Chevrolet Cruze Forums banner
1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
OK, so I initially posted on here about my disappointment in my fuel economy to start with, and that led to a lot of discussion... of which most of it had nothing to do with fuel economy after a few posts.

What I've done here is let the data speak for itself. I've tracked every tank I've had in the car since purchase. I purchased the car on 4/9/11 and my first fill up was 4/12/11. I've pulled the data from 4/12/11 to 4/7/12 off my Fuelly account, and summarized here below.

First, information on my "normal" driving. I commute approx. 75 miles each way, and purchased the car for use in a carpool. I changed my carpool habits in September of 2011, so April to September of 2011 the primary use was my work commute, but of course there were other trips in the car. From September 2011 (mid month) to now my commute in my car has been shortened, but still along the same original route. I now meet up with others and swap into a different car. I have also marked out when "significant" events happened (tire pressure change, first oil change, 93 octane use for Trifecta Tune, and K&N CAI install) so that you can be informed when looking at the data.

Once I had the data, I charted by mileage (as dates of fill up had no meaning to the car), as some feel that the engine "breaks in" and this would allow to see that effect (if any). I then grouped the data by quarter of the year (1st Qtr. Jan - Mar, etc.) so it could be associated with "seasons". I color coded these groupings as marked them (blue for winter, green for spring, red for summer, orange for fall) on the chart. And, I've broken down Max/Min/Avg/St. Dev by season, and listed it for overall.

I can't think of any other meaningful ways to display the data... but could break it up differently if so compelled to do so. With all that said, I see the best fuel economy in the summer (go figure) and worst in the winter (again, duh).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,502 Posts
Good averages. I'm impressed with the summer numbers, especially the end of 3rd quarter! Cant wait to see how mine does(Cruze's first summer coming up). BTW, is your K&N just the short ram with the shield?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
As discussed on this forum in other posts, fuel economy is effected by a large number of factors. It looks like your car did pretty good, given car pool weight loads. Do you have any idea of your split of highway/city mileage?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Good averages. I'm impressed with the summer numbers, especially the end of 3rd quarter! Cant wait to see how mine does(Cruze's first summer coming up). BTW, is your K&N just the short ram with the shield?
Yes, the K&N is the short ram with the shield.

As to the very impressive end of 3rd quarter number, I went back and looked. The two really high points are trips in Canada, which has a lower speed limit than here in Michigan (70 MPH highway).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
As discussed on this forum in other posts, fuel economy is effected by a large number of factors. It looks like your car did pretty good, given car pool weight loads. Do you have any idea of your split of highway/city mileage?
Standard split is less than 10% city driving. My commute was broken down in my previous post (I should link to it I guess), but the first 20 miles is less than 2 miles two lane 50 MPH speed limit, and then a divided highway (55 MPH). From there the balance is Interstate (70 MPH), except for the last 4 miles, which is true city driving (though no real traffic, but still stop lights). So, 4 miles out of approx. 72 miles each way I would consider city driving.

Typical car pool was 3 guys (175+ lbs.) sometimes the fourth would join. So yes... overall I was very happy with what I saw.

Obviously things vary on a commute, and that's how the other thread degenerated... I decided to stay way from justification, and just post the data and let it speak / direct questions this time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
335 Posts
Subscribed, I'm starting to wish i got a manual ECO, I shift a 10 speed semi all day so the last thing i wanted was a manual car, IIRC the ECO manual was 42 and the auto was only a 39 mpg rated and my STANDARD cruze was a 38 mpg. I only do 60 mph on the freeway for 25 miles and then the rest is in city (9 miles) slow driving under 30 mph with stop lights every where. my avg speed is 41.2

My wife's car don't do as well because her work is only 6 miles away, 3 miles city and 3 miles city. it takes her 18 minutes to get to work. her avg speed is 31.8
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Subscribed, I'm starting to wish i got a manual ECO, I shift a 10 speed semi all day so the last thing i wanted was a manual car, IIRC the ECO manual was 42 and the auto was only a 39 mpg rated and my STANDARD cruze was a 38 mpg. I only do 60 mph on the freeway for 25 miles and then the rest is in city (9 miles) slow driving under 30 mph with stop lights every where. my avg speed is 41.2

My wife's car don't do as well because her work is only 6 miles away, 3 miles city and 3 miles city. it takes her 18 minutes to get to work. her avg speed is 31.8
Hi Silverram.
So if I'm reading this correctly, both you and your wife have the standard turbo Cruze and NOT the eco?
I see from 2 fill ups you have 34.3 and 36.2
I'm thinking about trying one of these cars with an automatic. If I knew for sure I would be in the low 30's with 70/30 driving, I would in a heartbeat.
Still researching things.
I see you also have a Dodge with the Cummins......... I just got a new 2012 Dodge crew cab dually 4WD cummins and a 6 speed ( 3.42 rears )and I'm thrilled with my 16 - 17 HWY mpg's on it.
My other vehicle is a Jeep Grand Cherokee with the v8 and I get 15 with it on average hand calculated. That's what I'm looking to improve on! LOL
- Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
335 Posts
I think low 30s is totally possible with 1.4t autos, I'm just jealous of the 40s and mid 40s i see some of these guys are getting.

Click on my truck on fuelly and i have had as high as 23.8mpg out of a 8400 truck. not bad huh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
I think low 30s is totally possible with 1.4t autos, I'm just jealous of the 40s and mid 40s i see some of these guys are getting.

Click on my truck on fuelly and i have had as high as 23.8mpg out of a 8400 truck. not bad huh.
Yeah, I hear all the time on the Cummins forum how those 5.9's can get really great mileage.
I would love to delete mine to get an extra 3 or so, but really don't want to give up the warranty on such an expensive motor.
I drove a 1LT RS automatic on Saturday and thought it was a pretty nice car for the money.
I would be miserable though if I try one and only get 25mpg out of it. LOL
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,845 Posts
Low 30s is definitely possible and common with the 1.4L and Auto. However, low 40s is also definitely possible and common with the Eco. The Eco trims on fuelly.com average ~8.5mpg better than the non-eco trims. I calculated this by hand a few months ago. It would appear that the EPA isn't taking quite everything into consideration when they test these cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Low 30s is definitely possible and common with the 1.4L and Auto. However, low 40s is also definitely possible and common with the Eco. The Eco trims on fuelly.com average ~8.5mpg better than the non-eco trims. I calculated this by hand a few months ago. It would appear that the EPA isn't taking quite everything into consideration when they test these cars.
I've just started reading up on this car, but from what I've read it seems like the eco with an automatic doesn't do much over the regular.............. It's when you go with the manual and the eco that you see a large difference?
All my trucks have manuals and when I'm in a car, there's no way I want to shift, so for me, manual is definitely out.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,339 Posts
...you'll pay a heavy MPG penalty with the Eco automatic, the manual Eco is the "only" high-milage vehicle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
468 Posts
It remaps the ECU to offer both a fuel efficient mode and a sport mode controlled by the cruise control switch. But for the auto it also changes shift points and in Eco mode, shifts into higher gears much sooner for better fuel economy.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,845 Posts
The fuel economy of the Trifecta tune on the 1.4L motor is questionable. It is arguable that most of the difference is from reducing boost to save your from your own heavy foot, and in changing the shift points on the auto in order to get you better fuel economy that way. The direct different to the motor seems insignificant, if any.

EPA says the Eco Auto only gets 1mpg better on the highway and no difference in-town, but I don't personally believe them. Over the 1LT, you're shaving off ~100lbs, lowering 10mm, adding the under-body plates, the lip spoiler, and the grille shutter, and adding the 17" eco wheels, which over all 4 are 21lbs lighter than the 16" alloys on the 1LT. Those wheels are also fitted with low rolling resistance tires. All of those modifications seem to indicate that there's a bigger than 1mpg difference. The wheel weight, LRR tires, and lowered curb weight alone should make a notable improvement in-town.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top