I have read many posts in this forum as well as reviews online stating how much more the diesel cost to purchase versus the gas. Most of the numbers I read seem to be comparing the base to the diesel not the 2LT to the diesel. If I go online and build one comparable to my car in the 2LT trim, with the gas motor, the difference is $1,680. For that $1,680 you get a more efficient/powerful motor, heavier brakes, quieter interior, better resale value, more longevity, and a much better driving experience. I feel that $1,680 is a fair price to pay for all that you are getting. Just my 2 cents.
567Chief
I am 100% with you on that! I think my car is worth every penny that I paid for it in many ways. The highway fuel economy easily exceeds the window sticker in normal driving. The blast of torque off idle is so fun - plus it makes much more powerful engines such as GM's own 300+ HP V6 seem downright lazy in the same RPM range. The steering feel is quite good, I love how quiet it is on the highway and I could go on.
Many of the reports are also based on the ECO MT price, which is $1,000 lower than the ECO AT. If you like rowing your own gears and want the mpg go with the ECO MT. If you don't like rowing your own gears or the ECO MT is missing some creature comfort you just have to have go with the Diesel. I'm impressed with both.
I concur on all points. I love diesel engines and it seems at this point the in US, all diesels are higher end models. Fine by me as that is what I am looking for. Very comfortable vehicle with power and economy. All the things I want in a car.
It's easy to be a critic...
It's what I wanted and a price I could afford that was worth what I wanted. Beyond that...if you have to worry about calculating each and every cent, you probably can't afford it.
Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
It's what I wanted and a price I could afford that was worth what I wanted. Beyond that...if you have to worry about calculating each and every cent, you probably can't afford it.
Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
Nobody believes the mileage I'm get at work. I just love the little beast . Lol. Well worth the cost of admission to me
Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
I had a 2011 Cruze ECO MT Turbo and I loved it (traded it in on my 2014 Cruze CTD). I sort of liked manual shifting, but here in Mountain Country (Utah), that was a lot of mountain road highway shifting. I would recommend the Cruze ECO MT to anyone and it got a bit better than EPA sticker. But, my 2014 Clean Turbo Diesel is heads above the gas driven version. It can tackle the Utah mountains without breaking a sweat, and without downshifting. The acceleration really is like a 70's version Camero, and the mileage is awesome. On a "real world" highway adventure from Salt Lake City to Milwaukee and back, my composite mileage was 51.2 mpg. Keep in mind that this trip involved parts of UT and WY that had really steep climbs that went on for miles at a time.
Sperry (above) referred to his as a "beast". Yup - it is a "beast" - a torque-monster.
And, the OP made a good point. To compare pricing, you need to match trim and add-on costs.I have the 2LT Convenience package and the back-up camera and heated mirrors are awesome and worth the price.
Sperry (above) referred to his as a "beast". Yup - it is a "beast" - a torque-monster.
And, the OP made a good point. To compare pricing, you need to match trim and add-on costs.I have the 2LT Convenience package and the back-up camera and heated mirrors are awesome and worth the price.
If Diesel was priced like overseas I would be fine with it. ECO 6mt VS diesel is moot outside of mpg until they build a ECO 6mt Diesel with all the stuff they deleted from us like no sunroof, leather seats and such. What was the weight of the diesel wheels again?
I think one important point that I noticed in my own evaluation is the perception that the car is worth what they are asking for it. I wouldn't give anywhere near $17,xxx for an LS Cruze base model (not that it's a bad car, but I have seen them advertised for $13,xxx brand new), but I had no problem paying $23,xxx for my Diesel. To me the car was worth the money overall, considering everything. Oddly enough, I never felt that way about the Jetta and never bought one.
Not sure where you came up 1,680 more than a 2LT because a loaded Cruze Diesel costs more than a loaded Cruze LTZ RS.
I'm still a little outraged the diesel is not available in manual, and if it was how good would the mileage be. obermd pretty much nailed it though.
I believe if there is demand, GM will listen and bring in a manual. They have too much to lose with higher fleet fuel requirements and competition not just from Audi/VW, but also new players like Mazda. So far demand seems to be good. I would have purchased a manual were it available.
While my ECO MT was in the shop, I got a full 7 day use of the CTD and was able to take my exact 220 interstate round trip drive to work 2x and had some other general driving around town/hwy that I would also normally do. Was I impressed overall? Yes, I liked the CTD. Enough to buy one? No. Follow along.
1. The diesel was loud. Not noticeable at hwy but everywhere else, yes, much louder interior engine noise than my ECO. My wife drove it a bit and not knowing it was a diesel said "What is wrong with that car? It is so loud and clunky sounding."
2. Power - low-midrange was good, but in reality there is no difference, in 0-60 times. The heavier weight slows the CTD and the two are nearly identical And who buys a Cruze to drag race anyway? That would make as much sense as a football bat.
3. Mileage. On the almost 600 miles I put on the CTD I averaged 41.8 mpg. Almost identical to my 41.2 that I typically get on the same driving. Peak mpg on the CTD was 51.1, On my Eco, 49.4. So let's just say that in the future (the CTD was new, so mileage will improve) that in the end the CTD will get 3mpg more than an eco. For the extra price in fuel, I'd never make up a dime of it, but would lose money each fill up, plus the extra cost up front, and living in MN where diesel gelling in winter can still be an issue... It doesn't make it worth my money to go that route.
As some have mentioned regarding their personal driving habits. If I lived in the mountains, and/further south, I would probably be more interested in one, but as is it wouldn't make any sense, (financial or otherwise) for me to own one.
1. The diesel was loud. Not noticeable at hwy but everywhere else, yes, much louder interior engine noise than my ECO. My wife drove it a bit and not knowing it was a diesel said "What is wrong with that car? It is so loud and clunky sounding."
2. Power - low-midrange was good, but in reality there is no difference, in 0-60 times. The heavier weight slows the CTD and the two are nearly identical And who buys a Cruze to drag race anyway? That would make as much sense as a football bat.
3. Mileage. On the almost 600 miles I put on the CTD I averaged 41.8 mpg. Almost identical to my 41.2 that I typically get on the same driving. Peak mpg on the CTD was 51.1, On my Eco, 49.4. So let's just say that in the future (the CTD was new, so mileage will improve) that in the end the CTD will get 3mpg more than an eco. For the extra price in fuel, I'd never make up a dime of it, but would lose money each fill up, plus the extra cost up front, and living in MN where diesel gelling in winter can still be an issue... It doesn't make it worth my money to go that route.
As some have mentioned regarding their personal driving habits. If I lived in the mountains, and/further south, I would probably be more interested in one, but as is it wouldn't make any sense, (financial or otherwise) for me to own one.
Reliability is higher on a diesel, they also have a much better Aisin automatic transmission. Most cases come with more standard equipment than the Eco as well. They have an aux electric heater for the colder months and if you look on the diesel section of the forum you'll see the only thing we talk about is what fluids to use and how far we get to a tank because nothing else seems to be going wrong with them.
I'll agree at the points you highlighted that it wouldn't be worth it only basing your purchase on those bits but diesel owners look at the big picture
I'll agree at the points you highlighted that it wouldn't be worth it only basing your purchase on those bits but diesel owners look at the big picture
It's true, the diesel is bragged about by motor trend and others about how quiet the interior is.
No one, no one saves money with a diesel. Especially with the modern emissions system that will cost you nice money negating the fuel savings if you own it long enough. It comes down to whether you appreciate the driving experience and can afford the price of admission. It's a premium product.
Sometimes I feel like driving a diesel is like drinking a nice glass of scotch, your buddy comes over and has a glass, says it's "good" but you know he doesn't quite get it. It's for the refined driver lol.
Sometimes I feel like driving a diesel is like drinking a nice glass of scotch, your buddy comes over and has a glass, says it's "good" but you know he doesn't quite get it. It's for the refined driver lol.
I seemed to have ruffled some feathers, which wasn't my intent. Obviously each person can make their own decision on what vehicle to buy. As my wife is thinking about a different car, I was really stoked to get the CTD for a week and see what it was like. I most certainly liked it. I think it would be a fine car for some people. At the end of the week though, looking at all the variables that I mentioned (and I left out that the ECO, being lighter, is a more nimble feeling car, and the extra weight of the CTD will mean replacing tires sooner) for my personal driving needs (and wants) the ECO MT is at the very least the most economical choice, and in some ways a more logical choice. I'm sure there will be some people who will be searching opinions, trying to figure out which one to buy, and why. I made a list for those individuals based on my very real driving experience in the exact same manner (roads, speed, etc) for a week and 600 miles. That's a test drive comparison that almost nobody in the real world will be able to come close to.
Now if you want an automatic, leather, heated seats, etc and don't mind paying 40-50 cents more per gallon at the pump, I think the CTD is a great option especially vs it's other diesel competitors, and even vs. a Cruze with the same amenities and closer retail cost.
Now if you want an automatic, leather, heated seats, etc and don't mind paying 40-50 cents more per gallon at the pump, I think the CTD is a great option especially vs it's other diesel competitors, and even vs. a Cruze with the same amenities and closer retail cost.
In general, a diesel has the potental to be cost effective under certain circumstances.
If you are a 50k plus miles annually operator, meaning minimum short hauls, predominate highway driving, not unlike a road going tractor, the operating costs can be less......that and operate in a climate that allows the sheet metal to not revert back to iron ore in less than ten years......however:
The potental is lost when ancillary failures come into the mix.
Short hauls introduce the possibility of the starter or alternator failing at a similar mileage to a gasser.
These components, due to their larger size and capabilities, are, on average, often double the price of the lighter duty gasser components.
A diesel introduces another component into the mix: glow plugs.
Again, short haul trips will shorten their lifespan.....the long haul croud will have rare failures due to less glow plug cycling.
Because of low emission requirements, the diesel now must have as much electrical gobblygook as a gasser so there is no gain in simplicity that diesels enjoyed years ago, so the thoughts of reduced electrical failures is essentially null.
The same battery failure rate as a gasser is probable and the higher ampherage battery a diesel requires is more expensive than a comparable gasser.
There are other examples......the particulate catcher may require replacement sooner than anticipated on the short haulers too.....a result of not being hot enouph, long enouph.
If I was the type that puts 50k a year on a car, with the intention of running it till the wheels fall off, and stick them back on for another year or two, a diesel would be my choice.
But, I'm a short hauler.....the trip to and from Lordstown last week was the longest my car has run since taking deliver two years ago......14k miles in two years.
Add to that, I get bored.....very rare for me to keep a car much past three years......I have been known to buy the same exact car simply because I liked it, but needed to see a new color or wanted different options.
I'm not alone.....and those who, like me, drive short, get bored, etc. a diesel won't work.....the next owner gets the benifit.
Anyways, to finish off, I part time for my son, repairing his equipment for his demolition company.
Until about two years ago he had his four jobsite supervisors in diesel pickups.....under the guise of lower costs.
Because the vehicles are predominatly short haulers, the maintenance was rather expensive as noted above, and, being in Northern Illinois, rust was a continual battle......mud plus salt is a evil evil mix.
We are now in mid conversion to gassers with the intent of rotating out every three years......already our service expense is falling.....fast.....
So, big miles, short time, diesel all the way.....short miles, long time, go gas if cost control is the plan.
Now, if you just dig diesels.....rock on....daym the expense and have fun with it.....thats what it's really about with cars...enjoyment IMO.
Rob
If you are a 50k plus miles annually operator, meaning minimum short hauls, predominate highway driving, not unlike a road going tractor, the operating costs can be less......that and operate in a climate that allows the sheet metal to not revert back to iron ore in less than ten years......however:
The potental is lost when ancillary failures come into the mix.
Short hauls introduce the possibility of the starter or alternator failing at a similar mileage to a gasser.
These components, due to their larger size and capabilities, are, on average, often double the price of the lighter duty gasser components.
A diesel introduces another component into the mix: glow plugs.
Again, short haul trips will shorten their lifespan.....the long haul croud will have rare failures due to less glow plug cycling.
Because of low emission requirements, the diesel now must have as much electrical gobblygook as a gasser so there is no gain in simplicity that diesels enjoyed years ago, so the thoughts of reduced electrical failures is essentially null.
The same battery failure rate as a gasser is probable and the higher ampherage battery a diesel requires is more expensive than a comparable gasser.
There are other examples......the particulate catcher may require replacement sooner than anticipated on the short haulers too.....a result of not being hot enouph, long enouph.
If I was the type that puts 50k a year on a car, with the intention of running it till the wheels fall off, and stick them back on for another year or two, a diesel would be my choice.
But, I'm a short hauler.....the trip to and from Lordstown last week was the longest my car has run since taking deliver two years ago......14k miles in two years.
Add to that, I get bored.....very rare for me to keep a car much past three years......I have been known to buy the same exact car simply because I liked it, but needed to see a new color or wanted different options.
I'm not alone.....and those who, like me, drive short, get bored, etc. a diesel won't work.....the next owner gets the benifit.
Anyways, to finish off, I part time for my son, repairing his equipment for his demolition company.
Until about two years ago he had his four jobsite supervisors in diesel pickups.....under the guise of lower costs.
Because the vehicles are predominatly short haulers, the maintenance was rather expensive as noted above, and, being in Northern Illinois, rust was a continual battle......mud plus salt is a evil evil mix.
We are now in mid conversion to gassers with the intent of rotating out every three years......already our service expense is falling.....fast.....
So, big miles, short time, diesel all the way.....short miles, long time, go gas if cost control is the plan.
Now, if you just dig diesels.....rock on....daym the expense and have fun with it.....thats what it's really about with cars...enjoyment IMO.
Rob
Robby thanks for clarifying.
my purchase decision on a diesel was cost of fuel commuting. I factored that even though my car payment was about $40 more per month than my Kia, that the saving of $120 per month on fuel would offset that.
when I read the above comment I got concerned that I made the decision without knowing all the facts and made the wrong decision.
of course time will tell if I made a good decision once the reliability of the vehicle become more known. At least I have 150,000 mile piece of mind.
my purchase decision on a diesel was cost of fuel commuting. I factored that even though my car payment was about $40 more per month than my Kia, that the saving of $120 per month on fuel would offset that.
when I read the above comment I got concerned that I made the decision without knowing all the facts and made the wrong decision.
of course time will tell if I made a good decision once the reliability of the vehicle become more known. At least I have 150,000 mile piece of mind.
Part of the cost negation is speculation on how much the emissions systems will cost to replace/repair over the life of the vehicle. It's certainly going to be a factor, but it's to early to say how much. The extra weight of the diesel model will be a wear factor for things like tires and brakes, but we aren't talking about 1,000 lbs. Unless you had 2 cars being driven exactly the same your driving habits will likely be a much larger factor in wear items than the couple hundred pound weight difference.
After having a gas Cruze as a rental when I hit a deer with my Cobalt SS I find the diesel have better brakes and steering. Granted the rental was I think an LT, so I am making an assumption that the gas models all have basically the same brakes and steering. As far as gelling goes, we had the cold winter in the Midwest since '78 and I can't remember more than a few posts on here about it. I got my car in January and it sat outside for a couple -40* F (wind chills even lower) nights. Started every time. Modern diesel blends seemed to have really minimized the occurrences of this. Before I bought a diesel I talked with a friend who has driven a diesel Bug and now a diesel Passat every day for the last 8 years and a friend who drives truck. The only gelling incident the VW owner had was a cold snap with his Bug when he was running home brewed fry oil diesel. The guy who drives truck said the majority of problems happen when a truck comes from the South to the North without the right blend.
In the end I think both the Eco and CTD are great cars. My own decision was based on getting out of a manual (my wife just won't drive one), which made it a choice between the Eco A6 and the diesel (the diesel having a decent advantage economy wise here). Also I was concerned that the push to mandate higher Ethanol blends would negatively impact economy on the gas model and increase operating costs higher than I wanted.
After having a gas Cruze as a rental when I hit a deer with my Cobalt SS I find the diesel have better brakes and steering. Granted the rental was I think an LT, so I am making an assumption that the gas models all have basically the same brakes and steering. As far as gelling goes, we had the cold winter in the Midwest since '78 and I can't remember more than a few posts on here about it. I got my car in January and it sat outside for a couple -40* F (wind chills even lower) nights. Started every time. Modern diesel blends seemed to have really minimized the occurrences of this. Before I bought a diesel I talked with a friend who has driven a diesel Bug and now a diesel Passat every day for the last 8 years and a friend who drives truck. The only gelling incident the VW owner had was a cold snap with his Bug when he was running home brewed fry oil diesel. The guy who drives truck said the majority of problems happen when a truck comes from the South to the North without the right blend.
In the end I think both the Eco and CTD are great cars. My own decision was based on getting out of a manual (my wife just won't drive one), which made it a choice between the Eco A6 and the diesel (the diesel having a decent advantage economy wise here). Also I was concerned that the push to mandate higher Ethanol blends would negatively impact economy on the gas model and increase operating costs higher than I wanted.
I went purely for the mpg and options. The resale was a big factor because in 2-3 years I'll probably trade it for a half ton truck. I'm also planning on buying a house and the extra mpg means I can move a little farther out of the city and not take a large hit in commuting costs
I priced it out on GM Canada's website and only got a $1310 price difference! I think the biggest difference in cost between the diesel (for me anyways) came from the financing. I could have gotten 0% for 84 months on any Cruze except the diesel. The diesel was 3.99%. I knew that when I got the diesel though and to me it is worth the extra cost. Even if the car never pays for itself in savings, the enjoyment to drive is so much more than the gas Cruze.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
