Interesting. I'm not sure how MT decided the Mazda came out ahead of the ECO MT. I haven't had any issues with steering responsiveness or tracking. I did note the "theoretical mpg" chart is a little low for the Cruze ECO MT, but it's definitely close and tracked very closely with what I found last week while driving between my home and Ft Morgan, CO. Once again I wonder how the EPA estimate of 42 Highway can be valid, given that MT came up with 42 MPG going 30 MPH faster than the EPA's test assumption of 45 MPH.
Motor Trend 40 MPG Compact Sedan Comparison
So the Cruze came in second in the comparison. Check out the theoretical mpgs MT projects for the ECO.
40 MPG Compact Sedan Comparison - Chevy Cruze Eco vs. Ford Focus SFE vs. Honda Civic HF vs. Hyundai Elantra GLS vs. Mazda3 vs. VW Jetta TDI - Motor Trend
40 MPG Compact Sedan Comparison - Chevy Cruze Eco vs. Ford Focus SFE vs. Honda Civic HF vs. Hyundai Elantra GLS vs. Mazda3 vs. VW Jetta TDI - Motor Trend
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
MT has some nice things to say about it. They do have a hard-on for Mazda, though.
I don't know what they're talking about with the clutch take-up. It's quite predictable, even for a driver new to the car. 1st could be a hair bit taller, though. Sometimes the throttle doesn't match up well, and sends the car lurching forward in 1st. I can see how that could result in a stall for a driver unprepared for it.
I don't know what they're talking about with the clutch take-up. It's quite predictable, even for a driver new to the car. 1st could be a hair bit taller, though. Sometimes the throttle doesn't match up well, and sends the car lurching forward in 1st. I can see how that could result in a stall for a driver unprepared for it.
I do agree with the steering - driving on the highway for the first time in my Cruze, I couldn't keep it straight because I was used to having feedback from the battleship of a Volvo I had before. Took me a few days to get used to.
But the clutch progression is the best I have ever driven. It's very hard to stall this car unless it's in reverse, or bogging down from under gapped spark plugs.
Havent driven the skyactiv, but i really wasnt that impressed with the 2.0 2011. My friends 2009 is much better to drive.
I'm happy to see the Mazda win instead of the Focus or something. From the strictly MPG and value standpoint of the article, the Cruze should clearly have won, though.
But the clutch progression is the best I have ever driven. It's very hard to stall this car unless it's in reverse, or bogging down from under gapped spark plugs.
Havent driven the skyactiv, but i really wasnt that impressed with the 2.0 2011. My friends 2009 is much better to drive.
I'm happy to see the Mazda win instead of the Focus or something. From the strictly MPG and value standpoint of the article, the Cruze should clearly have won, though.
I hate the article title as none of these are 40 mpg COMBINED mileage cars. Not everyone lives on and works on a highway and is able to do highway speeds for much/all of their commute....
But... I think of particular interest is the graph on the first page (or also at 40 MPG Comparison Constant Speed Chart Photo 13http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1208_40_mpg_compact_sedan_comparison/).
Even before the MY08+ EPA test changes, the highway test results on the Monroney sticker were fudged (adjusted downward) by 22 percent for the highway test and 10 for the city test. The MY08+ changes make it more complicated due to the added tests and you can't just raw unadjusted dyno numbers by those %s anymore.
And, again, the EPA test does NOT measure actual fuel use.
But... I think of particular interest is the graph on the first page (or also at 40 MPG Comparison Constant Speed Chart Photo 13http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1208_40_mpg_compact_sedan_comparison/).
Did you ever read those articles about the EPA test AND also look at fueleconomy.gov to look at some of the test details that I pointed you to?Once again I wonder how the EPA estimate of 42 Highway can be valid, given that MT came up with 42 MPG going 30 MPH faster than the EPA's test assumption of 45 MPH.
Even before the MY08+ EPA test changes, the highway test results on the Monroney sticker were fudged (adjusted downward) by 22 percent for the highway test and 10 for the city test. The MY08+ changes make it more complicated due to the added tests and you can't just raw unadjusted dyno numbers by those %s anymore.
And, again, the EPA test does NOT measure actual fuel use.
My brother may be getting a Skyactiv Mazda3 hatch with a proper transmission, so I may have a test-drive soon.I do agree with the steering - driving on the highway for the first time in my Cruze, I couldn't keep it straight because I was used to having feedback from the battleship of a Volvo I had before. Took me a few days to get used to.
But the clutch progression is the best I have ever driven. It's very hard to stall this car unless it's in reverse, or bogging down from under gapped spark plugs.
Havent driven the skyactiv, but i really wasnt that impressed with the 2.0 2011. My friends 2009 is much better to drive.
I'm happy to see the Mazda win instead of the Focus or something, though. From the strictly MPG and value standpoint of the article, the Cruze should clearly have won, though.
Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app
And, dynamically I think the Cruze Eco MT and Mazda3 Skyactiv "ought" to be close. I mean, the Cruze has only won the WTCC the past few years in a row.
And therein lies the fundamental flaw with the EPA testing. You CANNOT get accurate MPG readings unless you measure actual fuel used.And, again, the EPA test does NOT measure actual fuel use.
...and, how many people "drive" their cars on a dynamometer to shopping, school, or work? Yep, only the EPA testers do!And therein lies the fundamental flaw with the EPA testing.
Anyone notice that the price as tested for the Mazda 3 was almost $5,000 more than the Cruze Eco? Exactly how is that a fair comparison?
One fundamental flaw in all this is that the Cruze is technically considered a small midsize car if you look at cargo and interior volume. The Mazda3 that supposedly beat it has inferior 0-60 and 1/4 mile times, inferior braking distance, inferior lateral acceleration, an inferior warranty, and by comparison, a tiny trunk. It's a pity they bumped it to #2 due to the manual transmission.
As a side note, the front end of that Mazda is hideous, IMO of course.
One fundamental flaw in all this is that the Cruze is technically considered a small midsize car if you look at cargo and interior volume. The Mazda3 that supposedly beat it has inferior 0-60 and 1/4 mile times, inferior braking distance, inferior lateral acceleration, an inferior warranty, and by comparison, a tiny trunk. It's a pity they bumped it to #2 due to the manual transmission.
As a side note, the front end of that Mazda is hideous, IMO of course.
...what? you don't like that Japanese 'Cheshire-cat'-grinning grill (wink,wink)?As a side note, the front end of that Mazda is hideous, IMO of course.
I've always felt it was more of a "S**t eating grin" grill. Either way it's uuuuuggggglllllyyyy....what? you don't like that Japanese 'Cheshire-cat'-grinning grill (wink,wink)?
Truth in every word. And the Mazda also has inferior gas mileage, which was the whole point of the article. Gas mileage!Anyone notice that the price as tested for the Mazda 3 was almost $5,000 more than the Cruze Eco? Exactly how is that a fair comparison?
One fundamental flaw in all this is that the Cruze is technically considered a small midsize car if you look at cargo and interior volume. The Mazda3 that supposedly beat it has inferior 0-60 and 1/4 mile times, inferior braking distance, inferior lateral acceleration, an inferior warranty, and by comparison, a tiny trunk. It's a pity they bumped it to #2 due to the manual transmission.
As a side note, the front end of that Mazda is hideous, IMO of course.
Yeah, it is a fundamental flaw.... They EPA ratings seemed to coincide *exactly* with what my car got off the lot. Coincidence? Maybe there is something to these dyno calculations...And therein lies the fundamental flaw with the EPA testing. You CANNOT get accurate MPG readings unless you measure actual fuel used.
Here's an interesting tidbit. They measured the 1/4 mile time at 16.2. What did your LTZ get?Yeah, it is a fundamental flaw.... It seemed to coincide *exactly* with what my car got off the lot. Coincidence? Maybe there is something to these dyno calculations...
Sent from my Bulletproof_Doubleshot using AutoGuide.Com Free App
I just checked the results of the poll in the article. The Cruze ECO MT is second to the VW Jetta TDI for most preferred car in the article. The Mazda 3 (MT's editor's choice) is fourth. There are almost 8,000 votes, which gives a large enough sample size of people interested in high mileage to provide meaningful results in the poll.
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Chevrolet Cruze Forums
CruzeTalk.com forum, news, discussions and the best community for owners to discuss all things related to the Chevy Cruze.
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
