Chevrolet Cruze Forums banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
While on the EPA's fueleconomy.gov site today, I was comparing a few cars to my 2014 diesel. I noticed that the EPA dropped the diesel's highway milage by 2 MPGs to 44 MPG, the city remained at 27 MPG, and the combined dropped to 32 MPG. These numbers are based off updated milage calculations for 2017.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,219 Posts
Not sure about that, mine will do over city and highway mileage no problem. My lifetime average is over 42 mpg. I think the ratings are never very accurate. It varies a lot by driver.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,003 Posts
Not sure about that, mine will do over city and highway mileage no problem. My lifetime average is over 42 mpg. I think the ratings are never very accurate. It varies a lot by driver.
There's a lot of variability. But the EPA test is a standardized test where they follow a specific "traffic" profile on a dyno. What you get depends a great deal on how closely your driving profile matches the EPA's.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,219 Posts
There's a lot of variability. But the EPA test is a standardized test where they follow a specific "traffic" profile on a dyno. What you get depends a great deal on how closely your driving profile matches the EPA's.
I find I normally get better than their numbers. Not a lot better but better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
Not sure about that, mine will do over city and highway mileage no problem. My lifetime average is over 42 mpg. I think the ratings are never very accurate. It varies a lot by driver.
I'm averaging 46-48. Best tanks have been 51mpg and worst so far was my very first one where I spent a lot of time driving around town at 41mpg
 

·
Premium Member
2014 Cruze Diesel, 2007 Cobalt, 1981 Camaro Z28, 2017 Volt
Joined
·
4,799 Posts
Yup - similar thing happened in around 2007 or so.

I thought the ratings were supposed to get more representative - which would mean that the diesels wouldn't be underrated, but I guess that is not the case.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,219 Posts
I'm averaging 46-48. Best tanks have been 51mpg and worst so far was my very first one where I spent a lot of time driving around town at 41mpg
I have too much city driving to average much more than I do. Just took a 1200 mile trip, first half no ac and drove little slower and got 51.5 mpg, came back head wind, some ac and drove 75 mph and averaged 48.5 for trip. Economy wise very happy with car.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
25,603 Posts
Are you comparing the 2014 to the 2014 CTD or the 2014 to the 2017 CTD? The 2017 is a new drivetrain.
 

·
Premium Member
2014 Cruze Diesel, 2007 Cobalt, 1981 Camaro Z28, 2017 Volt
Joined
·
4,799 Posts
Are you comparing the 2014 to the 2014 CTD or the 2014 to the 2017 CTD? The 2017 is a new drivetrain.
Talking about the original post? He's talking about the 2014 CTD "converted" to the 2017 EPA rating method, which "drop" the fuel economy to 44 on the highway, from 46.

Which we all know is making the rating less accurate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Merc6

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
16,999 Posts
I remember the 2007 mileage adjustments from when we were shopping for a car in 2007. The ratings dropped from 2006 to 2007 models despite nothing having changed.

They *were* more accurate, though.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
10,712 Posts
2016 Traverse, Acadia and, Enclave had MPG lawsuits and gave out visa cards to the owners based on if you were a 2wd or AWD variant. AWD got like $1600 back per car but after lawyers it was like $900
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,652 Posts
I disagree with the change on the diesel Cruze. They easily get 46+ MPG on the highway. If anything they should have raised the highway and lowered the city.
 

·
Premium Member
2014 Cruze Diesel, 2007 Cobalt, 1981 Camaro Z28, 2017 Volt
Joined
·
4,799 Posts
I disagree with the change on the diesel Cruze. They easily get 46+ MPG on the highway. If anything they should have raised the highway and lowered the city.
Or raised both. We did a 100% city tank a couple weeks ago and it was still in the low 30s.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,918 Posts
I disagree with the change on the diesel Cruze. They easily get 46+ MPG on the highway. If anything they should have raised the highway and lowered the city.
This is all based on testing changes. Remember diesel engines typically real world better than those EPA test indicate so I have no doubt the old vs new allot of people can achieve better.

On that Same note I have no problem beating the EPA city/hwy with my cruze or sonic either, not sure how so many others get so low of MPG. Only way I ever had any top off lower than the city EPA number was -15F or more for a week and I used remote start 2-3X a day with 100% city driving, I only got 21mpg with my cruze. Some might think that's bad, but my previous GM 2.2L ecotec and 2.5L iron duke both got around 13MPG in the same conditions. Most other times I never average under 30MPG city with my 1.4T and easily get 4-6MPG or better average on the highway than the EPA numbers indicate.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
25,603 Posts
This is all based on testing changes. Remember diesel engines typically real world better than those EPA test indicate so I have no doubt the old vs new allot of people can achieve better.

On that Same note I have no problem beating the EPA city/hwy with my cruze or sonic either, not sure how so many others get so low of MPG. Only way I ever had any top off lower than the city EPA number was -15F or more for a week and I used remote start 2-3X a day with 100% city driving, I only got 21mpg with my cruze. Some might think that's bad, but my previous GM 2.2L ecotec and 2.5L iron duke both got around 13MPG in the same conditions. Most other times I never average under 30MPG city with my 1.4T and easily get 4-6MPG or better average on the highway than the EPA numbers indicate.
The EPA city numbers assume you're driving Los Angeles or NY in the middle of the summer rush hour with your A/C blasting. For the rest of us simple defensive driving should beat the EPA city number.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
25,603 Posts
The EPA dropped my ECO MT from 42 to 40 MPG. I'm going to leave the HyperCruzer numbers as is and use the original highway values. We've had enough people reach both Silver and Gold that I suspect this is a testing artifact only.
 

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
16,999 Posts
The EPA dropped my ECO MT from 42 to 40 MPG. I'm going to leave the HyperCruzer numbers as is and use the original highway values. We've had enough people reach both Silver and Gold that I suspect this is a testing artifact only.
I did 43 last night on a non Eco! So yeah, should definitely be above that.

How are they readjusting numbers without retesting every car again?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,918 Posts
I did 43 last night on a non Eco! So yeah, should definitely be above that.

How are they readjusting numbers without retesting every car again?
I believe the issues was on how each manufacture was calculating the data, not actual testing changes. Your 43mpg is now 7MPG over the 36mpg hwy rating for your car!!!!
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top