Chevrolet Cruze Forums banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Rather favorable and interesting review of the new cruze.

I was impressed with the fact that the base trim has the turbo 1.4 with a manual for under 17,000. The sad thing seems to be that you have to go up one trim to get the cruise control, costing 2500 more! Maybe there is an after market cruise control a mechanic could install for you? I"m tempted to trade my 2014 in for that price.


2016 Chevy Cruze - EPautos
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
25,603 Posts
That guy really hates the federal government. He's also incorrect about why small displacement turbo charged engines are becoming so popular. He's correct it's government action but he has the wrong government. The reason for these engines has to do with displacement taxes in Europe. Any 2.0L engine or higher is taxed for excessive fuel consumption. The 2.0L engines on the road today are actually 1.999L engines. In order to make them more powerful car manufacturers added turbochargers, which are exempt from the displacement taxes. Superchargers, which do use fuel are added to the displacement for tax purposes.

The other factor bringing small displacement engines to North America is the globalization of automobile design and manufacturing. The Cruze uses probably 90 to 95% of the same parts worldwide, regardless of assembly plant or destination market.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,335 Posts
That was an interesting review. If you could get the z-link with the LT trim that would be the one I would get with maybe a manual.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,003 Posts
That guy really hates the federal government.
Gosh, whatever gave you that idea? :uhh:

He's also incorrect about why small displacement turbo charged engines are becoming so popular. He's correct it's government action but he has the wrong government. The reason for these engines has to do with displacement taxes in Europe. (...) The other factor bringing small displacement engines to North America is the globalization of automobile design and manufacturing.
True, but a smaller engine also has lower engine friction - which improves MPG, which makes meeting ever-increasing CAFE standards happy.
 

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
16,998 Posts
That was...annoying to read.

So far, most reviews of the new car have been pretty positive. It even garnered decent praise from C&D, except they hated the Eco gear ratios fitted to the manual version.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,254 Posts
I heard somewhere that you can only get the z-link suspension with the Premier. Reading this makes me anxious to get one, especially those 0-60 times.

I drove a 2.0L turbo Verano Tuesday, and that thing RIPS! I wish they would put that in the Cruze, but overall I'm happy with the new engine.

Hopefully they fixed the water pump design...ha ha
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
25,603 Posts
Gosh, whatever gave you that idea? :uhh:


True, but a smaller engine also has lower engine friction - which improves MPG, which makes meeting ever-increasing CAFE standards happy.
The US taxes fuel consumption, not engine size. Europe taxes engine size, not fuel consumption. Europeans are amazed that our V6 and V8 engines get the fuel economy they do.
 

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
16,998 Posts
The US taxes fuel consumption, not engine size. Europe taxes engine size, not fuel consumption. Europeans are amazed that our V6 and V8 engines get the fuel economy they do.
6/8's suffer in town, though, even with variable cylinder management. They're heavier, they've got more friction to overcome, etc.

But yeah, they can loaf along at incredibly low RPM on the highway. The Camry/Accord V6 get upwards of 31 MPG on the highway, and last I checked, the old pushrod GM engines weren't far from that either.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,254 Posts
6/8's suffer in town, though, even with variable cylinder management. They're heavier, they've got more friction to overcome, etc.

But yeah, they can loaf along at incredibly low RPM on the highway. The Camry/Accord V6 get upwards of 31 MPG on the highway, and last I checked, the old pushrod GM engines weren't far from that either.
Not to derail the thread, but I have to input here for V8 fuel economy. We took a trip to Indiana in our 2015 Tahoe, mostly flat, no winds, and 70 MPH. This is what we got hypermiling the thing for the trip there (granted it was set for 50 mile avg):

 

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
16,998 Posts
Not to derail the thread, but I have to input here for V8 fuel economy. We took a trip to Indiana in our 2015 Tahoe, mostly flat, no winds, and 70 MPH. This is what we got hypermiling the thing for the trip there (granted it was set for 50 mile avg):

That's midsized V6 /I4 crossover fuel economy right there! Nice!

But like I said, highway is where they all shine. Combined/city numbers are usually lower on the bigger N/A engines (Equinox/Terrain), I4 vs V6, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
I had a 2016 Cruze LS for a day yesterday. The MyLink Radio in it is acceptable. CarPlay works well but Apple Maps is not quite as good as the navigation package in my Cruze so I would still suggest getting navigation in the car if driving to lots of different locations like me.

The drivetrain in the new Cruze is excellent. I really like the start stop technology. The engine performance is a little more then in my Cruze. I have heard that the milage is supposed to be better but in my travel to Rockville Maryland yesterday the milage tanked to the same amount my 2012 LTZ RS gets. However it is doing it with 87 where as I put 93 in my Cruze because it runs better with the higher octane.

Overall I like the new Cruze but I realized that the Cruze has a monochrome screen in the dash. For some reason I thought the higher trims had a color screen. That was a little disappointing but overall the new Cruze is awesome even from my limited experience with the lower trim model.

I think I am still going to buy a Malibu Premiere when I get a new vehicle but depending on any niceties that get added to the 2017/2018 hatchback I might go with the Cruze instead. I would greatly prefer a hatchback for my next vehicle but I love the interior of the Malibu.

If a new Malibu Max was released based on the Sedan version of the new Malibu I would be like, shut up and take my money. :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,003 Posts
The US taxes fuel consumption, not engine size.
Understood, but a large displacement engine isn't going to match a small displacement engine in MPG. They've pretty much wrung all the efficiency out of a V6/8 they can and now they're switching to boosted small engines. Using the same engine design in two markets is a bonus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: obermd

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
16,998 Posts
Understood, but a large displacement engine isn't going to match a small displacement engine in MPG. They've pretty much wrung all the efficiency out of a V6/8 they can and now they're switching to boosted small engines. Using the same engine design in two markets is a bonus.
I kinda wonder what would happen if they toyed with the idea of a smaller, direct-injected V6 with variable cylinder management again. I imagine they've played with the idea, but I wonder if it would be more efficient in "real world" heavy-traffic/load driving conditions rather than the EPA tests that turbocharged cars generally ace.

For a while, Toyota and Nissan had 2.5L V6's, but they were underpowered crap and were replaced by boosted I4's.

Every V6 that I can think of on the market now is AT LEAST 3.5 liters; 10 years ago, there were a lot of 2.7-3.0L engines. Ford, Honda's, and Toyota's 3.0's were a little thirsty, but made great power IMO. Chrysler's were terrible, and GM's at the time were all still pushrod engines (efficient on the highway though). Ford's recently gone the opposite direction and made a great small boosted V6 (2.7 Ecoboost).

Oi, this is getting off topic. Sorry.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,003 Posts
I kinda wonder what would happen if they toyed with the idea of a smaller, direct-injected V6 with variable cylinder management again.
The problem is that variable cylinder management doesn't translate into variable engine friction. IIRC, something like 11% of a engine's power is lost to internal friction. (Think about the engine braking you get when you downshift - that loss is there all the time. You just don't notice it unless you're going downhill.) I'd imagine most of the friction is in sealing the piston rings. More cylinders, bigger bore, longer stroke all translate into more friction. So the winning combination is a small engine with it's low engine friction and then boost the **** out of it. Yes, it's more expensive, but that's where the standards kick in - forcing the change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
The problem is that variable cylinder management doesn't translate into variable engine friction. IIRC, something like 11% of a engine's power is lost to internal friction. (Think about the engine braking you get when you downshift - that loss is there all the time. You just don't notice it unless you're going downhill.) I'd imagine most of the friction is in sealing the piston rings. More cylinders, bigger bore, longer stroke all translate into more friction. So the winning combination is a small engine with it's low engine friction and then boost the **** out of it. Yes, it's more expensive, but that's where the standards kick in - forcing the change.

This is the second article on the Cruze I've read written by Eric Peters. I noticed he has become less critical of the concept of a turbo engine than in the past. The big question for efficiency is how long will these turbos last. They do add extra cost and complexity. The gas mileage has to make up for this extra cost to justify their additional expense over the long term in my opinion. But if they can last with the rest of the engine till 200,000 miles, then it becomes a mute point. Especially now when one looks at how cheaply a base line cruze can be purchased for in a Cruze... less than $17,000. I just wish I could get the cruise control for under $500 without having to go up to the next trim level. Then I might be tempted to trade my 2014 in for the 2016.

The blue book value on my cruze is 12,000. I wonder if they would give me that on a trade in?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
Discussion Starter #17 (Edited)
I take it they are using the 32M manual transmission yet?

And isn't it strange that the base model with the manual is only rated for 41 mpg when it is lighter than the first generation Cruze? You would think it would get better gas mileage. Or is it because they increased the power of the 1.4 turbo?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
25,603 Posts
Remember, the 1st generation Cruze highway was 38 MPG. The ECO MT had a some serious aerodynamic modifications that came out of the Volt development program that boosted that highway MPG to 42. Also, the ECO MT is enough lighter than the LT that the EPA city calculations raised the city MPG from 26 to 28 MPG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Remember, the 1st generation Cruze highway was 38 MPG. The ECO MT had a some serious aerodynamic modifications that came out of the Volt development program that boosted that highway MPG to 42. Also, the ECO MT is enough lighter than the LT that the EPA city calculations raised the city MPG from 26 to 28 MPG.
Wasn't the first generation 2011 - 2015? Mine is a 2014 Eco that of course gets the 42 on the highway. And I think it gets much better than the 28/33 in town and combined. I can't believe the 2016 MT won't beat what their estimates are.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top