Chevrolet Cruze Forums banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,651 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
EPA ratings are out for the 2nd Gen Cruze. With a 1.4T and 6sp Auto, it's rated at 42 Hwy, 30 City, 35 combined, which is better than the 1st Gen Cruze Eco Manual (42/28/33). Not a small feat, though the highway number is the same despite better aerodynamics, which makes me think weight reduction (-250 lbs) and better tuning of the automatic transmission are largely responsible.

Apparently the ratings fall ever-so-slightly with the 6sp Manual, to 41/29/33 combined.

The Premier version gets worse mileage, only 40 MPG highway. Maybe larger wheels/tires and/or non LRR tires play a role there? Maybe less aero friendly bodywork?

Here's the whole story:

2016 Chevy Cruze gas mileage beats even previous Eco model
 

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
16,989 Posts
I forget which other compact car it is (Corolla?) where tire/wheel combinations also make less MPG on the highway.

It looks like the 16 keeps the standard M32 instead of the triple-OD Eco gearbox. Fine by me (and I'm sure a disappointment for all you Eco owners :eek:ccasion14:), but 6th could definitely be a LITTLE taller.
 

·
Resident Forum Drunkard
Joined
·
9,295 Posts
I read that both HP and Torque are up with this 1.4 Engine ..
Is this a Direct injected engine now ?

250 lbs.lighter and a better tune for the transmission ..this is where those increases in torque and HP come from .
 

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
16,989 Posts
I read that both HP and Torque are up with this 1.4 Engine ..
Is this a Direct injected engine now ?

250 lbs.ligter and a better tune for the transmission ..this is where those increases in torquw and HP come from .
DI, and new engine design (all-aluminum vs cast iron block and aluminum head for the old 1.4). It makes more power, and has less Cruze to haul around too.
 

·
Resident Forum Drunkard
Joined
·
9,295 Posts
Hey j . Peeps are going to blow these tiny boogers of an engine UP ...

POP , yep ...Peeps just have to be overly enthusiastic and overboost and feed to much fuel ..even the oil will POP this booger ...

Pre Ignition !
 

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
16,989 Posts
Hey j . Peeps are going to blow these tiny boogers of an engine UP ...

POP , yep ...Peeps just have to be overly enthusiastic and overboost and feed to much fuel ..even the oil will POP this booger ...

Pre Ignition !
That's why you get a tuner that knows what they're doing.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
25,601 Posts
Start/stop technology also plays a role.
 

·
Resident Forum Drunkard
Joined
·
9,295 Posts
That's why you get a tuner that knows what they're doing.
That would only be a veriable in the equations .
If 1 chooses to increase the numbers with out considering the limits to stresses of the internal components ie. Connecting rods , bearings , pistons ..then you would still run the risk of an event that exceeds these limitations ..remember that these are manufactured parts for GM that come with a degree of cost effectiveness and have fail rates ..

These peeps with the 2.3 are POPing at a rate of 2 a week now and have to admit that the responsibility is they'res alone and Ford is Not Warrantying the Blown engines at the techs level ..

These conditions are not new and can be tŕaced back 80 years .
Stochastic Pre Ignition ..LSPI ...Low Speed Pre Ignition today .

My purpose here is to pass these ideas around to allow individuals a choice when looking at Modifications and the drawbacks of getting to envolved with more HP and More Torque .

Buyers beware of Boost max and throttle enhancers !
 

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
16,989 Posts
That would only be a veriable in the equations .
If 1 chooses to increase the numbers with out considering the limits to stresses of the internal components ie. Connecting rods , bearings , pistons ..then you would still run the risk of an event that exceeds these limitations ..remember that these are manufactured parts for GM that come with a degree of cost effectiveness and have fail rates ..

These peeps with the 2.3 are POPing at a rate of 2 a week now and have to admit that the responsibility is they'res alone and Ford is Not Warrantying the Blown engines at the techs level ..

These conditions are not new and can be tŕaced back 80 years .
Stochastic Pre Ignition ..LSPI ...Low Speed Pre Ignition today .

My purpose here is to pass these ideas around to allow individuals a choice when looking at Modifications and the drawbacks of getting to envolved with more HP and More Torque .

Buyers beware of Boost max and throttle enhancers !
I think Ford is pushing the 2.3 (especially in the Focus RS) and 2.7 EB engines very close to their full potential on pump gas on stock tunes.

The same could not be said for GM with the first-gen LUJ/LUV - it is an EXTREMELY conservative stock tune that runs very rich and pulls timing at the first hint of knock. Direct injection gives them/a tuner a lot more fine-tuning and knock is easier to keep under control. That said, they will be using power-coated instead of forged rods on this new engine. Pistons were the weak point for the old 1.4, though.
 

·
Resident Forum Drunkard
Joined
·
9,295 Posts
How do you or even a tuner avoid Preignition from the oils ?

Flash points . Here in lies certain aspects of the phenomena and theories of stochastic preignition ..

Granted there is great strides with modern engine oils to increase the flash points to resist combusting before TDC and stressing against rotation ..A variable certeinly exists when an individual increases boost and runs worn out oils ..

If in the future if we are reading how the 1.4 is poping will GM replace the direct injected engines internals or just brush this extreme engine failure off as a cost of doing buisness and the consumer be aware ?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,651 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
It looks like the 16 keeps the standard M32 instead of the triple-OD Eco gearbox. Fine by me (and I'm sure a disappointment for all you Eco owners :eek:ccasion14:), but 6th could definitely be a LITTLE taller.
Since the 3OD Eco box is responsible for the lion's share of the mileage improvement over the non-Eco 1st gen, I'd be willing to bet that with a simple gearbox swap and some LRR tires, a simple 2nd Gen "Eco" could post some pretty impressive highway numbers.

All I've got to do is drive around in 5th gear instead of 6th to see the HUGE difference it makes in mileage. For those who don't know, the 1st Gen Eco 5th gear is the same ratio as the 6th gear in non Eco manuals.

Compounding the issue, the 2nd Gen Cruze has 25" tall tires, a full 1.3" (or 5%) shorter than the 1st Gen Eco. So 6th gear in the 2nd Gen MT is going to be 5% shorter than the already short 6th in the 1st Gen Cruze.

With less weight, significantly more torque AND 5% shorter tires, they might have been wise to do a hybrid M32 with 1-3 or 1-4 from the standard box and the taller 4-6 or 5-6 from the Eco.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
My 2014 Chevy Cruze Eco MT has always done better than the posted 28 city and 33 combined. In regard to highway, I get an average of 42 if I keep it at 70 and it isn't too cold a winter.

I will believe it when I see it as far as the 2016 with the automatic actually getting the city and combined they are claiming they will get. I bet it will definitely not out perform those numbers. I will be interested in what actually owners end up posting here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
Blue Angel,

You posted, "All I've got to do is drive around in 5th gear instead of 6th to see the HUGE difference it makes in mileage. For those who don't know, the 1st Gen Eco 5th gear is the same ratio as the 6th gear in non Eco manuals."

But I think it is important to note that due to some other gearing issues, somewhere in the drivetrain, that when you are driving the Chevy Eco MT in 5th gear you actually are putting out more RPMs than if you are in a regular Chevy running in 6th gear. This exaggerates the HUGE difference you are seeing.

Joe
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,651 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
...due to some other gearing issues, somewhere in the drivetrain, that when you are driving the Chevy Eco MT in 5th gear you actually are putting out more RPMs than if you are in a regular Chevy running in 6th gear.
Joe, 6th gear in the Cruze LT standard M32 is 0.74:1, and 5th gear in the Eco M32 is also 0.74:1. Both transmissions have the same final drive ratio of 3.83:1, therefore the overall gear reduction in the drivetrain is exactly the same.

For a given road speed the Eco in 5th will actually turn slightly less RPM than a Cruze LT in 6th. This is because the Eco has taller tires (215/55-17, 26.3" diameter) vs. the tires on the LT (215/60-16, 26.1" diameter). The Eco will turn about 1% fewer RPM for a given road speed in 5th than the LT will in 6th. I say road speed since the instrument cluster in the Eco and LT are likely not calibrated differently to take that 1% into consideration.

According to this press release from GM, the 2016 Gen2 Cruze M32 manual uses exactly the same gearset as the Gen1 Cruze LT:

Sophisticated Sophomore: All-New 2016 Chevrolet Cruze
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
25,601 Posts
Joe, 6th gear in the Cruze LT standard M32 is 0.74:1, and 5th gear in the Eco M32 is also 0.74:1. Both transmissions have the same final drive ratio of 3.83:1, therefore the overall gear reduction in the drivetrain is exactly the same.

For a given road speed the Eco in 5th will actually turn slightly less RPM than a Cruze LT in 6th. This is because the Eco has taller tires (215/55-17, 26.3" diameter) vs. the tires on the LT (215/60-16, 26.1" diameter). The Eco will turn about 1% fewer RPM for a given road speed in 5th than the LT will in 6th. I say road speed since the instrument cluster in the Eco and LT are likely not calibrated differently to take that 1% into consideration.

According to this press release from GM, the 2016 Gen2 Cruze M32 manual uses exactly the same gearset as the Gen1 Cruze LT:

Sophisticated Sophomore: All-New 2016 Chevrolet Cruze
Which means GM could have done an ECO MT trim of the LT simply by changing the gear box. Since we know the Gen 1 ECO MT outperforms the Gen 1 LT MT on the highway by 3-5 MPG this would have given GM a 45-46 MPG gas car.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,651 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
EXACTLY!

Why they would pass up that opportunity I'm not sure. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that maybe the BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption) behavior of the DI engines somehow doesn't benefit as much from taller gearing (lower BSFC under load)? As far as I know that's not the case and DI engines still benefit from taller gearing similar to port injected engines.

Since the M32 equipped Cruzes will be few and far between, I would think with 5% shorter tires/250 lbs less weight/more torque/better aero the 3OD Eco gearset could almost be implemented as-is and still give a very respectable driving experience. I find my Gen1 Eco to be a little lethargic in 2nd-4th (tall gearing), but with the Gen2 it may have been decent as is, or worst case an M32 with 1st-4th the same and the taller OD gears of the Eco box swapped in for 5th-6th, BAM, highway EPA ratings jump to a substantial lead in the class.

42 MPG highway is a relatively common statistic these days, but 46 MPG highway sure would get people's attention.

Alas, I said it LONG ago, I think the Gen1 Eco MT is a bit of a unicorn... that level of development for a single trim level is not likely to be seen again. True some of it, like the aero shutters, was shared by the diesel model, but that likely wasn't a consideration back in 2009-2010 when the car was in the final stages of development for the North American market.
 

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
16,989 Posts
Interestingly enough, I have now seen a conflicting report that says it does indeed use the Eco ratios. As hard as the manuals are to get one's hands on, someone just needs to go drive one and see.

But that MPG rating? They want to make a (better) case for selling you the upcoming 1.6 TD Cruze or a Volt.

Alas, I said it LONG ago, I think the Gen1 Eco MT is a bit of a unicorn... that level of development for a single trim level is not likely to be seen again. True some of it, like the aero shutters, was shared by the diesel model, but that likely wasn't a consideration back in 2009-2010 when the car was in the final stages of development for the North American market.
Yep, but they ALL have this technology now on the new model. My guess would be that the Eco MT probably accounted for 1% of total Cruzen sales, so why not make them have a good MPG rating across the standard models? That will hopefully sell more of them if they can out-do the Corolla/Civic in that area and do so without a stupid CVT.

Since the M32 equipped Cruzes will be few and far between, I would think with 5% shorter tires/250 lbs less weight/more torque/better aero the 3OD Eco gearset could almost be implemented as-is and still give a very respectable driving experience. I find my Gen1 Eco to be a little lethargic in 2nd-4th (tall gearing), but with the Gen2 it may have been decent as is, or worst case an M32 with 1st-4th the same and the taller OD gears of the Eco box swapped in for 5th-6th, BAM, highway EPA ratings jump to a substantial lead in the class.
The current (non-RS) Sonic 1.4T w/ M32 actually uses the Eco gear ratios - or something close to it IIRC - since it's much lighter. Aero and tires probably hurt its highway rating compared to the Cruze there.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,918 Posts
I will believe it when I see it as far as the 2016 with the automatic actually getting the city and combined they are claiming they will get. I bet it will definitely not out perform those numbers. I will be interested in what actually owners end up posting here.
Remember the new cruze has a start/stop system so those numbers should be fairly accurate, my 2012 auto is rated at 26mpg city, the new car only 30mpg city. 4MPG can easily be picked up if the engine is shutting off when idling at lights.

As long as my driving isn't 100% residential streets with a cold engine on most trips, I have no problem getting the 26mpg city rating for my car. However cold engine and stops at every block its much lower than that, according to my DIC around 14MPG!!! lowest top off I ever had was in the winter with lots of remote start(15 minutes or more a day) and 100% city, still managed 20mpg.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,651 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
jblackburn said:
I have now seen a conflicting report that says it does indeed use the Eco ratios.
Where did you see this? A bunch of Googling turns up the same data over and over, although most of it is from last summer.

With all of the advantages previously listed in addition to a more efficient DI engine, I think the Gen2 Cruze would significantly out-do the Gen1 Eco EPA highway ratings if it used the Eco ratios.

jblackburn said:
But that MPG rating? They want to make a (better) case for selling you the upcoming 1.6 TD Cruze or a Volt.
The good old conspiracy theory, I like it! However, with the Volt a small niche product and attracting mainly dedicated customers who are interested in its electric only driving, I would be AMAZED if corporate GM was to hold back the EPA mileage on a high volume car like the Cruze. :)

However, if you are referring to the presence of a specific Eco model Cruze that takes the spotlight off the Volt, then yes, I do agree. The worst thing for the Gen1 Volt was the Gen1 Cruze Eco... all the Volt reviews quoted the 42 MPG of the Eco when doing the math to see if the Volt justified itself financially, when they should have been comparing the Volt to a Cruze LT automatic.

jblackburn said:
Yep, but they ALL have this technology now on the new model.
After some searching I can't find any reference to active aero or grille shutters regarding the Gen2 Cruze... maybe I'm blind or my skilz need a toon-up?

By unicorn model technology, I was refering to all the bespoke stuff the Gen1 Eco MT had:

- Aero enhancements (grille shutters, lowered ride height, decklid spoiler, underbody trays, muffler air deflector, unique lower air dam)
- Weight reduction (shorter weld flanges, thinner sheet metal on certain panels, rear armrest and center headrest delete, forged Alcoa wheels, lightweight tire model, no spare tire)
- Efficiency enhancers (LRR tires shared with Volt, uniquely geared M32 manual transmission)

I'm sure I forgot a few.

I doubt we'll ever see another "Eco" model that has so much detail work put into it that's over and above what the standard Cruze comes with. Gm spent a lot of time and money doing the Gen1 Eco.
 

·
Resident Forum Drunkard
Joined
·
9,295 Posts
Just to break this up a bit ...does the new DI 1.4 T have a redesign of the PCV system ?
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top