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.