[tmn]

The following web site indicates hatchback gets 48 mpg highway and sedan gets 52 mpg. Does anyone know why there is a 4 mpg difference ?

 

[17Hatch6MT]

The sedan is aerodynamically cleaner, lower drag.

 

[CruzeTech]

Just bought my gasser Hatchback, 3 weeks ago. 2,500 miles on it. Gas mileage isn’t great, compared to my 2014 eco. I’m getting low 30s on the highway. Others have confirmed, on here, that their sedans easily get over 35-40. I can’t get anywhere near that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[jblackburn]

Yup, aerodynamics. Lose a bit on the gassers too. (1 city /2 MPG hwy)

http://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/vehicles/cruze/2017.tab1.html?id=1504560578896

 

[Blasirl]

Welcome Aboard!:welcome:

 

[UpstateNYBill]

The following web site indicates hatchback gets 48 mpg highway and sedan gets 52 mpg. Does anyone know why there is a 4 mpg difference ?

This was discussed regarding the gasser sedan vs. hatchback. If the diesels are the same, it is mostly because "The hatchback shares its 153-hp turbo four and six-speed manual and automatic transmission options with the sedan, but Chevrolet promises that the wagonoid Cruze will be tuned for more driving fun than the comfort-*minded sedan."

 

[boraz]

hatchback is heavier too, no?

 

[Taxman]

I'm somewhat interested in Cruze vs Premier. The minor difference in EPA ratings can easily be explained by the lower gearing and a few extra pounds. What I can't explain is why the few owners who have experienced seriously low MPG all seem to be driving Premiers.

After I reassemble my LT, I might try driving it on the freeway in 5th gear and see if I can beat CruzeTech's 6th gear MPG. Or maybe I'll test the 'Hatchbacks are less aero' theory by putting the headlights back on it and driving 75mph without fenders or front bumper. Naw, it'd be just my luck to feed a rock to the condenser or transmission cooler if I tried that.

 

[UpstateNYBill]

Minor aerodynamic and weight differences will have a negligible effect compared to a different "tune" from the factory.

 

[jblackburn]

I'm somewhat interested in Cruze vs Premier. The minor difference in EPA ratings can easily be explained by the lower gearing and a few extra pounds. What I can't explain is why the few owners who have experienced seriously low MPG all seem to be driving Premiers.

After I reassemble my LT, I might try driving it on the freeway in 5th gear and see if I can beat CruzeTech's 6th gear MPG. Or maybe I'll test the 'Hatchbacks are less aero' theory by putting the headlights back on it and driving 75mph without fenders or front bumper. Naw, it'd be just my luck to feed a rock to the condenser or transmission cooler if I tried that.

Gearing is not different between models. The difference between a Premier and LT is less efficient tires and unsprung weight from the heavy wheels.

hatchback is heavier too, no?

About 10 lbs lighter actually.

Minor aerodynamic and weight differences will have a negligible effect compared to a different "tune" from the factory.

They drive the same to me. The LT hatch is less wallowy in corners. At highway speeds, aerodynamics absolutely play a role.

 

[Taxman]

Gearing is not different between models.

Looks like you're right, 3.14 across the board.
Now where did I get the idea the LS and LT were 3.14 and the Premier was 3.4x?
Must have been a hallucination, or a pre-release magazine write-up.

 

[jblackburn]

Looks like you're right, 3.14 across the board.
Now where did I get the idea the LS and LT were 3.14 and the Premier was 3.4x?
Must have been a hallucination, or a pre-release magazine write-up.

Steering rack/ratios are different

 

[CruzeTech]

My Premier Hatch gets horrid gas mileage. 31 highway, on a good day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[UpstateNYBill]

My Premier Hatch gets horrid gas mileage. 31 highway, on a good day.

My best tank so far is 42.5 mpg. Sure, I can get into the 20's with winter gas, snow tires, and flogging it, but in the summer it is easy to get high 30's if I put a little effort into it.

 

[CruzeTech]

I drive 120 miles a day, round trip, for work. 70-75 the whole trip. Highest I’ve seen, is 34. But average 31. Lifetime average for odometer, is 26.7.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[UpstateNYBill]

I drive 120 miles a day, round trip, for work. 70-75 the whole trip. Highest I’ve seen, is 34. But average 31. Lifetime average for odometer, is 26.7.

Yup, that's it right there. 70-75 is not EPA tested mpg speed.

65 mph keeps the tachometer at 2000 rpm's, where you are going to get 40 mpg (or better). Above that, and you start sucking the gas up, the faster you go.

 

[jblackburn]

Yup, that's it right there. 70-75 is not EPA tested mpg speed.

65 mph keeps the tachometer at 2000 rpm's, where you are going to get 40 mpg (or better). Above that, and you start sucking the gas up, the faster you go.

Varies a lot depending on driving habits, terrain, etc too.

We took a trip up to WV this weekend. The car was climbing pretty much the entire time - 70-75, then 55, then 15-20 MPH up gravel roads, often shuffling down a cog or two to get up the hills. That tank returned ~30 MPG despite all the 'highway' driving.

Coming back home (downhill or mostly flat), I was doing 75-80 on the Interstate keeping up with traffic, along with several full-throttle passes, and yielded 38 MPG at the pump.

I can do ~75 to central NC and it will yield ~35-36 MPG at night with little traffic...and 40+ on the way back, often stuck in traffic or driving more aggressively. No idea why, but seems consistent between both of my Cruzens.

I have been decently impressed with the MPG of the Gen 2 automatic - it is usually on par or within 1-2 MPG of what my underpowered little 1LT manual would do. In my experience, the Gen 1 autos left a lot to be desired for MPG. In the same sort of driving, the Gen 1 auto rental I had for a week recently was ~4 MPG lower than my Gen 2.

 

[CruzeTech]

Yup, that's it right there. 70-75 is not EPA tested mpg speed.

65 mph keeps the tachometer at 2000 rpm's, where you are going to get 40 mpg (or better). Above that, and you start sucking the gas up, the faster you go.

If I had to drive 65mph to work, I’d probably kill myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[UpstateNYBill]

Varies a lot depending on driving habits, terrain, etc too.

I have been decently impressed with the MPG of the Gen 2 automatic - it is usually on par or within 1-2 MPG of what my underpowered little 1LT manual would do. In my experience, the Gen 1 autos left a lot to be desired for MPG. In the same sort of driving, the Gen 1 auto rental I had for a week recently was ~4 MPG lower than my Gen 2.

Absolutely, on both accounts. This has been my experience as well.

 

[EricSmit]

Because the hatchback is about as aerodynamic as a toupee.