Chevy Cruze ECO earns an astounding 42 MPG EPA Highway rating!

[Kal-El]

:eek:

2011 Chevy Cruze Eco Gets EPA Fuel Economy Rating Of 42 MPG

http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/drive-on/2010/11/12/ecox-large.jpg

The new Chevrolet Cruze Eco and its 42 mile-per-gallon highway gas mileage rating is likely to send the rest of the auto industry scrambling. Suddenly, every chief engineer is going to have to measure the fuel mileage of vehicles under development against a General Motors sedan.

2011 Chevrolet Cruze's badging will distinguish the Eco version on the rear.

It could be a painful exercise. At 42 mpg with a manual transmission, Cruze Eco is 2 mpg better than even GM had forecast. More significantly, it bests smaller cars like Honda Fit and Ford Fiesta. It's better than some hybrids, which can cost a lot more.

How did Chevy do it? It added more body panels to reduce wind drag, among other things.

Now other automakers are going to have to struggle for mpg boasting rights. A new Hyundai Elantra could deliver. So could the next Honda Civic. But if they can't best 42 mpg or come close, there could be hell to pay when sales are counted. Interestingly, even though gas prices have remained stable below $3 a gallon, surveys show buyers still care a lot about fuel conservation.

Cost is the key. Adding hybrid systems, turbochargers or diesel engines significantly increase their cost. The Cruze Eco will be more expensive than the base model, but won't blow the bank. Cruze Eco starts at $18,895, including shipping. The base model Cruze starts at $16,995. Chrissie Thompson of the Detroit Free Press says that's at least several hundred dollars more than its targeted foreign competitors, but Cruze Eco comes with more standard features.

The company will start building the Eco model this month, spokeswoman Lesley Hettinger tells the Free Press. Sales of the Eco model start by the end of the year, she said.

Just how does Cruze Eco's manual-transmission fuel economy stack up?:

At 28 m.p.g. city / 42 m.p.g. highway, it compares with the 26 / 35 offered by the Toyota Corolla, the Honda Civic's 26 / 34, the Ford Focus' 25 / 35 and the Hyundai Elantra's 26 / 35.

http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/2011-Chevrolet-Cruze-064.jp_1.jpg

[Kal-El]

This really questions the logic of spending twice as much for a Volt that gets 36 mpg highway in gas mode. That's right, 36 mpg in the far more advanced Volt designed specifically for efficiency. LOL!

42 MPG is an extremely significant achievement for a straight gas powered car. And it's good sized too. To think that much smaller cars like the Honda Fit only get 34 MPG highway. And Honda was always much more fuel efficient than GM cars. This really can't be overstated.

First it was this years Fiesta which leapfrogged the rest of the industry with a 40 mpg rating with the 6-speed option. 4 mpg better than 2nd best. Now, the bigger Cruze comes along and sets a whole new standard nobody is likely to match anytime soon.

And for this larger car to beat the Yaris by 6 MPG highway is nothing short of remarkable.

:bow:

[SAV912]

I think what most people miss is that this car (nor any car driven by the average human being) will not get 42 MPG. In fact, it won't get anywhere near that. It is CAPABLE of it, yes. It's not LIKELY to get it though.

America as a whole still drives like too much of an asshat, setting cruise control at 85 MPH thru the Appalachians, accelerating up to red lights and hammering the brakes, and overall having little knowledge of the most efficient method out of a car. I know there are people here that crack 50 MPG with their Yarii. Give that same Yaris they did it in to the Avg Joe and I guarantee he won't touch anywhere near 50 MPG.

-SAV

[severous01]

so for all you volt haters....how often do you really go more than 45 miles before you need to 'charge' again??? and, while you're at work do you have access to a 120v port? i happen to have access so, i will never be stranded...that and i drive 25 miles round trip.

plus i'm sure there'll be options for solar panels on hood and trunk like prius did. that will increase charging abilities. and the volt is much more advanced than the cruz. and until battery prices come down and technologies go up....electrics will be outrageous.

any way, that's an average driver doing average things. that's not someone driving smart, with nothing in the car and trying to get better economy...

any way, go cruz....now maybe GM can sell cars in china and korea....

[Kal-El]

I think what most people miss is that this car (nor any car driven by the average human being) will not get 42 MPG. In fact, it won't get anywhere near that. It is CAPABLE of it, yes. It's not LIKELY to get it though.

America as a whole still drives like too much of an asshat, setting cruise control at 85 MPH thru the Appalachians, accelerating up to red lights and hammering the brakes, and overall having little knowledge of the most efficient method out of a car. I know there are people here that crack 50 MPG with their Yarii. Give that same Yaris they did it in to the Avg Joe and I guarantee he won't touch anywhere near 50 MPG.

-SAV


Well, regardless, it's the official EPA rating. The EPA tests all cars the same way and this is simply a way to compare cars and get an idea of what you may expect to achieve.

Fact is, is that post 2007, EPA testing is much more stringent and "real world". This 42 mpg rating before 2008 would have been about 47 mpg.
Today's EPA ratings are easily beaten. For example, most of us average around 38 mpg in our Yaris's even driving above speed limits and using AC. Yet the Yaris is EPA rated 29/36 (33 average).

Based on that, most people will indeed get at least 42mpg while cruising on the highway even at 70-75mph. More than half will probably get more, even above 45 on average.

Believe it or not, the new EPA testing actually tests based on going over the speed limit which you pointed out most Americans do. It's just normal to do so. And they test with the AC on and account for other real world variables.

[SAV912]

Today's EPAs are not as easily beaten as people think. A website of enthusiasts is not a generally good sample of the owners of the car as a whole. The largest sample on fueleconomy.gov of Yaris owners are coupled in the 2007 and 2008 models.

'07 AT = 35 MPG
'07 MT = 38.1
'08 AT = 36.3
'08 MT = 38.4

That covers a field of 203 users just over those four model years. Personally, using the miles travelled/gallons filled method, I've never gotten better than 39.9 MPG, and that was after a week of steady 65 MPH commuting on I-95 to and from work during cool weather. No, nothing is wrong with my car either. Plugs are new, and I run full synthetic oil and have had new low rolling resistance tires on the car since May '10. So most people do not get at least 42 MPG on average. Most people will not get 42 MPG in the Cruze ECO either.

The new EPA cycle only tests AC usage as a small portion of the ratings they issue cars. The average speed of the car while using AC is only 22.2 MPH and only over the course of 9 minutes while only travelling 3.6 miles. For the other four parts of conducting the EPA tests, the AC is off. The highway cycle's average speed is 48 MPH while touching a top speed of 60 MPH. They do have a section where the top speed they achieve is 80 MPH, but only over 8 miles and 10 minutes. The bottom line is, while the new EPA numbers are CLOSER to those achieved by the average American driver, they are still a bandaid rather than the full overhaul fix that the EPA system needs. While you can achieve the highway rating or better, the point still stands that you have to concentrate harder than most Americans are willing to do in order to get there.

This isn't all a bag on the Cruze ECO. I appplaud tremendously that a car larger than ours with more luxury items is able to be more efficient while simultaneously offering more power. This is hopefully a sign of even better things in the pipeline. I just don't care for the misrepresentation and such disparity between city and highway numbers. Advertising a 42 MPG rating, when the car is not likely to touch anywhere near that on average occasion (you must take into account the 28 MPG city rating, and the 35 MPG average), is what irks me.

-SAV :drinking:

[Kal-El]

Today's EPAs are not as easily beaten as people think. A website of enthusiasts is not a generally good sample of the owners of the car as a whole. The largest sample on fueleconomy.gov of Yaris owners are coupled in the 2007 and 2008 models.

'07 AT = 35 MPG
'07 MT = 38.1
'08 AT = 36.3
'08 MT = 38.4

That covers a field of 203 users just over those four model years. Personally, using the miles travelled/gallons filled method, I've never gotten better than 39.9 MPG, and that was after a week of steady 65 MPH commuting on I-95 to and from work during cool weather. No, nothing is wrong with my car either. Plugs are new, and I run full synthetic oil and have had new low rolling resistance tires on the car since May '10. So most people do not get at least 42 MPG on average. Most people will not get 42 MPG in the Cruze ECO either.

Who ever said that the Yaris get's 42 mpg average, or that it's expected too?
It's rated 29/36 for the MT. That's 32-33 mpg average. Even the fact that you can get 39 mpg is a significant amount more than what the EPA says you'll get. :iono:


The new EPA cycle only tests AC usage as a small portion of the ratings they issue cars. The average speed of the car while using AC is only 22.2 MPH and only over the course of 9 minutes while only travelling 3.6 miles. For the other four parts of conducting the EPA tests, the AC is off. The highway cycle's average speed is 48 MPH while touching a top speed of 60 MPH. They do have a section where the top speed they achieve is 80 MPH, but only over 8 miles and 10 minutes. The bottom line is, while the new EPA numbers are CLOSER to those achieved by the average American driver, they are still a bandaid rather than the full overhaul fix that the EPA system needs. While you can achieve the highway rating or better, the point still stands that you have to concentrate harder than most Americans are willing to do in order to get there.

I just disagree that it takes any special effort to achieve or beat today's EPA estimates. Using the Yaris as an example, I'd have to drive a consistent 90mph just to get it down to the highway rating of 36mpg. To get the city mileage down to 29mpg, I'd have to either drive it like a rally car or be stuck in gridlock.


This isn't all a bag on the Cruze ECO. I appplaud tremendously that a car larger than ours with more luxury items is able to be more efficient while simultaneously offering more power. This is hopefully a sign of even better things in the pipeline. I just don't care for the misrepresentation and such disparity between city and highway numbers. Advertising a 42 MPG rating, when the car is not likely to touch anywhere near that on average occasion (you must take into account the 28 MPG city rating, and the 35 MPG average), is what irks me.

-SAV :drinking:

Well, the 42mpg rating is clearly stated as HIGHWAY. No one is claiming that this will be your average mixed with city. I don't see anything misleading about it. Since everyone has a different "average" based on how much city and how much highway they drive, stating an average isn't very helpful. Most of us just care about the highway number as a bar that is set for how fuel efficient a car is. People should look at both numbers to get an idea of what is good for them.

[SailDesign]

The only thing that makes it get 42 mpg is an overdrive on the 6-speed auto box (it is not available with stick-shift) The LT gets 36 mpg, because it doesn't have the OD.
The engine is a 1.4 with turbo giving 138hp, and the cars' weight is close to 3100 lbs. So the power/weight ratio is just a bit worse than ours.

[Kal-El]

The only thing that makes it get 42 mpg is an overdrive on the 6-speed auto box (it is not available with stick-shift) The LT gets 36 mpg, because it doesn't have the OD.
The engine is a 1.4 with turbo giving 138hp, and the cars' weight is close to 3100 lbs. So the power/weight ratio is just a bit worse than ours.

Actually, the ECO is ONLY available in a manual transmission.

[SAV912]

Who ever said that the Yaris get's 42 mpg average, or that it's expected too?

You did, actually. I know you meant highway. I figured it was safe to assume you would know I meant highway as well.

Based on that, most people will indeed get at least 42mpg while cruising on the highway even at 70-75mph. More than half will probably get more, even above 45 on average.

-SAV

[Kal-El]

The only thing that makes it get 42 mpg is an overdrive on the 6-speed auto box (it is not available with stick-shift) The LT gets 36 mpg, because it doesn't have the OD.
The engine is a 1.4 with turbo giving 138hp, and the cars' weight is close to 3100 lbs. So the power/weight ratio is just a bit worse than ours.

Read this article. It outlines the amount of things GM had to do to achieve this. It wasn't easy.


Cruze Eco’s highway fuel economy beats non-hybrid segment competitors – including 23 percent greater highway fuel economy than the Honda Civic – as well as the Ford Fiesta subcompact and many hybrid models. In fact, it’s better than Ford Fusion Hybrid, Nissan Altima Hybrid and Toyota Camry Hybrid.

“Chevrolet Cruze continues to redefine the compact segment, offering class-leading standard safety features, upscale amenities – as well as hybrid-like fuel economy without the price,” said Chuck Russell, vehicle line director. “The Cruze Eco is in a league of its own and will challenge perceptions of the efficiency available in a more affordable non-hybrid.”

The Cruze Eco carries an MSRP of $18,895 (including destination charge). It goes on sale in January.

To achieve its segment-leading fuel economy, Cruze’s engineers focused on aerodynamic performance, mass optimization and powertrain enhancements. The refinements in each area paid big dividends towards the car’s overall efficiency, while providing engineers with valuable information to help enhance the efficiency of future Chevrolet models.

“We left no stone unturned or piece of sheet metal un-weighed,” said Russell. “Our engineers were comprehensive and thorough when it came to evaluating and modifying the aspects of the car’s performance that contribute to fuel economy.”

Aero enhancements.
Aerodynamic improvements over non-Eco manual-transmission models contributed approximately six mpg to the Cruze’s EPA-estimated 42 mpg highway fuel economy. Many were developed and refined in more than 500 hours of wind-tunnel testing of the Chevy Volt, which shares a core architecture with the Cruze. Examples include the upper grille, which has more “closeouts” to improve aerodynamics, a lower front air dam extension, a rear spoiler, a lowered ride height and underbody panels that smooth airflow beneath the car.

The Eco model also features an all-new technology in the compact segment: a lower front grille air shutter that closes at higher speeds to reduce aerodynamic drag and opens at lower speeds to optimize engine-cooling airflow. Another contributor to reduced drag is the use of ultra-low rolling resistance 17-inch Goodyear tires (used with lightweight wheels), which are also used on the Volt.

As a result of the aero enhancements, aerodynamic drag was reduced by 10 percent over a non-Eco model, with a coefficient of drag of 0.298. That places Cruze at the top of the class for mainstream compact cars.

Mass optimization.
More than 42 changes were made on the Eco to reduce weight. It weighs in at 3,009 pounds (1,365 kg), compared to the 3,223 pounds (1,462 kg) of the Cruze 1LT. The diet program for the Cruze challenged engineers to look at all aspects of the vehicle’s construction, including hundreds of weld flanges on the vehicle. They were reduced 1 mm to 2 mm in length, which saved several pounds, while the sheet metal gauge thickness was reduced by about 0.1 mm in select components. This saved weight while preserving structural integrity.

Lighter wheels and tires are used on the Eco. They’re stylish, polished 17-inch alloy units with Goodyear tires that weigh only 36.5 pounds (16.6 kg) apiece. That’s 5.3 pounds (2.4 kg) less than the 16-inch wheel/tires of the Cruze 1LT for a complete savings to the vehicle of 21.2 pounds (9.6 kg).

Efficient powertrain.
Cruze Eco is powered by power-dense Ecotec 1.4L turbocharged engine and a standard six-speed manual transmission. The transmission’s gearing is optimized for the model’s specific 17-inch wheel/tire combination and includes aggressive ratios for first and second gear coupled with a highly efficient, “taller” sixth-gear ratio for highway driving. That means engine rpm is reduced on the highway, which in turn reduces fuel consumption. A six-speed automatic transmission is available, with EPA-estimated fuel economy ratings of 26 city and 37 highway.

The Ecotec 1.4L turbo’s power ratings are 138 horsepower (103 kW) and 148 lb.-ft. of torque (200 Nm) between 1,850 rpm and 4,900 rpm. The wide rpm range for the maximum torque – a specific trait of turbocharged engines – helps the engine deliver a better driving experience and performance. The turbocharger is integrated within the exhaust manifold, for reduced weight and greater packaging flexibility.

The engine also features premium design elements that give it world-class smoothness and durability while also contributing to the Cruze Eco’s lower curb weight. They include a cast iron block with a hollow frame structure, hollow-cast camshafts and a plastic intake manifold.

[Kal-El]

You did, actually. I know you meant highway. I figured it was safe to assume you would know I meant highway as well.


No, any 42 mpg statement was in reference to the Cruze. Never did I or anyone else say that the Yaris averages 42 on the highway (although some people do).

:iono:

[SailDesign]

Actually, the ECO is ONLY available in a manual transmission.

Duh! My bad. <blush>
Either way, the OverDrive is what makes the 42 mpg possible.

[firemachine69]

That's one long-ass sixth gear! :eek:

[p123456789]

I'd still rather have the diesel version of the yaris over any hybrid 70mpg would be nice. I still dont understand how a 400 hp vette can get 30 mpg on the highway but a cruze only get 36.

[Kal-El]

I'd still rather have the diesel version of the yaris over any hybrid 70mpg would be nice. I still dont understand how a 400 hp vette can get 30 mpg on the highway but a cruze only get 36.

The Corvette has nearly unmatched aerodynamics that really shines at high speeds.
It has a very high 6th gear. And engines with a lot of power moving a light car barely has to work when cruising. The Corvette is basically idling at 75 MPH.

Meanwhile, economy car engines run higher RPM at highway speeds than any other class. Their aerodynamics aren't superior, and they usually have less gears.

[thebarber]

the panels in the grill that close at speed help, too....as well as the underbody panels....

though a tall overdrive with a relatively torquey 1.4L turbo help too

[Kal-El]

It's certainly interesting that they went with a very small 1.4 liter engine in the ECO, although turbocharged. 1.5 is the smallest engine in the US (except for Smart) until this comes out.

One thing to possibly be concerned about is engine reliability in the ECO. Reason being is that turbo engines are notoriously less reliable over time and such a small displacement coupled with 138 hp powering a good size car puts a lot of pressure on it.

Though I think it will be fine has long as you're not trying to win races everyday with that turbo. Just gotta be easy on the throttle if you want it to last.

[thebarber]

well, gm still has a huge powertrain warranty, iirc. i would think they'd be pretty confident about the 1.4's ability to run high mileage

[Hershey]

Might want to wait on a FIESTA 6 speed auto . They're already having issues with it . We test drove a sedan and liked it , but not willing to jump into one just yet .

[SailDesign]

well, gm still has a huge powertrain warranty, iirc. i would think they'd be pretty confident about the 1.4's ability to run high mileage

Yeah - 1.4 is pretty much standard-to-large for the rest of the world.
I wouldn't mind the mpg quoted, buyt:
a) it is only going to happen on long highways trips, and
b) It's a turbo, so you're pouring expensive gas into the thing. Is it really more economical than the Yaris?

[thebarber]

Yeah - 1.4 is pretty much standard-to-large for the rest of the world.
I wouldn't mind the mpg quoted, buyt:
a) it is only going to happen on long highways trips, and
b) It's a turbo, so you're pouring expensive gas into the thing. Is it really more economical than the Yaris?

pretty sure the engine doesn't require premium....gm.ca shows regular unleaded

most newer turbo engines are being designed to run on 87...

[SailDesign]

pretty sure the engine doesn't require premium....gm.ca shows regular unleaded

most newer turbo engines are being designed to run on 87...

It's about frikkin' time.... sick of filling the wife's Passat with high-test. :smile:

[Kal-El]

AutoBlog's FIRST DRIVE

There's always a little skepticism attached to Environmental Protection Agency fuel economy estimates. Even though the agency adjusted its testing procedures in 2008 to help generate more realistic figures, buyers and experts seem to approach the mystical city/highway numbers with the general impression that figures have little bearing on what owners actually experience in day-to-day use. So it should be no surprise that when General Motors and the EPA announced that the 2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco would hit 42 miles per gallon on the highway, a stink of disbelief filled our newsroom.

That kind of lofty highway fuel economy is typically relegated to hybrids, clean diesels and subcompacts that require an uncanny mastership of human origami to ferry four friends along – not roomy four-door compact sedans. Fortunately, GM was kind enough to turn us loose on a long stretch of Southern California interstate to put the fuel economy of the Cruze Eco to the test.

Stylistically, there's very little to distinguish the Cruze Eco from its less fuel-savvy brethren. You won't find any gaudy vinyl graphics or strange body cladding slathered over the vehicle's exterior. Instead, you'll need a keen eye to spot the tiny green Eco badge on the rear deck and even sharper retinas to pick out the modified grille and active shutter system nestled low in the front fascia. In short, this is a green warrior without all of the unnecessary face paint.

That theme continues indoors. Only those most familiar with the Cruze cabin will be likely to notice the absence of a center headrest and the deleted rear center armrest in the back seat. Those pieces of kit were scrapped to scrape off as much weight as possible. Otherwise, the only interior hardware on hand to set the 2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco apart from its less efficient counterpart is the presence of a legitimate row-your own six-speed manual transmission. That means that all of the interior niceties we enjoyed when we spent time behind the wheel of the standard Cruze are all still in place.

So what has GM actually done to its pint-sized sedan to be able to wring out such lofty fuel economy claims? The company says that it tackled the Cruze Eco with a three-pronged strategy to maximize the vehicle's efficiency. That started with optimizing the vehicles aerodynamics, but carried into reducing weight and tweaking the powertrain a bit as well.

On the aerodynamic front, GM bolted on a complete underbody tray to reduce wind turbulence, and small plastic spats were installed ahead of each tire to better control airflow around the wheels. Additionally, the engineers made the decision to reduce the Eco's tow rating (yes, the Cruze has a tow rating), allowing them to further close off the front grille while still maintaining proper engine temperature.

But the biggest aerodynamic claim to fame comes from the Cruze Eco's trick active shutter system. Once the vehicle reaches a speed of around 38 mph, an algorithm calculates input on everything from ambient air temperature to engine temperature and load to determine when to automatically close a set of plastic slats nestled in the lower fascia. All told, the aero tweaks netted the Cruze Eco a coefficient of drag that's 10 percent slipperier than that of the standard sedan.

GM also set about stripping as much weight as possible from the four-door, starting with a set of special Alcoa forged-aluminum 17-inch wheels that are 5.3-pounds lighter per wheel than the stock rollers. In fact, The General's engineers are fond of saying that no piece of sheetmetal went unweighed in the quest to slim the Cruze Eco's waistline. A total of 42 changes were made to the car in the name of shedding pounds, and as a result, the green-leaning Cruze hits the scales at a relatively feathery 3,009 pounds. That's 214 pounds lighter than the standard-issue model thanks to things like smaller weld flanges throughout the structure and thinner sheetmetal on a few body components.

Pop the hood and a host of mechanical changes join in the fight to help the Cruze Eco nab its lofty EPA numbers, too. While one of the most obvious changes is that the 1.4-liter, turbocharged four-cylinder engine is bolted to a six-speed manual gearbox, the minds at GM have pulled a few other quick tricks to squeeze as much efficiency as possible from the recipe. The air-conditioner compressor now wears a clutch in addition to being continuously variable to reduce drag on the engine. Likewise, an intelligent charging system only engages the alternator when it's required.

More interesting still is that the Cruze Eco has sacrificed its intermediate driveshaft in favor of two unequal-length half shafts to conserve weight. GM went with the original design to keep torque-steer at bay with both the 1.4-liter four-cylinder and the 1.8-liter four-pot, but the trade-off was deemed worthwhile when it came to the hyper-efficient version of the Cruze. After our time behind the wheel, we have to wonder why GM felt the intermediate shaft was necessary on the standard Cruze at all. With 138 horsepower and 148 pound-feet of torque on hand, we didn't exactly find ourselves fighting the steering wheel at every stoplight.

GM had cleverly put over 130 miles of interstate between us and a warm meal when they handed over the keys, so we had little interest in hypermiling to squeeze every last mpg from the Cruze Eco. Jostling through a bit of stop-and-go traffic, the Cruze Eco drove admirably, with the six-speed manual delivering predictable and precise shifts. As we thought when we first drove the standard Cruze, the manual gearbox makes the entire drivetrain much more enjoyable. The clutch provides a progressive throw with plenty of feedback.

We had places to go and things to eat, but once out on the sprawling expanse of interstate, we set the cruise control at 70 mph to save ourselves from a close encounter with the fine men and women of the California Highway Patrol. It's worth noting that GM has equipped the Cruze Eco with a 3.833 final drive ratio, so in sixth gear the forced-induction four-pot is barely breathing. Even so, it didn't seem to strain to keep up speed on a steep incline. Both fifth and sixth gears are effectively set up as overdrive cogs, so downshifting to go for a pass is best left to fourth (or even third) depending on your cruising speed.

On the interstate, the Cruze Eco proved to be both quiet and comfortable – two things that we didn't really expect from a super-efficient version of the sedan. GM has deleted the Z-link rear suspension in favor of a standard torsion bar to skimp on pounds, though the absence isn't noticeable during long commutes or in abrupt stop-and-go driving. Get the Eco out onto your favorite mountain pass, and we'd suspect that between the suspension alterations and the special low-rolling resistance Goodyear tires, you'd probably detect the difference.

Still, the Cruze is not a canyon carver, and during our time behind the wheel, we saw a maximum average fuel economy of 42.8 mpg. After a few unplanned adventures off the interstate, we saw that number dip to 41.8 with an average speed of around 65 mph. While we couldn't supply any of our own city or combined numbers, the EPA says that the Cruze Eco should be good for 26 mpg city. For comparison's sake, the Honda Civic delivers 26 mpg city and 34 mpg highway, and the new-for-2011 Hyundai Elantra checks in with 29 mpg city and 40 mpg highway.

GM has priced the Cruze Eco at $18,895, including destination. That makes figuring out the vehicle's weight class a little difficult. On the one hand, the Bowtie lands in the same field as fuel-savvy sippers like the Honda Insight hybrid at 40 mpg city/43 mpg highway with its MSRP of $18,950, but oversteps the Ford Fiesta Hatchback SE at 29 mpg city/40 mpg highway with a price tag of $16,865. Considering that the Cruze offers more passenger space than either of those contenders, we have to think that the newest Chevrolet is the first of a new class. With non-hybrid, super-efficient competitors like the super-fueler Ford Focus on the way, buyers may soon be able to take home their choice of vehicles with excellent highway fuel economy without having to deal with the added weight, cost and environmental impact of a hybrid battery system. If the Cruze Eco is the harbinger of things to come, we can't wait to see what the future brings.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/02/lead4-2011-chevrolet-cruze-eco.jpg

[andruboz]

i imagine they figured out how the epa test worked and did a little magic on the ecm to make sure the turbo is not in play for 85% of the epa driving conditions. if you like hearing the little fan go whiiiiirrrrr, then mileage starts dropping rapidly.

GM had cleverly put over 130 miles of interstate between us and a warm meal when they handed over the keys

what do you want to bet the starting point was at a much higher elevation than the finish point. you don't get max mpg climbing mountains, but coasting back down them is another story. And of course this is in feb/january when one is running the heater and not the A/C-good for -3mpg on most small cars.

we saw that number dip to 41.8 with an average speed of around 65 mph

drive that pup like a normal person up around 75mph and tell us what you get..


my last 3 new cars were chevys. [my yaris was used] i want to buy another new chevy for $20k but i want it to be a camaro, not an econobox.

[brg88tx]

this "review" uses the onboard computer to gauge the mpg??? these things typically overestimate by 2-3 mpg. wouldn't it have been more accurate to manually calculate?

but maybe the goal was not accuracy, but rather a chevy cruze eco infomercial.

[Kal-El]

i imagine they figured out how the epa test worked and did a little magic on the ecm to make sure the turbo is not in play for 85% of the epa driving conditions. if you like hearing the little fan go whiiiiirrrrr, then mileage starts dropping rapidly.



what do you want to bet the starting point was at a much higher elevation than the finish point. you don't get max mpg climbing mountains, but coasting back down them is another story. And of course this is in feb/january when one is running the heater and not the A/C-good for -3mpg on most small cars.



drive that pup like a normal person up around 75mph and tell us what you get..


my last 3 new cars were chevys. [my yaris was used] i want to buy another new chevy for $20k but i want it to be a camaro, not an econobox.

There's no reason to suspect AutoBlog to be manipulating their fuel efficiency. Seems they drove pretty normally. New EPA testing actually tests cars going over the speed limit to calculate the official highway MPG. I believe the old testing simulated 55 MPH resulting in inflated numbers.

I don't know why people are so skeptical about an EPA rating when it seems high. The Eco worked hard for this rating and it is accurate. Just because it beats the Yaris doesn't mean it's illegitimate.

BTW, winter driving results in lower efficiency than cranking the AC in the summer.

this "review" uses the onboard computer to gauge the mpg??? these things typically overestimate by 2-3 mpg. wouldn't it have been more accurate to manually calculate?

but maybe the goal was not accuracy, but rather a chevy cruze eco infomercial.

I agree they should have manually calculated it. However, Autoblog has no interest in plugging certain models. I see them criticize and praise models from every brand.