Chevrolet Cruze Forums banner
21 - 40 of 42 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
890 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
yeah my mpg avg is 49.7 it has been going up about .2 each day the past week. the past 2 weeks ive been getting 52 mpg a day. which is where i think my mpg avg is going to max out. hey 10mpg over epa im satisified : )
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,595 Posts
CruzeEcoBlueTopaz - congratulations. You are firmly in Prius mpg area.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
890 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
please the cruze is in a league of its own. i dont want to even compare the two vehicles the cruze is simply the most efficient all gasoline car on the market. the prius needs two engines one of which is completely electric and doesnt even use fuel to get the sort of efficiency it is known for. one of the most satisfying rewards about driving the cruze besides its incredible exterior appeal is that its manufacatured by an american corporation built right in the heart of america.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,595 Posts
Sorry - my point by comparing to the Prius is that you can get high mpg without spending an arm and a leg (you need two of each to drive a stick). As a friend of mine told me "you can't brag to your highbrow eco-friends that you're saving the planet by buying a hybrid". I told him I saved green.

As for Hybrids, looking at the sedans listed on hybridcars.com, only a handful of hybrids actually get better mpg than the Cruze ECO MT. A lot appear better on the EPA tests but looking at Fuelly.com, the ECO MT is far better than its EPA ratings but that the hybrids aren't.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,849 Posts
Sorry - my point by comparing to the Prius is that you can get high mpg without spending an arm and a leg (you need two of each to drive a stick). As a friend of mine told me "you can't brag to your highbrow eco-friends that you're saving the planet by buying a hybrid". I told him I saved green.

As for Hybrids, looking at the sedans listed on hybridcars.com, only a handful of hybrids actually get better mpg than the Cruze ECO MT. A lot appear better on the EPA tests but looking at Fuelly.com, the ECO MT is far better than its EPA ratings but that the hybrids aren't.
My thoughts exactly. I know of very, very few people who drive a Cruze Eco MT that don't get better fuel economy than the EPA rating.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
890 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
My thoughts exactly. I know of very, very few people who drive a Cruze Eco MT that don't get better fuel economy than the EPA rating.
What impresses me the most is the cruze eco mt potential for fuel efficiency. I guarentee if the people that are under the epa rating were driving their cruze at 60mph for extended periods of time with almost no stops on a fairly level surface they would be getting 50 mpg averages easy. i dunno how people are getting mid 30's mid 40's unless its mostly city driving or highway with a bunch of stops. if my terrain wasnt in the hills and mountains of idaho with a 2,500 elevation difference from where i start my route and end my route im sure i could be close to 60 mpg averages at the rate im going now. im just amazed at the potential the chevy cruze eco is providing for me.


even mid 30's to mid 40's for city driving is a fuel efficiency to be proud of. thank you chevy for making one **** of a car.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
890 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
How about a couple of days in a row, if you have the time, go 55 MPH all the way & let's see the results?
I think I have just about reached my peak average right around 52 mpg. Honestly slowing down 3-5 mph at this point isnt going to do much for me considering my limiting factor for my average mpg is the terrain I drive. It might increase my average by 1 or 2 at most. I believe I spend more fuel driving up a 2,500 ft elevation over about 15 miles then I make up coming down. I have tried just about everything to increase my mpg except using pure 91 octane fuel not only because im still a little skeptical but willing to try but because the station i fuel up at only offers 87 pure.

One last thing id like to share is my DIC usually shows my average speed right about 48 but its not really accurate because I spend hours between 58 and 61 mph. The computer just has to calculate in my time driving around town stopping at lights and city speeds which really isnt much but brings down that mph average quite a bit.

Also I dont feel safe driving at 55mph on a 75mph freeway not to mention the fact its illegal. Like I said before I try to keep a safe distance behind a semi doing 62mph. Im only on the freeway for an 1 1/2 hours of my 7 hour drive anyway the rest is pretty much open highway thats when I tend to bring it down to 58mph. I guess I could try and bring it down a little further to 55mph maybe but I still think im pretty closed to being maxxed out at 52 mpg average. I still want to test out pure 91 octane.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
890 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
91 will probably make a bigger difference as the weather gets much hotter.
Yeah its actually been in the mid 80's here in idaho the past week I think we reached 90 once or twice. Average this time of year is 65 degrees. Still was getting impressive mpg's in the hot heat. Now that I think about it I was getting my best MPG in that heat the last 2 weeks. But yeah I need to find some pure 91 octane around here and see what it can do for me.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,849 Posts
Yeah its actually been in the mid 80's here in idaho the past week I think we reached 90 once or twice. Average this time of year is 65 degrees. Still was getting impressive mpg's in the hot heat. Now that I think about it I was getting my best MPG in that heat the last 2 weeks. But yeah I need to find some pure 91 octane around here and see what it can do for me.
Keep in mind, the higher heat means your car warms up faster and spends less time in open loop as a result. Granted, that also means you may need air conditioning, but still. The hotter air is also thinner and creates less air resistance. I'm not 100% sure how much of an effect this has though...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
890 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 ·
Women use air conditoners I roll the **** window down ill sweat before i have to put an extra unncessary work load on my engine and so will my g/f. I actually was testing out the air resistance yesterday and if you put your hand and arm out the window at 60mph on a 85 degree day and a 30 degree day you can feel the difference and im not talking about the temperature.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,704 Posts
Women use air conditoners I roll the **** window down ill sweat before i have to put an extra unncessary work load on my engine and so will my g/f. I actually was testing out the air resistance yesterday and if you put your hand and arm out the window at 60mph on a 85 degree day and a 30 degree day you can feel the difference and im not talking about the temperature.
NO!!! Do not do this!!!!!! :( It has been proven in mythbusters and countless articles. If you are over 50 mph, rolling down a window in favor of air conditioning is WORSE on your fuel economy, let alone uncomfortable. You are also severely overestimating the impact of A/C on your engine. It is a minor unnoticeable load in everyday driving. The effect of A/C on the engine also depends on the car as well. The 2000 Natural Gas Honda Civic I used at work was sluggish and the air conditioner made climbing hills impossible. However, the Cruze has plenty of torque, and on the highway you are constantly in the peak torque range, even though you only need a small fraction of it to maintain speed.

Last time I was at the drag strip, I actually did a run accidently with the air conditioning running. I did another run with it turned off and guess what... No change - both 15.8 @ 87 mph. If the load it puts on your engine was significant, it would noticeably affect horsepower. The effect would be much more pronounced on the track where any little thing will affect your time.

91 will probably make a bigger difference as the weather gets much hotter.
It won't be noticeable until you approach 100 degrees. At least, I never noticed it in last summers 90 degree heat. The hot weather MPG comparisons were in 100+ degree heat out west. 91 Octane at that point helps, but there are more important things going on at that point like heat soak causing the ECU to cut horsepower.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,849 Posts
NO!!! Do not do this!!!!!! :( It has been proven in mythbusters and countless articles. If you are over 50 mph, rolling down a window in favor of air conditioning is WORSE on your fuel economy, let alone uncomfortable. You are also severely overestimating the impact of A/C on your engine. It is a minor unnoticeable load in everyday driving.

Last time I was at the drag strip, I actually did a run accidently with the air conditioning running. I did another run with it turned off and guess what... No change - both 15.8 @ 87 mph. If the load it puts on your engine was significant, it would noticeably affect horsepower. The effect would be much more pronounced on the track where any little thing will affect your time.
The reason why your times were identical with air condition on and off is because the PCM disengages the AC Compressor clutch when you hit a higher throttle position and/or RPM level, not because there's no load on the engine. This function has been around since the early 90s if not even earlier.

Go to a Chevy dealership and try driving a Cruze Eco MT, then come back and tell me that A/C has little parasitic effect on the motor. That's simply not true. I am quite used to driving my Eco MT by now, but I get thrown off every time I run the A/C because the RPMs drop significantly faster, causing me to need to shift faster. Performance is noticeably reduced.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,849 Posts
It won't be noticeable until you approach 100 degrees. At least, I never noticed it in last summers 90 degree heat. The hot weather MPG comparisons were in 100+ degree heat out west. 91 Octane at that point helps, but there are more important things going on at that point like heat soak causing the ECU to cut horsepower.
The problem here is that you have no way of testing this anymore. Is aid it before, and I'm saying it again, mark my words, there will be a huge rise in people joining this forum and creating threads on hesitation, "bogging" and poor performance during the hotter summer months. Just give it another month or two.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,704 Posts
The reason why your times were identical with air condition on and off is because the PCM disengages the AC Compressor clutch when you hit a higher throttle position and/or RPM level, not because there's no load on the engine. This function has been around since the early 90s if not even earlier.
Interesting did not know this. So to play devils advocate.. why do people bitch about lack of power with the A/C on? I mean I understand the Eco MT and Auto Transmission models have a lot of different engine features we just don't know all of them LOL.

But yeah, it's not worth sweating for no A/C. Unless your crawling in the city, the effect of windows on the aerodynamics hurts mileage more than the A/C it has been proven and documented. The Eco relies even more on aerodynamics than other models :(
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,849 Posts
Interesting did not know this. So to play devils advocate.. why do people bitch about lack of power with the A/C on? I mean I understand the Eco MT and Auto Transmission models have a lot of different engine features we just don't know all of them LOL.

But yeah, it's not worth sweating for no A/C. Unless your crawling in the city, the effect of windows on the aerodynamics hurts mileage more than the A/C it has been proven and documented. The Eco relies even more on aerodynamics than other models :(
Well, keep in mind, when people say "lack of power," they don't really know what they're talking about. To clarify what they mean, when they say "lack of power with A/C on," they really mean "lack of power for a given throttle position" with A/C on. With daily driving around town, you'll notice more sluggish acceleration with A/C on, especially if you do most of your driving in low RPMs with low boost like I do (1100-1600RPM). In those situations, the throttle position and RPMs won't be high enough to cause the PCM to disengage the A/C compressor clutch, so it will continue to rob power from the motor and the car will simply feel slower. It's those conditions that people complain about, as it's not really practical to go around town with your foot to the floor the whole time. I just happen to notice it a lot more because I generally drive in those lower RPMs where power is low to begin with, so having the A/C compressor on makes a very noticeable difference for me. I've gotten to the point where if I have to accelerate from a stop, I'll just turn the A/C off until I get moving again.

+1 on the aerodynamics. You're right, the drag on the windows will hurt your fuel economy significantly more than the A/C will once you get up to speed. That, and all that white noise isn't good for your ears either.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,595 Posts
Interesting did not know this. So to play devils advocate.. why do people bitch about lack of power with the A/C on? I mean I understand the Eco MT and Auto Transmission models have a lot of different engine features we just don't know all of them LOL.

But yeah, it's not worth sweating for no A/C. Unless your crawling in the city, the effect of windows on the aerodynamics hurts mileage more than the A/C it has been proven and documented. The Eco relies even more on aerodynamics than other models :(
As far as I know, no 6 cylinder engines have the A/C shut off when during hard acceleration. This feature appears to only be on 4 cylinder engines. Many 6's are just barely powerful enough for the vehicle size, so the A/C drag is really noticable.

As an aside, my Fiero 2M4 had the A/C cutoff feature in 1985.
 
21 - 40 of 42 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.
Top