Chevrolet Cruze Forums banner
1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,217 Posts
Very interesting the automatic has better fuel economy than manual transmission
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,917 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Very interesting the automatic has better fuel economy than manual transmission
I believe the automatic has some form of start/stop technology, that would be my guess at the difference. its only 1MPG worse(on paper) in the city with the manual, so real world I suspect we will see little difference.

1MPG can easily be gained or lost with all the other MPG variables, heck I think the driver can make more of a difference than that.
 

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
17,486 Posts
Nice. In line with the new Civic turbo without going to a terrible CVT.

The manual gearing, I believe, is the regular LT gearbox and not the Eco gearbox (fine by me, but could make use of a taller 6th).

Makes me wonder what sales numbers were for the MT Eco, or if this is just a marketing move on GMs part.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,217 Posts
I believe the automatic has some form of start/stop technology, that would be my guess at the difference. its only 1MPG worse(on paper) in the city with the manual, so real world I suspect we will see little difference.

1MPG can easily be gained or lost with all the other MPG variables, heck I think the driver can make more of a difference than that.
The auto 35 mpg combined average vs 33 mpg for manual still interesting. This leads me to think the diesel that will be offered several months from now should be 50 mpg or so with smaller Diesel engine and less weight overall. Seems like the new 2016 could have just been a 2017 model to me.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,975 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,296 Posts
From that site:
"

  • 2016 Cruze equipped with 1.4-liter turbo and six-speed automatic, 30/42/35 mpg
  • 2016 Cruze equipped with 1.4-liter turbo and six-speed manual, 29/41/33 mpg
  • 2016 Cruze Premiere with 1.4-liter turbo and six-speed automatic, 30/40/34 mpg
  • Cruze Limited with 1.4-liter turbo, 26/38/30 mpg (for both transmissions)
  • Cruze Limited with 1.8-liter naturally-aspirated four-cylinder, 22/35/27 mpg with the automatic and 25/36/29 mpg with the manual."

What's missing is exactly what are they pouring into the fuel tank, not this rotten winter gas they are shoving down my throat.

But summer wise, my 2012 2LT with a manual transmission is doing much better than what they posting.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,975 Posts
Nice. In line with the new Civic turbo without going to a terrible CVT.
Drove a 2016 EX-T Civic sedan the other day for a very short drive. Didn't measure acceleration with any digital equipment, but it felt much quicker than my '13 EX-L with the 5AT. Only noticeable difference was the lack of gear whine in 1st & 2nd from the 5AT. Standing on the gas in the 2016 Civic was sort of uneventful. It just gets busy putting that 174 hp down. Kinda like an electric, but with engine noise. Interesting to note that there are two different CVTs in the 2016 Civic. The EX-T, EX-L, & Touring get one that is different from the other trim levels. Different final drive, forward, & reverse ratio ranges. The one in the high end levels gets better highway mileage despite a lower final drive ratio. Methinks there's a significant difference in the programming also. Still waiting until the 2018 models before making any decisions.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,975 Posts
I wonder how miles you get per water pump. :) MPWP - a new measurement lol
One thing that tops my watch list is how the customers will be treated by the dealership service departments concerning the 2nd generation Cruze. If they haven't fixed that business model and the new generation has similar issues as the first generation, it would be a deal breaker for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Christopher_2

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,003 Posts
Interesting - at the bottom, there was a story about spies spotting a 2017 Cruze Hybrid.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
25,596 Posts
Interesting - at the bottom, there was a story about spies spotting a 2017 Cruze Hybrid.
While I'm not surprised a hybrid Cruze has been spotted we do need to remember the 2010 Cruze was used to test technology for the Volt.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,917 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Interesting - at the bottom, there was a story about spies spotting a 2017 Cruze Hybrid.
Yes, those spy shots came out about 3 weeks ago, it looked like a stripped down model that had Cruze ECO 17in wheels on it. As for cost I'm not sure the hybrid will make much economic sense unless they come out with a car that competes with the Prius C on price.
 

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
17,486 Posts
Drove a 2016 EX-T Civic sedan the other day for a very short drive. Didn't measure acceleration with any digital equipment, but it felt much quicker than my '13 EX-L with the 5AT. Only noticeable difference was the lack of gear whine in 1st & 2nd from the 5AT. Standing on the gas in the 2016 Civic was sort of uneventful. It just gets busy putting that 174 hp down. Kinda like an electric, but with engine noise. Interesting to note that there are two different CVTs in the 2016 Civic. The EX-T, EX-L, & Touring get one that is different from the other trim levels. Different final drive, forward, & reverse ratio ranges. The one in the high end levels gets better highway mileage despite a lower final drive ratio. Methinks there's a significant difference in the programming also. Still waiting until the 2018 models before making any decisions.
Word has it they'll be pairing a manual with that 1.5T too. That'd be the one to get IMO.

Other than that, it's not bad. A friend and I went to look at one the other day so she can replace her 2006.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,003 Posts
I'm not sure the hybrid will make much economic sense
That's pretty much what I say about all hybrids. Show me the spread sheet! :grin:

Prius C? Hmmmm, just looking at body style, I think that looks more like a Sonic. Prius V would be more like a Cruze hatchback. And just "Prius" would be a contender for a Cruze.

I think that Prius V would be vulnerable to a Cruze Hybrid Hatchback. $26,675 starting price with only 44/40 rating - $2,475 higher and 10 mpg worse than the regular Prius. I'm guessing the C and the regular are using a updated drivetrain that hasn't gotten to the V yet. I'm not sure why else the mpg would be so bad.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,917 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
That's pretty much what I say about all hybrids. Show me the spread sheet! :grin:

Prius C? Hmmmm, just looking at body style, I think that looks more like a Sonic. Prius V would be more like a Cruze hatchback. And just "Prius" would be a contender for a Cruze.

I think that Prius V would be vulnerable to a Cruze Hybrid Hatchback. $26,675 starting price with only 44/40 rating - $2,475 higher and 10 mpg worse than the regular Prius. I'm guessing the C and the regular are using a updated drivetrain that hasn't gotten to the V yet. I'm not sure why else the mpg would be so bad.

The reason I mention the Prius C is the cost.... its the only hybrid I know if that can be had as low as $19,500 and gets a 53mpg city and 46mpg highway rating. If Toyota can make this car that cheap, a cruze hybrid would need to be about $22,000 and get similar MPG numbers for me to even consider one. GM has already said the LT automatic will start at $22,000, I doubt the cruze hybrid will be a very good deal at all.

The 2016 Malibu hybrid starts at $29,000 so I can't imagine many would opt for the smaller cruze hybrid if similarly priced.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,917 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Comparing Chevy's all new Cruze and Spark makes these MPG numbers look even more impressive..... Both cars average 35mpg!! The cruze longer body/better aerodynamics also gives it 1MPG better on the highway. Besides how cheap they are I can't see any reason someone would choose the clown car(spark) over the new cruze.

Compare Side-by-Side
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,296 Posts
Suppose the reason why the manual transmission is not doing so good, guy driving it is looking at the shift light, goes on way too soon, and overloads the engine. Do far better by glancing at your instant mpg gauge.

When driving on hilly roads, actually get better fuel economy by switching off the cruise and holding your foot steady on the gas pedal, pick up speed going down the hill and use that for going up the next hill.

But if you try this will get a speeding ticket, take your license away, and when you get it back after a year your insurance rates will skyrocket.

Hybrids, use the inertia to rotate a motor that acts like a generator to charge a battery, so converting mechanical energy, then to chemical energy. When going up the next hill, chemical energy is converted to electrical energy, then back to mechanical energy. Sounds good on paper, but in real cold temperatures, efficiency drops down. So with a hybrid, even get worse fuel economy because you are hauling a lot of dead weight around.

And they sure talk about weight like in the Eco to reduce the capacity of the fuel tank by three whole gallons. Would be far better off to use that mechanical energy to wind up a clock spring, then use this to get up the next hill. Has a lot more electronics dealers don't know how to repair when they even have problems changing a burnt out light bulb.

If you calculate the fuel cost savings against the initial cost of these hybrids along with all the extra maintenance, hybrids don't quite look so good, but they don't show it this way. Best marketing guys are the best liars.

Ha, can recall leaving Chicago city limits and being in farm country driving at 65 mph, now a traffic light every block. Was nice when the Edens expressway was built, knocked that trip down to nothing. But after 60 some years, still the same three lane road with millions of car on it. And when you look at your instant mpg gauge, at zero most of the time.

All that money wasted on worthless wars was never used to improve our roads to keep up with the population growth, try more like four hours to make that same trip on the Edens, NW as well.

Cars on not the problem, are roads are, never kept up with the huge number of vehicles on the road.
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top