Chevrolet Cruze Forums banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This is my first post here, but I have been reading up for several days now. We are in the market for a new used car and am very interested in a Cruze. We had been talking about a Malibu, but from what I have read, a Cruze would be more economical and more fun to drive.

We live out in the country in Tennessee so 75% of our mileage would be highway. After reading so much on these, I would have to say, I am a little confused by the differences in fuel economy. All the gas models have either the 1.4T or 1.8, but it seems that economy differs from 30+ to 45+ in the same car, with the biggest difference being whether it is an automatic or manual transmission. I am leaning more toward an Eco MT version because of the added economy. I know the Eco is typically a couple hundred pounds lighter than the other models, but how does the performance compare to the other models? I am not looking for a speed demon or anything of that nature, but just can't understand how there is such a difference in fuel economy in basically the same cars with the same engines.

I saw a lower mileage 2012 Eco MT listed in my area and have been considering it. Are certain years better to get vs another year? We can't afford a new one so I need to find the best bang for my buck.

Thanks in advance for any feedback and advice.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,918 Posts
If MPG is your main concern get the ECO manual as it has the highest gas cruze MPG at 42mpg hwy. This is only 4MPG better rating than any other 1.4T equipped cruze, as all 1LT, 2LT or LTZ auto or manual are all rated at 38mpg hwy. I would avoid the 1.8L cruze as it gets much lower MPG and only comes on the LS and L models, which have no available options.

2011 was the first model year, so If I had to choose I would probably look for a 2013 or 2014 if I was looking used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
Eco is the quickest of the Cruze models. Some of it is the weight but a lot more is probably the transmission ratios.

It has a pretty aggressive 1st and 2nd gear. First gear is definitely short. It can take some getting used to. Clutch engagement is weird too. Clutch take up is very early and then there is some dead pedal. The Subaru Impreza and Hyundai Elantra I drove were like that too. There may be a reason they are engineered like that.

If 1st is short, 5th and 6th are economy ratios. There's no performance there. Just low revving fuel economy.

The 1.4t comes on pretty early but doesn't do as well up top as the bigger Honda Civic 1.8

My 1.8 experience is more with the DeltaII platform mate, the Saturn Astra. It handled like you would expect a German....well, Belgian car to handle but it was SLLLLOOOWWW. Almost Jetta 2-Point-Slow slow. The 1.4t is slow too but it is slow like a 1.8 Civic or Elantra. Don't go picking races with Civic Si-s or Mazda 3S 2.5s.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,318 Posts
One of the bigger things to consider is if you will have any sort of passengers (children or adults) in the back seat, you might want to spend some more time comparing the Malibu.

I love mine, but the Cruze is a car meant for 2 people imo.




Sent with iLove 6.0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,340 Posts
Yup, rear seat room is none existent for teenagers and adults. Malibu would be my choice of the two however I'm partial to the fusion 2013+ if you go with that size of car.

A lot of the mpg differences you see are driving styles and altitudes. Some people have flat runs and some have uphill grades. I know even with my diesel I can watch my instant take a 4L/100km hit on the most basic of grades. It all averages out though.

Go with the ECO MT, it's probably the best option in the gas as the 2011-2012 automatics were troublesome. They've only just started getting their 6 speed right and they've already jumped on with a 7 speed for the next gen Cruze. They're putting 8 speeds in the new camaro!


Sent from the sexy electrician
 

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
16,536 Posts
Yup, rear seat room is none existent for teenagers and adults. Malibu would be my choice of the two however I'm partial to the fusion 2013+ if you go with that size of car.

A lot of the mpg differences you see are driving styles and altitudes. Some people have flat runs and some have uphill grades. I know even with my diesel I can watch my instant take a 4L/100km hit on the most basic of grades. It all averages out though.

Go with the ECO MT, it's probably the best option in the gas as the 2011-2012 automatics were troublesome. They've only just started getting their 6 speed right and they've already jumped on with a 7 speed for the next gen Cruze. They're putting 8 speeds in the new camaro!


Sent from the sexy electrician
11 was a mess; 12 was fine; 13 automatics had issues again, 14s were fine.

Upcoming Malibu - yes. Old (13-15) Malibu = ew. The Fusion is one of the best midsizers on the market IMHO.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
25,036 Posts
This is my first post here, but I have been reading up for several days now. We are in the market for a new used car and am very interested in a Cruze. We had been talking about a Malibu, but from what I have read, a Cruze would be more economical and more fun to drive.

We live out in the country in Tennessee so 75% of our mileage would be highway. After reading so much on these, I would have to say, I am a little confused by the differences in fuel economy. All the gas models have either the 1.4T or 1.8, but it seems that economy differs from 30+ to 45+ in the same car, with the biggest difference being whether it is an automatic or manual transmission. I am leaning more toward an Eco MT version because of the added economy. I know the Eco is typically a couple hundred pounds lighter than the other models, but how does the performance compare to the other models? I am not looking for a speed demon or anything of that nature, but just can't understand how there is such a difference in fuel economy in basically the same cars with the same engines.

I saw a lower mileage 2012 Eco MT listed in my area and have been considering it. Are certain years better to get vs another year? We can't afford a new one so I need to find the best bang for my buck.

Thanks in advance for any feedback and advice.
I absolutely love my 2012 ECO MT. The highway rating of 42 MPG is accurate on the interstate when traveling at 77 MPH. At 60 MPH my ECO MT gets better than 50 MPG and at 55 MPH it gets 55 MPG.

Take a look at http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/27-fuel-economy/13421-hypermiling-eco-mt.html to see what I did to improve my fuel economy. This page also shows MotorTrend magazine's calculated fuel economy numbers - the ECO MT is the top line.

Also, while the ECO MT doesn't come with a spare tire you can add one to it. I've added spares to both my 2012 ECO MT and my son's 2013 ECO MT. We have both used our spares so it was well worth doing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,821 Posts
I am leaning more toward an Eco MT version because of the added economy. I know the Eco is typically a couple hundred pounds lighter than the other models, but how does the performance compare to the other models?
ECO MT is quite good at beating it's highway rating. I had a 2011 ECO MT. At the time it's Fuel Economy was pretty much unbeatable for a gas powered car. Other manufacturer's have caught up as the Cruze is essentially unchanged through model year 2015. I did not hypermile w/my ECO and best mpg's I got was 48.5 @ 70+ mph. My 200lb heavier and significantly more powerful 2014 BMW 320i 6MT pulled 46.5 mpg @ 65mph. The new 2016 Cruze takes mpgs up a notch, I have read by as much as 15%. You can't go wrong with an ECO MT.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top