Boy, there's a memory. Used to know a girl in college that was nicknamed "Handles". She'd been picked up so many times at the tavern I worked at, she was reputed to have grown "handles".
2016 1LT impressions
I've been driving a '16 1LT (1.4 automatic) for the past 5 days as my 11 eco MT is getting some repairs done after hitting a lousey raccoon. Some impressions...
1. Slightly quieter than my 11 eco
2. Seat side-bolstering is significantly less, or at least angled outwards more to fit our girthy American profiles. At a fairly muscular/in shape 180lbs, I really love my eco seats as they 'hug' my back and lats. Not so much with the newer one. I noticed the same in a '14 diesel. Driving wise, even at 93K, the cars feel exactly the same. I'll give credit to GM for making a nice, tight car, that keeps that feel over time.
3. MPG's. I had the perfect opportunity to check real world (for me) mileage. On Saturday I filled it to the brim at the same station I always use (not many options where I live) and took the interstate the 110 mile trip home after work. Not a breath of wind to affect anything. Cruse control set at the same 68mph that I do on my eco. The 1LT got exactly 32.5 mpg. I did the same test on the way back this morning. Again 32.5. That would indicate that the 1lt is at best getting 10mpg less than my eco, and in reality 13-15 mpg less. Could it get more? Sure. Broken in, and tires up to the max it might make 35mpg, still quite a bit less than 45-49 mpg that I regularly get with the eco on that trip.
4. Would I buy one? In a word...No. I think that for the price and/or mpgs there are better options out there, even in the cruze line, and in the gm line. 32-33 mpg on the interstate isn't very good for a car of this size in reality, there are bigger cars with more options that can offer that kind of mileage.
So, yeah, that's it. Short and sweet. I know however that if they keep making them, an MT eco will be on my future list of cars to look at.
1. Slightly quieter than my 11 eco
2. Seat side-bolstering is significantly less, or at least angled outwards more to fit our girthy American profiles. At a fairly muscular/in shape 180lbs, I really love my eco seats as they 'hug' my back and lats. Not so much with the newer one. I noticed the same in a '14 diesel. Driving wise, even at 93K, the cars feel exactly the same. I'll give credit to GM for making a nice, tight car, that keeps that feel over time.
3. MPG's. I had the perfect opportunity to check real world (for me) mileage. On Saturday I filled it to the brim at the same station I always use (not many options where I live) and took the interstate the 110 mile trip home after work. Not a breath of wind to affect anything. Cruse control set at the same 68mph that I do on my eco. The 1LT got exactly 32.5 mpg. I did the same test on the way back this morning. Again 32.5. That would indicate that the 1lt is at best getting 10mpg less than my eco, and in reality 13-15 mpg less. Could it get more? Sure. Broken in, and tires up to the max it might make 35mpg, still quite a bit less than 45-49 mpg that I regularly get with the eco on that trip.
4. Would I buy one? In a word...No. I think that for the price and/or mpgs there are better options out there, even in the cruze line, and in the gm line. 32-33 mpg on the interstate isn't very good for a car of this size in reality, there are bigger cars with more options that can offer that kind of mileage.
So, yeah, that's it. Short and sweet. I know however that if they keep making them, an MT eco will be on my future list of cars to look at.
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Only way I get 33mpg on the interstate is 75mph or more, if I keep my 2012 1LT automatic at 65-70mph I consistently get 36-42mpg.32-33 mpg on the interstate isn't very good for a car of this size in reality, there are bigger cars with more options that can offer that kind of mileage.
Sounds like yours is better than this new one. Good for you.
Actually its not just mine, two of my relatives as well as the cruze we have at works gets very similar MPG results(all 1.4T automatics, varying model years). What was the outside temperatures when you did your limited testing? Any wind? Cold temperatures(35F or below) and any head or cross wind is the only thing that gets that low of MPG on the highway(besides high speed).Sounds like yours is better than this new one.
My 16 1.4 1LT has 922 miles on it and is averaging lifetime 32 mpg per the Onstar App. I have not even had it on the interstate, all stop and go suburban highway driving. I am happy with that. I'll report back after an extended interstate only trip.
Temps 44-46 on the evening trip, 38-41 on the return morning trip. As stated, virtually no wind. Both trips identical 32.5 according to the computer.Actually its not just mine, two of my relatives as well as the cruze we have at works gets very similar MPG results(all 1.4T automatics, varying model years). What was the outside temperatures when you did your limited testing? Any wind? Cold temperatures(35F or below) and any head or cross wind is the only thing that gets that low of MPG on the highway(besides high speed).
So...I'm lying?? Why on earth would I ever have ANY reason to do that? It sounds more like you are being defensive, and therefore more apt to stretch the truth. I don't have a dog in this fight. I simply stated the TRUTH about THAT car on two trips as well as my OPINION on some other factors. That's all there was to it. If your's and your relative's get better mileage, wow, super, good for you.
I think I remember you Jimmy Baby! :valantines:Boy, there's a memory. Used to know a girl in college that was nicknamed "Handles". She'd been picked up so many times at the tavern I worked at, she was reputed to have grown "handles".
Haha!
3
FWIW, I took a rental 2013 2LT automatic 2000 miles to Florida and back, a non-stop drive down I95 with cruise control set @ 72 most of the way. A/C on, 87 oct in the tank and I think one of 89 because it was surging a lot in the mid-70s down there.
Total MPG (there was a bit of city driving in Florida).
![]()
This same stretch of I95 I drive quite often in my own car. This was done @ 72 MPH with some light-ish traffic at the end:
![]()
And mine (1LT M6). I typically drive 75 for the long stretches, then get stuck in stop-and-go traffic for the last 50 miles:
![]()
I'm not sure if it was the tires (32 PSI) or the transmission, but I came away quite unimpressed with its highway MPG on the automatic version of the car, and my impression with several other automatic rentals was that they are much more sluggish out on the highway than my own car.
In-town, they're not too bad on gas, but I can't them in stop-and-go traffic that is very common here - the transmission seemed constantly confused.
Total MPG (there was a bit of city driving in Florida).
This same stretch of I95 I drive quite often in my own car. This was done @ 72 MPH with some light-ish traffic at the end:
And mine (1LT M6). I typically drive 75 for the long stretches, then get stuck in stop-and-go traffic for the last 50 miles:
I'm not sure if it was the tires (32 PSI) or the transmission, but I came away quite unimpressed with its highway MPG on the automatic version of the car, and my impression with several other automatic rentals was that they are much more sluggish out on the highway than my own car.
In-town, they're not too bad on gas, but I can't them in stop-and-go traffic that is very common here - the transmission seemed constantly confused.
I was just trying to point out that results may vary and the numbers you claim are not what I see every day(88,000 test miles now). Two trips doesn't equal the thousands of miles I have driven the automatic and if 32-33mpg highway no way I would have almost a 36mpg average over those miles.So...I'm lying?? Why on earth would I ever have ANY reason to do that? It sounds more like you are being defensive, and therefore more apt to stretch the truth. I don't have a dog in this fight. I simply stated the TRUTH about THAT car on two trips as well as my OPINION on some other factors. That's all there was to it. If your's and your relative's get better mileage, wow, super, good for you.
Also maybe I was reading you wrong but I'm certainly not the one whom seems to have an attitude. If you look at my post above I removed your negative "good for you" comment yet you still seem to respond with more negativity when all I did was I better explain my OPINION.
Not once did I say you are lying yet you somehow have the audacity to claim I'm stretching the truth? More likely one needs to learn the idiosyncrasy's of the automatic and hence why it seems whenever a manual transmission cruze owner drives one they can't seem to get decent MPG. I have no idea why the 5 cruze automatics I've driven all get the same MPG as my car EXCEPT to say it has to be the driver. I fill the tank, get on the interstate, set my cruise control at 68mph and ramp off 4+ hours later and typically get 39mpg(pump calculated not DIC).
Thinking more about this every single cruze I have driven has the RS package, does it somehow enhance the aerodynamics? Front bumper cover sits almost as low as an eco, has side ground effects and the rear bumper cover has a slight outward sticking protrusion which would also help with air coming off the car.
Having driven a rental 2013 1LT AT for three days I can vouch that driving this transmission efficiently is a challenge, especially coming from my ECO MT. However, on the open road with cruise control on all LT automatics should get the same fuel economy (+/- 1 MPG) at the same speed. If the rental you had didn't then I would suspect something else such as under-inflated tires or lack of routine maintenance. Rentals are notorious for both.Not once did I say you are lying yet you somehow have the audacity to claim I'm stretching the truth? More likely one needs to learn the idiosyncrasy's of the automatic and hence why it seems whenever a manual transmission cruze owner drives one they can't seem to get decent MPG. I have no idea why the 5 cruze automatics I've driven all get the same MPG as my car EXCEPT to say it has to be the driver. I fill the tank, get on the interstate, set my cruise control at 68mph and ramp off 4+ hours later and typically get 39mpg(pump calculated not DIC).
<Moderator voice>
We have deleted two posts in this thread. Please keep this civil - no personal attacks. Different people will see differences in how a car performs. This comes from different driving backgrounds and experiences.
</Moderator voice>
We have deleted two posts in this thread. Please keep this civil - no personal attacks. Different people will see differences in how a car performs. This comes from different driving backgrounds and experiences.
</Moderator voice>
My driving background, or anyone else's has nothing to do with putting the cruse control on 68mph and seeing what the computer says at the end of the drive. It has nothing to do with owning a MT and driving an AT as has been suggested. Fact is the car in question got 32.5 mpg, twice. Each on back-to-back trips on the same stretch of interstate. The car is not broken in, it's tires were not inflated to max psi.
I'm sorry that someone had to get completely confrontational and defensive about it. But that's the internet for ya!
I'm sorry that someone had to get completely confrontational and defensive about it. But that's the internet for ya!
My '14 LT/RS gets 32 MPG on a good day... Bad days, its 28ish. Just got a tune put on it. So, we will see if I get improvements from there.
That's why if you read my earlier post I said that something else was going on with the rental. On cruise control all LTs should get the same MPG +/-1 on the highway at the same speed. 32.5 MPG is low for the LT Automatic at 68 MPH. It should be at or just above the 38 highway MPG advertised as that's what most of the are seeing.My driving background, or anyone else's has nothing to do with putting the cruse control on 68mph and seeing what the computer says at the end of the drive. It has nothing to do with owning a MT and driving an AT as has been suggested. Fact is the car in question got 32.5 mpg, twice. Each on back-to-back trips on the same stretch of interstate. The car is not broken in, it's tires were not inflated to max psi.
I'm sorry that someone had to get completely confrontational and defensive about it. But that's the internet for ya!
All I know, we can no longer purchase a 2LT unless it comes with an automatic transmission. What about the 1LT, can you get the MT and with leather?
Or even the Eco, can you get that with a manual transmission and a spare tire?
Can you even buy what you want anymore? Or is this decide by some guy with a big fat guy sitting behind a huge desk? We the buying public certainly don't have a say. Well we do in away, just go someplace else.
Or even the Eco, can you get that with a manual transmission and a spare tire?
Can you even buy what you want anymore? Or is this decide by some guy with a big fat guy sitting behind a huge desk? We the buying public certainly don't have a say. Well we do in away, just go someplace else.
Also asked this same question to over a dozen different GM dealers and received the same exact answer.
Does GM ever have a meeting with you dealers to learn what your customers want?
Answer is:
Are you kidding?
Does GM ever have a meeting with you dealers to learn what your customers want?
Answer is:
Are you kidding?
Like Obermd, as far as mpg goes, our fuelly's speak for themselves. However, as far as the car itself goes, I am 100% in agreement with the OP in that even after 84,000 miles I really do love my 2011 Eco MT but I will not buy another one. I've been SUV shopping since last March, Forester, Outback and Tucson and am just waiting for MY price to be met.
Kia is having some great sales right now, and a 60K mile/5 year bumper to bumper warranty is not easy to ignore. Wife is always asking me to buy an AWD SUV, found one at the right price, but then she says no. Some big sales going on right now.
See GM is pushing Silverado's up to $10,000.00, but they were doing this a couple of years ago. And even showing internet prices at my local dealer with these huge discounts. But when I went in, learned I did not have a 1928 Reo or something like this to trade off, so could only get $2,500 off the MSRP of a $44K four door pickup.
Don't feel like I want to waste my time again.
See GM is pushing Silverado's up to $10,000.00, but they were doing this a couple of years ago. And even showing internet prices at my local dealer with these huge discounts. But when I went in, learned I did not have a 1928 Reo or something like this to trade off, so could only get $2,500 off the MSRP of a $44K four door pickup.
Don't feel like I want to waste my time again.
1 - 19 of 19 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.
Chevrolet Cruze Forums
CruzeTalk.com forum, news, discussions and the best community for owners to discuss all things related to the Chevy Cruze.
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Cruze CTRL
70 Replies
Cruzing12
52 Replies
Valpo Cruze
50 Replies
Recommended Communities
