmission only to achieve 40 mpg."

Honda and ford are doing the same thing- it's just no one is talking about it. BTW, the Focus Titanium that most people are testing only gets 27/37 so it's 3mpg short of 40 while the Focus manual gets 26/36. At least the Civic is close to 40 without a special model- but they created the HF to crack the 40mpg barrier. And let's not forget Corolla, Sentra, Jetta 2.5, etc. aren't close to 40 either.

Diesel has gotten close to the price of regular during this recent run up in prices, but historically it's not cheaper here in the US. And it's not available at many service stations here either.

"I leave it out because it isn't an issue here. Diesel is available at most stations and is 5 cents a litre cheaper then regular."

We live in the US- I think you know that by now.

"Why? So you can get 5 mpg better in the normal driving that people do. Also you don't have to give up any airbags or make the car any weaker, just do a little more engineering and a little less piling on the bandaid fixes like sound deading and extra steel."

Dont know what world you live in but in this world where the EPA rates cars for mileage the Cruze is about as efficient as much lighter cars such as Forte, Corolla and Mazda3. You are whining about weight without anything to support the idea that the Cruze is a performance and mileage laggard due to excessive weight. What is the point of weighing less if your car is slower and barely more efficient? And since when is adding airbags and a stiff structure an example of "poor" engineering? Are you being serious? I can only presume you aren't. BTW, if you note the Focus and Cruze are two of the better handling cars in the class. That is partially due to how stiff they are and both cars are over 3000lbs with options. When cars (elantra would be example) lack rigidity the suspension has to be tuned to accordingly and you often get sloppier handling. Rarely do you see a BMW, Audi or Porsche model being lightest in class. Toyotas? Often lightest in class. See if you can draw some conclusions from that. Chevy chose great handling and slightly above average mileage over mediocre handling and class topping mileage. BTW, I'm sure you know the 2800lb Elantra has consistently failed to meet EPA combined numbers in testing by the auto media.

"Of course if you really want a small car that dives like a big car then the Cruze is the way to go."

Interestingly enough it's a sportier car than it's lighter competitors so I'm not sure what you mean when you say it drives like a "big car". Perhaps by big car you mean a 3 series or A4 or CTS. If so, I don't think there is anything wrong with driving like those cars.

"Again we see that on board MPG readings can NEVER be trusted on any car. Good to see it can be done however!"

You need to track the calculated and trip computer MPG over many tanks of gas to really know. You can't check on a single tank because you may have errantly over- or under-filled the last tank. I have done exactly this, tracking 11 fuel-ups in my 05 CTS-V since late Feb. The result? The trip computer is averaging a whopping 0.25 MPG optimistic. The car even has 105k on it, and it's still this accurate. It IS possible.

What is interesting is there is some variation between calculated numbers and the trip computer. And because I have proven the computer to be accurate to one quarter of a MPG, I think it is reasonable to assume I can actually trust the trip computer MORE than a calculation.

I also read that the Eco supposedly had an accurate trip computer, so I'd like to see several tanks of results so the filling discrepancies can average out.

"Which is why only an idiot would make such a claim. "

Like Dan Edmunds? Say that in print.......you are too gutless.

"Interestingly enough it's a sportier car than it's lighter competitors "

Not the Focus.....you are lying again.....not a big surprise. Oh and here is a quote from C/D about the Cruze "Cadillac engineered the float out of its cars, and Chevy should, too; mute steering. " That does not sound too sporty.

"The bottom line is this, you have erroneously stated many times that turbocharged engines are inefficient when this real world test nor EPA tests support that notion."

Ahhh you are spinning the BIG lie now....in every test I have read the Cruze is at or near the bottom in MPGs. GM knows how to game the system and it shows.

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/885057c7884d97ed3451c1910b11662d.pdf

Here the Cruze is tied for last with the 167hp Mazda 3 .....of course the Focus had the best.

In the M/T test the Chevy got 23.8, Focus 27.9, Civic 29.4, Elantra 25.7, Forte 23.9, Mazda 3 27.8, COROLLA 27.6

In other words....the Cruze is dead ass last in MPGs...because it is too fat for the 1.4 turbo. If it was just ONE test, buts its NOT......Now you know why so many buy Corollas....they are great economy cars....they are ECONOMICAL and reliable......When the old tech Toyota beats the new Chevy hands down in MPGs that makes the Cruze a joke.

Oh and I see you dont read anything before posting.....here is a tidbit from the article I linked above.

"One cause of the inefficiency comes from the fact that the power to spin the turbine is not free. Having a turbine in the exhaust flow increases the restriction in the exhaust. This means that on the exhaust stroke, the engine has to push against a higher back-pressure. This subtracts a little bit of power from the cylinders that are firing at the same time.­"

"You can't check on a single tank because you may have errantly over- or under-filled the last tank"

Did you read Dan's article?

Here is an example from Dan's article....hardly the small sample as claimed.

"Across two tests in seven different vehicles, the gauges were 5.5 percent inaccurate on average, according to data gathered by the editors at Edmunds.com.

The editors noted such optimistic estimates from fuel economy gauges during our 2009 and 2010 "Fuel-Sipper Smackdown." In two separate tests, editors drove five fuel-efficient cars from Los Angeles to Las Vegas and back under three different driving conditions: back roads (45-60 mph), city streets (stop and go) and highway (70-75 mph). During the tests (a total distance of more than 1,550 miles was accumulated by each car), the editors measured fuel economy by calculating how much gas was required to go a certain distance and comparing that to the reading on the fuel economy gauge"

and

"The individual inaccuracies in Edmunds testing were as high as 19 percent for the 2010 Ford Escape Hybrid and 16 percent for the diesel-powered 2010 Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen TDI. This means that the Escape was getting 5 mpg less than the gauge indicated, while the Jetta was getting 5.7 mpg less. The test also included a 2009 Mini Cooper, 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid, 2010 Honda Insight, 2010 Toyota Prius, 2010 Toyota Highlander Hybrid, 2010 GMC Terrain and 2010 BMW X5 xDrive 35d.'

The article goes on to present Dan's case quite well.....he is hardly an "idiot" as some proclaim.

"Like Dan Edmunds? Say that in print.......you are too gutless. "

He didnt make that claim, he said they noted the trip computers they checked in two separate tests were optimistic and he solicited input from automakers. One response stated that ethanol content was a major reason for slight discrepancies in the trip computer readings. You are the one who said every trip computer is inaccurate. If you can find a quote from Dan making that statement let me know.

Did you spend all Memorial Day on here? Seems that way.

"Not the Focus.....you are lying again.....not a big surprise. Oh and here is a quote from C/D about the Cruze "Cadillac engineered the float out of its cars, and Chevy should, too; mute steering. " That does not sound too sporty."

The Focus titanium is over 3000lbs. Its heavier than Civic, Forte, corolla, Elantra, etc. It's over 300lbs heavier than some competitors. And IL said the Cruze was the only genuinely sporty car in their recent 3 car test. MT, C&D and other sources have noted the chassis is well sorted. C&D made no comments about the Cruze being floaty in their initial road test. As you know they are well known for suddenly noting major issues when comparison tests occur- but typically only in American cars.

"The article goes on to present Dan's case quite well.....he is hardly an "idiot" as some proclaim."

The article says nothing about "every car" having an inaccurate trip computer and notes that some were off by only 5%. The discrepancy noted in the Cruze above is under 5%. Hardly signficant.

"Ahhh you are spinning the BIG lie now....in every test I have read the Cruze is at or near the bottom in MPGs. GM knows how to game the system and it shows."

No, you said turbos arent efficient, period. And you are ignoring the thread we are discussing now when claiming the Cruze has proven to be inefficient in every test. What about THIS test? Also Popsci tested Cruze Eco and got 37mpg overall. Would this Cruze Eco count as proof that GM is gaming the system? Or are you saying than Dan is part of a GM led conspiracy to make the Cruze look good? Which is it?

"In other words....the Cruze is dead ass last in MPGs...because it is too fat for the 1.4 turbo. If it was just ONE test, buts its NOT......Now you know why so many buy Corollas....they are great economy cars....they are ECONOMICAL and reliable......When the old tech Toyota beats the new Chevy hands down in MPGs that makes the Cruze a joke."

What a moron. How old are you again? 17? The Cruze LTZ has the WORST EPA mileage of the cars tested and thus should be expeced to have the lowest mileage. What's interesting is that the Forte (26/36) was just as bad in spite of weighing 300lbs LESS. You keep saying weight is the main factor in mileage. If that be the case why did the Forte and Elantra do so poorly? The Corolla is efficient because its light and sparesly equipped. And it's SLOW- you fail to mention that great Toyota tech yielded the slowest car in the test by far. Toyota chose to value mileage over EVERYTHING including performance and upscale content. The corolla has to remain super light because it has an anemic engine and a 4 speed. The Cruze is slightly less efficient (only in non ECO guise) but the trade off is better handling, braking and acceleration plus a quieter ride.

""One cause of the inefficiency comes from the fact that the power to spin the turbine is not free. Having a turbine in the exhaust flow increases the restriction in the exhaust. This means that on the exhaust stroke, the engine has to push against a higher back-pressure. This subtracts a little bit of power from the cylinders that are firing at the same time.­"

I read it and that has nothing to do with my point. You said turbo engines are always less efficient than NA engines across the board. The section of the article you're quoting is simply saying that the engine is robbed of some of its power due to restricted back pressure. I presume you are smart enough to know that the power GAINED from the increased air-fuel mixture yielded by the boost from the turbos far outweighs the loss in power from the restrictions related to exhaust back pressure. That quote has NOTHING to do with fuel economy. Nor does it address my GTI vs Si example. Here's another example- the CC is just as efficient as the 200 or TSX or Mazda6 even though those 3 cars all have NA four cylinder engines and similar curb weights.

I have seen Cruze ECO's with stickers between $18K and $19K. A spare tire retails at $100 and I doubt cruise control is $2,000.00.

"You keep saying weight is the main factor in mileage."

Please show where I said that.....you cant, can you? I have said that weight in combination with the overworked turbo engine is the problem.

"The Cruze LTZ has the WORST EPA mileage of the cars tested and thus should be expeced to have the lowest mileage"

So, genius, what is YOUR reason the Cruze has the worst MPGs of these compacts? Onstar? Blutooth? Sat radio? OR just maybe the fat curb weight and turbo engine?

"You said turbo engines are always less efficient than NA engines across the board"

Not at all...I SAID that turbo engines, when worked as hard as the Cruze's has to work because of terrible trans programming AND a fat curb weight, are not as efficient as NA engines in the same application.

"What about THIS test?"

Geese you only read what you want to read......I NEVER said the Chevy cant get good hwy MPG when cruising....I said that when worked hard, it cant get near its City rating......and it cant....I even praised the fact that it could do it. More boost means more fuel flow, period.

"You are the one who said every trip computer is inaccurate. If you can find a quote from Dan making that statement let me know."

Every single one he tested was inaccurate.

Here is another clip from the article.

"And despite protestations to the contrary, Dan Edmunds says there is an incentive for carmakers to present overly optimistic mpg feedback to their customers. "Because window sticker ratings and mpg advertising claims are hard to match in real life, fuel economy is one of those things that is often ranked 'below expectations' on owner feedback surveys like J.D. Power's Initial Quality Survey," he says."

IF you read the entire article, EVERY single car he tested and from experience from the IL fleet he thinks that the MPG meters are not accurate in any car. Add to the fact that car makers have an interest in making sure the MPG claims are backed up by the cars computer....Dan is indeed making this claim.......now dont be your usual D-bag self....call Dan what you think he is based on his claim.

""I leave it out because it isn't an issue here. Diesel is available at most stations and is 5 cents a litre cheaper then regular."

We live in the US- I think you know that by now. "

Lots of Canadians on this board bud.... and I said "I leave it out", not you. If I want to express your opinion I will rant on for paragraphs even when I'm wrong.

"Interestingly enough it's a sportier car than it's lighter competitors so I'm not sure what you mean when you say it drives like a "big car". Perhaps by big car you mean a 3 series or A4 or CTS. If so, I don't think there is anything wrong with driving like those cars. "

I guess we have a different definition of sporty... and you're dreaming if you think the Cruze will compared to the 3 series, A4 or CTS. More like the Malibu.

"Please show where I said that.....you cant, can you? I have said that weight in combination with the overworked turbo engine is the problem."

but you cant explain the Eco.....It has the same engine and more weight than it's Asian competitors.

"So, genius, what is YOUR reason the Cruze has the worst MPGs of these compacts? Onstar? Blutooth? Sat radio? OR just maybe the fat curb weight and turbo engine? "

You don't know squat. THere are 4 all new compacts on the market. Only ONE of them (elantra) is under 3000lbs. What does that tell you? The Jetta, focus and Cruze are all 3000lbs+ in upper trims and all are newer than cars like Corolla. The Civic is "new" but is still using the same platform as before and weight gain was basically nonexistent. Weight is a factor in lower fuel economy, but its also a factor in feature count, rigidity and quietness. If you want average ride and handling the Elantra is the car for you. In exchange for that you gain about 3 real world MPGs vs the Cruze. If you want better handling, a big car ride and quietness the Cruze offers that with along with a mileage penalty.

"Geese you only read what you want to read......I NEVER said the Chevy cant get good hwy MPG when cruising....I said that when worked hard, it cant get near its City rating......and it cant....I even praised the fact that it could do it. More boost means more fuel flow, period. "

You have said REPEATEDLY that turbos arent efficient and the Cruze should get a more efficient NA motor if it wants to compete. You've also said testing has shown the car to be inefficient. Is this thread not about a real world test? Does this eco not have the 1.4L turbo? WTF are you talking about? I suspect even you don't know. C&D compared 5 compacts and NONE of them came close to matching their EPA combined mileage in hard driving. Out of the 5 cars, the Cruze was the only turbo. I think all 5 were under 23mpg for the test. C&D's real world testing of Elantra/Forte has consistently shown those cars to average low 20s in testing. Even for C&D that is way off EPA estimates.

"IF you read the entire article, EVERY single car he tested and from experience from the IL fleet he thinks that the MPG meters are not accurate in any car. Add to the fact that car makers have an interest in making sure the MPG claims are backed up by the cars computer....Dan is indeed making this claim.......now dont be your usual D-bag self....call Dan what you think he is based on his claim."

He didnt say every trip computer is inaccurate. Nor did he say that the best are so far off that they should be disregarded. He said there were wide variations in accuracy with some being only 5% off. For anyone who hasnt driven and evaluated every car to say every trip computer produced bad data would be ridiculous. Which is why you made the statement.

"Not at all...I SAID that turbo engines, when worked as hard as the Cruze's has to work because of terrible trans programming AND a fat curb weight, are not as efficient as NA engines in the same application."

Any non jackass knows that a normal owner (especially one that actually cares about mileage) would never drive like sport car crazed journalists who are determined to push a 3100lb compact to perform like a GTI. If you drive a Cruze (or any other turbo) like a normal commuter there is no reason to believe the turbo has to work "extra hard" to move the car. If you drive the Cruze in a comparo that includes lots of back road driving, speeding and testing than I suppose the turbo does work hard. Rapid acceleration and decceleration are always the enemry of good FE- turbo or no turbo.

"THere are 4 all new compacts on the market. Only ONE of them (elantra) is under 3000lbs. What does that tell you? The Jetta, focus and Cruze are all 3000lbs+ in upper trims and all are newer than cars like Corolla. The Civic is "new" but is still using the same platform as before and weight gain was basically nonexistent. Weight is a factor in lower fuel economy, but its also a factor in feature count, rigidity and quietness."

I will ask again...if not weight and the turbo engine....why is the Cruze less efficient than its competition? Like always you avoid a direct question. IN EVERY TEST the cruze gets beat in MPGS...why? Say it with me..EVERY SINGLE TEST.

"Any non jackass knows that a normal owner (especially one that actually cares about mileage) would never drive like sport car crazed journalists who are determined to push a 3100lb compact to perform like a GTI"

So a "normal" owner never puts 4 people in the car and drives into the mountains and climbs a grade? Never?

"like a normal commuter there is no reason to believe the turbo has to work "extra hard" to move the car"

Do you think it would have to work as hard without all of the extra weight? OH and you have not driven one......the Cruze is a pain to drive slowly in the city because of the trans programming. How many tests do you have to read before you believe that the trans is a problem? The way you have to keep flooring the accelerator in order to drive it kills economy.

"but you cant explain the Eco"

Sure I can....it has a manual transmission......everybody that has driven a manual has said it is so much nicer to drive because of the lack of the mis-programmed automatic. Do yourself a favor and learn to drive a manual......you will realize that one selects the correct gear for the situation you are in......not the retarded trans in the Cruze.

You cant escape from the fact that the Cruze is heavier than the competition and gets worse MPGs in every test it is in. Spin that all you want but its true. AND it is the only one with a turbo. When you cruise the turbo does fine...when you are on the boost it gets less MPG than its competition.....just admit a NA engine would do better in the Cruze and we can move on. It was a marketing gimmick......"look, it has a turbo!" oh but it goes no faster and gets worst MPGS.....

The Cruze is a nice and solid car that is mid pack in overall performance.....and that is saying something for a compact GM car......just like everybody has said but YOU.

I knew you could do it if you stayed around 65mph. I just did that I70 trip in a '06 cts and got 31mpg.

"I will ask again...if not weight and the turbo engine....why is the Cruze less efficient than its competition? Like always you avoid a direct question. IN EVERY TEST the cruze gets beat in MPGS...why? Say it with me..EVERY SINGLE TEST. "

let me see if I can phras this in a way that penetrates your thick skull. WEIGHT IS ONE REASON the Cruze is less efficient than cars like Elantra. I also said lower weight DOES NOT guarantee efficiency as evidences by cars like the 3 and Forte. I also said the Cruze trades efficiency for performance and refinement. Should I say it in chinese next?

Dude, the Eco gets better mileage with the automatic and the manual. It's not just the manual, plus you werent talking about the tranny- you said the Cruze was too heavy and lacking a NA engine and thus was inefficient.

I provided ZERO spin about the mileage- the EPA ratings show it's one of the lowest in class out of 2011 or 2012 models and that's largely because the Focus and Elantra jumped 4mpg with their redesigns. When the Cruze debuted it was actually near the top in terms of EPA ratings. I told you 3 times (maybe more) that it trades handling and quietness for mileage. Some people think that's a worthy trade off, others don't. Even someone lacking intelligence (if the shoe fits...) can figure out that saving 3mpg over the course of a year doesnt amount to huge savings if you drive 10k miles a year. 3mpg isn't enough to be a deal breaker and per MT's test the Elantra is only about 2mpg more efficient than the Cruze.

"The Cruze is a nice and solid car that is mid pack in overall performance.....and that is saying something for a compact GM car......just like everybody has said but YOU."

More proof of stupidity. It's not a midpack performer except in mileage. In terms of handling, braking, acceleration and sound levels its near the top of the pack. It's faster than everything in the segment except the Focus and 2.5L equipped Mazda3. How in the hell is that "midpack" performance?

"How in the hell is that "midpack" performance? "

Midpack in performance as in the results of magazine tests......DUH Who is stupid?

"you said the Cruze was too heavy and lacking a NA engine and thus was inefficient. "

It IS...its just you wont admit it....if it gets LESS MPGs than the other cars in its class, what would you call it?

"WEIGHT IS ONE REASON"

OK, AGAIN I ask you...what are the OTHER ones?????? OH it must be the turbo engine!..right? If not lets have it or shut the F up....you are looking more and more like a nut with every time I ask you and you wont answer....my in box is lit up like a Xmas tree with comments about how crazy you are.....

"amount to huge savings if you drive 10k miles a year. "

Oh so if you drive a BELOW average amount of miles per year it wont matter much.......what a total bullcrap argument! How about the AVERAGE person that drives almost 15K a year.....funny how you discount the miles to make the Cruze look better. Why not just tell the truth.?

I took the MS3 up to the 500 last Sunday; with four adult guys in the car and driving at @ 75 mph it managed 28 mpg- and that included @ 45 minutes of gridlock on the streets around the Speedway. You CAN eke decent mileage out of a turbocharged engine, but you MUST keep the engine off boost as much as possible.

RB, first of all you SUCK for going to the 500 :)......and of course you are correct....the dingleberry above has NEVER even had a turbo engine so all he can do is look at some specs then try and look smart....which he rarely does.

BB, the new DI turbos tend to use even MORE fuel at WOT than some older cars; the ECU keeps the A/F ratio on the rich side to cool the intake charge and reduce the possibility of knock. As Robert A. Heinlein used to say, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

"Midpack in performance as in the results of magazine tests......DUH Who is stupid?"

Performance can be measured objectively. Testing has shown its one of the better performing cars in the class. Its subjective ranking in car mags is another matter. Usually a car with decent styling, quality interior, good space and top notch performance finishes near the top of the field in a comparo but apparently not when said car is a Chevy. You should be smart enough to realize a Dodge avenger isnt going to win a any comparos but you thought the car was good enough to own based on its performance and value. At the end of the day magazine comparos are just subjective rankings based on the personal feelings of the reviewers. The only publication that does comparisons where objective data constitutes most of the score is Road and Track. MT doesnt even score vehicles, they just provide an arbitrary ranking without any justification. And we can always count on people like you to act like a MT comparo is representative of irrefutable fact.

"the dingleberry above has NEVER even had a turbo engine so all he can do is look at some specs then try and look smart....which he rarely does."

what does it say about you when I easily make you look stupid everytime you oppose me on any topic? May not be the smartest guy around, but I've got you beat so I'll just have to live with that for now.

"It IS...its just you wont admit it....if it gets LESS MPGs than the other cars in its class, what would you call it?"

The Cruze has two engines, two variations and two transmissions. The 1.4L auto equipped LT and LTZ get subpar mileage. The ECO models do not get subpar mileage and the eco manual gets better hwy mileage than any competitors. The ECO auto gets same or better mileage than everyting except 2012 Civic, Elantra and Focus SFE. Taken as a whole the Cruze isn't inefficient. The volume selling automatic models are lagging vs similar models from the top competitors. Again, the gap is about 3mpg- hardly enough to save a customer thousands per year in fuel costs. And the Cruze still beats lighter competitors such as Jetta and Mazda3.

"Oh so if you drive a BELOW average amount of miles per year it wont matter much.......what a total bullcrap argument! How about the AVERAGE person that drives almost 15K a year.....funny how you discount the miles to make the Cruze look better. Why not just tell the truth.?"

@ 12k miles you save under 200 a year if gas is $3.75 by having a car that is 3mpg more efficient. That's the truth.

"what does it say about you when I easily make you look stupid everytime you oppose me on any topic? "

Wow, you really think that? Who is being subjective now? Nobody but you seems to think that. Your arrogance is simply stunning and disgusting. Somebody that is so insecure in their own skin that they have to tell everybody every day how smart they are is very ill. You really need some meds.

"12k miles"

Umm the average driver drives 15K miles......and I can prove it....why are you talking about 12K?

"Taken as a whole the Cruze isn't inefficient."

Yes it is, if the volume seller is.

"Usually a car with decent styling, quality interior, good space and top notch performance finishes near the top of the field in a comparo but apparently not when said car is a Chevy. "

WHINER! Now you are saying the ENTIRE automotive world is conspiring against GM? Your sickness is out of control! Does ANYBODY on this board believe this garbage? It never dawned on you that the Cruze is just not as good as you think it is? Take off your GM knee pads and wipe your mouth off, you are revolting.

"The only publication that does comparisons where objective data constitutes most of the score is Road and Track.'

WRONG....dont you feel stupid when I prove you WRONG over and over? Consumer Reports does it even more than R/T. Dont post.....you seem smarter that way.

"The article goes on to present Dan's case quite well"

I understand Dan's case, and it may be true for the majority of cars. But saying that no trip computer is to be trusted is like saying no speedometer is accurate, and they all read high. That is patently false.

Bodyblue and 1487:

Both of you have spent WAY to much time on this blog today. Quit arguing, Its gets annoying muddling through all of your personal disdain.

Its entertaining, but it gets old fast. You look like kids (and I don't care who started it).

This is nothing like a speedometer accuracy discussion. This issue is much more complex.

MPG computers cannot be relied upon to come close to the 0.1 mpg accuracy they display on their digital readouts. Why? At the heart of it, fuel flow is never directly measured.

The trip computer estimates fuel flow from rpm and the amount of time each injector was commanded open. At this point the amount of fuel squirting out of the injector is assumed. Things like the manufacturing tolerance of the injectors and dirt in the nozzles cannot be accounted for. In some cases the resolution of the data collection in hertz is not as high as the oscillation of the engine in rpm; every single fuel squirt is not being tracked--the tracking line follows more of a stair step than a smooth curve.

So the total amount of fuel squirting out of the injector during each individual event is assumed, and these assumptions are added up using something less than perfect resolution.

Counting puffs of fuel and adding them up over time with some assumptions thrown in is not the same as having a flow meter somewhere in the fuel line measuring the precise fuel flow -- something no car has that I know of. This is where speedometers are very different: they DO measure speed directly, and they can therefore be trusted far more readily.

That's just the fuel flow inaccuracy issue. Other unaccounted-for factors include the change in the density of the fuel with temperature and the change in energy content of the fuel with respect to additives, such as percent ethanol in the fuel.

So we don't know the fuel flow rate with precision, and we don't know the energy content of a single puff of fuel with precision. So, yeah, until there are actual fuel flow meters in cars, I won't trust 100% of the mpg and DTE gauges out there. None of them do it right.

A true flow meter would go a long way, but it would not solve the whole issue because you'd still have the density and energy/ethanol content issue, but at least the volume of liquid used over a number of miles would be directly measured and more accurately known.

On top of all this, carmakers don't shoot for the middle and give an equal plus x/minus x tolerance on the result. They seem to assume the best case for ethanol percentage (zero ethanol) and the best case for temperature and density of the fuel. At the end of the day the meters almost always overpromise compared to a hand calculation. I have only seen mpg understated compared to reality on a gauge such as this once or twice compared to hundreds over over-reports. The calibration tolerance seems to be plus 2x/minus zero.

Many speedometers have a similar tolerance (plus zero/minus 2x) strategy because they don't want you going faster than the meter says you are, but it's OK if you're actually going under the limit. With mpg, they apparently don't ever want to say you're getting less mpg than you really are, but they're OK with you thinking you're getting better mpg than you really are. The first is a safety consideration, the latter a customer satisfaction issue.

This is not a GM issue, it's an everyone issue. I'm simply saying the technology isn't as precise as the digital readouts shown to us with apparent with 0.1 decimal accuracy. Our observations suggest the tolerance is closer to plus 2 or 3 mpg/minus 0, and we've seen worse.

I should clarify my position as follows: none of them do it right ... with respect to the 0.1 mpg accuracy and repeatability that is implied by the format of the digital display that is presented to the driver.

As a general feedback and driving incentive tool, they're great. As a measure of true performance, they're lacking.

Thanks for the clarification Dan.....

Ok 1487 please call Dan an Idiot......put up or shut up.

"But saying that no trip computer is to be trusted is like saying no speedometer is accurate, and they all read high. That is patently false."

You sure about that? I believed Dan from the article and I believe him now.

Well, across 11 tanks mine reads 0.25 MPG high, comparing the hand calc average to the average reported by the computer each tank. Is that perfect accuracy, or even accurate to the significant figures represented by the display? No. But it's also not several mpg off. It's close enough that I have no issues believing it on any given tank, though I will continue to accumulate data, for discussions such as these. It is surprising, though, a 6 year old car with 105k...I'd like to think GM did an above average job of modeling their injectors. Or perhaps they use O2 sensor feedback to compensate, but that would get dicey if there is no ethanol sensor in the gas tank, cause the stoich ratio changes...

I guess my point was, the method they use doesn't HAVE to be off by several mpg, as evidenced by my car. Is it some magical coincidence? I dunno, maybe. But probably not.

And there is no reason a speedometer can't be very accurate. I don't think it is a technological hurdle (i.e. the optimism is purposeful), where an accurate MPG display MAY be somewhat of a hurdle for some automakers/applications.

My MS3, X3, and long gone E39 528i all have/had OBCs that consistently calculated an average MPG number 3%-4% higher than the manually calculated figure. Just another data point.

I have tracked the mpg of my 08 T&C 4.0L for the first 33k mi. I used an excel sheet to record every fill up and calculate mpg. I also noted the car computer mpg on every tank and reset the car computer at every fill up. After 33k I lost a receipt and lost track.

Anyway, my average average of all calculated mpg turned out to be 17.x. The average average of all car mpg was also 17.x and slightly LOWER than calculated. Yes, over 50+ tanks, the calculate mpg was higher than car mpg. On average each tank would differ by + - 1 mpg, but overall the computer was very accurate.

I believe the hand calculation is LESS accurate because there are to many variables. But, over time, those variables cancelled out and resulted in a slightly higher # than car computer.