Chevrolet Cruze Forums banner
1 - 20 of 126 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Sometime back I did a calculation to try and determine pay back period for the Eco option and it was a LONG LONG time not making it seem like such a great deal.

But then I come on here and see some Eco driver's posting some pretty incredible MPG numbers, way above real world numbers for the standard Cruze.

Is this increase in MPG just a result of individuals that purchase the Eco are focused more on MPG and therefore drive differently? Or is because the MPG diifference is much greater than the EPA ratings would suggest?

How much does the Eco option cost again?
What is an average MPG for a standard Cruze and the same for an Eco?

Curious, thanks.
 

·
Lyrical Wordsmith
Joined
·
6,748 Posts
It will always be about the driver and location. If i had an ECO down here, i will notice a slight increase of MPG but probably not by much.

But i will notice it on the HWY the major difference. I don't have 1.4, i have a 1.8 and i am still impressed with the MPG.

EPA shows it as a ~4 MPG difference, we all here have kind of beat it lol.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,351 Posts
The EPA didn't drive an Eco with over 10,000 miles on it. That's when my car started blowing away the 42mpg. I'm getting 46-49 at 70-72mph.


Sent from AutoGuide.com App
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,596 Posts
Sometime back I did a calculation to try and determine pay back period for the Eco option and it was a LONG LONG time not making it seem like such a great deal.

But then I come on here and see some Eco driver's posting some pretty incredible MPG numbers, way above real world numbers for the standard Cruze.

Is this increase in MPG just a result of individuals that purchase the Eco are focused more on MPG and therefore drive differently? Or is because the MPG diifference is much greater than the EPA ratings would suggest?

How much does the Eco option cost again?
What is an average MPG for a standard Cruze and the same for an Eco?

Curious, thanks.
It's a combination of more highway driving than the average driver and an underrated EPA estimate MPG. The EPA tests for the ECO MT simply underestimate this car's highway MPG by about 10%. The ECO MT (I can't speak for the AT) really does blow away the EPA estimates on the highway. You have to be doing about 77 MPH to average 42 MPG on the highway in this car. At 55 MPH, this car will average about 55 MPG. These numbers are without doing any hypermiling. With hypermiling you can increase them another 5-10% without too much difficulty. Based on Denver traffic, the ECO MT's city estimimate is low. My opinion, based on 26,000+ miles, is that the ECO MT's numbers should be closer to 33/47/38 (City/Highway/Combined). The official EPA numbers are 28/42/33.

Trim and cost wise, the ECO is between the 1LT and the 2LT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
With everyone of my fill ups I am consistantly getting over 40MPG now via the DIC on my last 3 fill ups. Judging by what some people on here have posted about the 1.8 vs the 1.4 and the mileage they are getting in the city and in normal driving situations it seems the Eco can produce very high numbers if not driven as though it were stolen lol. That is the key if you drive it like a knowledgeable driver who wants to improve his MPG you can easily get well over 40MPG even as high as 50 depending on where you are driving. If you are doing all city driving you might not see such a high increase in comparison. The manual is also key to the Eco as the automatic doesn't get near what the manuals can.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
467 Posts
I average around 38 in town (not stop and go city), 44-47 at 80mph on the interstate, and 47-50 on the highway (55-65mph). The little things that are different with the Eco definitely help, but are worthless if the driver doesn't pay attention to how they drive. The Eco will get the rated mileage when driven like any other car, but little things can bump those numbers considerably.

OTOH, when it comes to the savings of my Eco, I consider what it cost me to drive the vehicle that the Cruze replaced (02 4wd Blazer). When I do the calculations, I'm saving enough money in gas alone to more than make my car payment every month.
 

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
17,545 Posts
One of these Eco drivers with the insanely high numbers needs to be given an LT 6MT to figure that out.

Comparing MPG numbers is useless if we're not doing the same commute.

I've seen 44 MPG from mine at 65 MPH, but I'm much too impatient to drive slower than that. If I'm on the highway and not stuck in traffic, I'm usually doing 70+.

Mine's around 30/40 unless driven over 75. Traffic here does not make for ideal driving conditions...ever.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,351 Posts
Actually, with the tune on, I can get 46-48 at 80mph. I don't usually drive that fast though.


Sent from AutoGuide.com App
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,596 Posts
One of these Eco drivers with the insanely high numbers needs to be given an LT 6MT to figure that out.

Comparing MPG numbers is useless if we're not doing the same commute.

I've seen 44 MPG from mine at 65 MPH, but I'm much too impatient to drive slower than that. If I'm on the highway and not stuck in traffic, I'm usually doing 70+.

Mine's around 30/40 unless driven over 75. Traffic here does not make for ideal driving conditions...ever.
Or a LT MT owner can adapt the instructions I gave in how to hypermile the ECO MT and report back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
One of these Eco drivers with the insanely high numbers needs to be given an LT 6MT to figure that out.

Comparing MPG numbers is useless if we're not doing the same commute.

I've seen 44 MPG from mine at 65 MPH, but I'm much too impatient to drive slower than that. If I'm on the highway and not stuck in traffic, I'm usually doing 70+.

Mine's around 30/40 unless driven over 75. Traffic here does not make for ideal driving conditions...ever.
If someone wants to work out a trade for a week, we can find out. ;)

I bought the Eco because I knew I would get the most benefits on my long highway commute to work. The aerodynamic improvements and taller gearing work to my advantage. Like Beachernaut, I had a cost of ownership calculator so I could figure out how much I would spend vs. my old minivan at 23 mpg average. Somewhere around 35 mpg, it was a wash. My long-term average is just under 40. That should go up as my average dipped during the winter. Now, with milder temperatures and summer blend gas, It's typical to see between 48-50 indicated on the DIC. Below is a round trip for me, this was on a day in light winds and mild temperatures.

Speedometer Auto part Odometer Gauge Vehicle


Calculated, my average has been 44 (including the city driving I do on weekends). One other thing to note is that I do very little to optimize my MPG. I run my tires at 38 psi, I have not checked my spark plug gaps yet, and I only occasionally do light hypermiling. I usually set my cruise control at 72 mph in 65 zones, and 65-70 in 55 zones. So yeah, it does depend on how you drive, but I do think there is an advantage with the Eco.
 

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
17,545 Posts
Or a LT MT owner can adapt the instructions I gave in how to hypermile the ECO MT and report back.
Unfortunately I don't do long drives too often. May have a chance to try it out late one night on Rt 1 (next to no traffic, rolling hills, and 55-65 mph speed limits) on my way back to NC in a few weeks. I could also try on 66 one night (flat, little traffic) just to see what I could do.

Unfortunately, I think you're right with something you said earlier...the Cruze does have a huge advantage in hills to make up for lost MPG because of its crazy coasting ability compared to other cars (it will coast WAY longer down a hill than any car with >2 liters under the hood that I've driven). There are no hills here, but I did see some great numbers coming down I81 into the Roanoke Valley.

So yeah, it does depend on how you drive, but I do think there is an advantage with the Eco.
Absolutely I'm sure there's a difference...but I'm curious to see how much is the car...and how much is the driver. Maybe it is as little as 4 MPG from the gearing/aerodynamics. Maybe more!

I'd be willing to trade for a week if anyone around here wants to mess around with (a stock) one.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,917 Posts
The comparison would be very hard to do, would require one driver, route, fuel grade, ethanol content, similar climate & wind in relatively equal cars.

1LT manual VS ECO manual
1LT Automatic VS ECO automatic

Window sticker the ECO automatic only gains 1MPG on the highway, though in real world at higher speeds that might be closer to 2-3mpg.

I can already beat my 1LT window sticker hwy of 38MPG with the cruise set at 65mph, I typically get 40mpg. Twice now I have had 200+ mile trips with the cruise set at 68mph and achived 39-40MPG both times. Once was 50degrees & more recently it was 80degrees out(both times with premium gas).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,596 Posts
I developed my ECO MT hypermiling tips from a 30 mile one-way commute with an occasional longer drive. You should be able to implement the pulse & glide in just about any heavy traffic and I think this is where the bulk of my city MPG boost is coming from. My highway boost is coming from slowing down from 65 to 60 in the mornings. The afternoons I have to use P&G.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,157 Posts
The Eco MT owners were generally already folks interested in getting higher MPG vehicles, who had longer commutes that reduced the payback time over a 1LT manual (mine's paid itself back over a LS manual already), and/or may already have had experience in getting good MPG from other vehicles. In other words, they were already likely to get better fuel economy than average, so they self-selected a efficient vehicle.

At 68 mph on flat roads my Eco can get about 45-46 mpg in the summer. Compared to reports of a 1LT manual, that's about 3-4 mpg better.
 

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
17,545 Posts
The Eco MT owners were generally already folks interested in getting higher MPG vehicles, who had longer commutes that reduced the payback time over a 1LT manual (mine's paid itself back over a LS manual already), and/or may already have had experience in getting good MPG from other vehicles. In other words, they were already likely to get better fuel economy than average, so they self-selected a efficient vehicle.

At 68 mph on flat roads my Eco can get about 45-46 mpg in the summer. Compared to reports of a 1LT manual, that's about 3-4 mpg better.
That's a very good point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
467 Posts
the Cruze does have a huge advantage in hills to make up for lost MPG because of its crazy coasting ability compared to other cars (it will coast WAY longer down a hill than any car with
Big +1. I've continuously been impressed with how far the Cruze will coast.

Absolutely I'm sure there's a difference...but I'm curious to see how much is the car...and how much is the driver. Maybe it is as little as 4 MPG from the gearing/aerodynamics. Maybe more!
The highway is where the Eco really shines. That is where the aero tweeks and gearing make the most difference. I can tell you that my best tank had nothing to do with the driver. Hours with the cruise set at 65mph resulted in 49.9mpg over 400+ miles. I have a feeling that in town where the aero and gearing aren't as much of an issue, I'd probably get similar mpg numbers driving both Eco and non-Eco.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,596 Posts
The Eco MT owners were generally already folks interested in getting higher MPG vehicles, who had longer commutes that reduced the payback time over a 1LT manual (mine's paid itself back over a LS manual already), and/or may already have had experience in getting good MPG from other vehicles. In other words, they were already likely to get better fuel economy than average, so they self-selected a efficient vehicle.

At 68 mph on flat roads my Eco can get about 45-46 mpg in the summer. Compared to reports of a 1LT manual, that's about 3-4 mpg better.
Valid point. I was already hypermiling my Montana and was looking for a super efficient stick shift.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,704 Posts
I would guess the difference for an Eco is 10% for the Automatic transmission.. since the difference in drag is 10% and they have the same transmission.. *shrug*

Manual Eco has it's own gearbox, so the different gearing may be worth probably 20% over a "standard" Cruze.

Then again, what is your definition of "standard?" One doesn't care about the Eco if they aren't in the market for best possible fuel economy (some people just want the RS package, don't knock em for it). The Cruze is still a 35-40 MPG sedan either way you slice it.
 

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
17,545 Posts
Just do some comparisions on Fuelly.com as those numbers say it all.
Flawed logic. Most ECO MT drivers probably do mostly highway driving, and bought the car for just that.

To make as accurate of a comparison as possible, the cars would have to be driven by the same driver, on the same routes, etc. to see how they really stack up.
 
1 - 20 of 126 Posts
Top