Chevrolet Cruze Forums banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
401 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So guys, I have a 2014 Eco with 59xxx miles on it and always felt I never got the efficiency I expected from it. There are many variables in this so lets go over my car.

2104 Eco AUTO with 58000 miles on it:
- Amsoil oem 5w30 since the break in at 1500 miles
- fac plugs were re-gapped to fac settings
- All original, no tune or mods
- orig good year tires set at 38 psi cold
- I use 87 octane (only saw a slight improvement when used 91)
- spirited driver
- Orig fluid in trans, trans never acted funny

* local streets I get 28 MPG roughly
* Highway I get about 32 IF I do 55 MPH. Only ONCE I got 37 MPG going to FL doing 55 mph
* I just did 361 miles and used 12.93 gals which equals to 27.9 MPG

I love my cruze and its been pretty reliable (valve cover and oil cooler failure) but I am not impressed with the MPG considering it is an ECO.

Thoughts?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
25,596 Posts
So guys, I have a 2014 Eco with 59xxx miles on it and always felt I never got the efficiency I expected from it. There are many variables in this so lets go over my car.

2104 Eco AUTO with 58000 miles on it:
- Amsoil oem 5w30 since the break in at 1500 miles
- fac plugs were re-gapped to fac settings
- All original, no tune or mods
- orig good year tires set at 38 psi cold
- I use 87 octane (only saw a slight improvement when used 91)
- spirited driver
- Orig fluid in trans, trans never acted funny

* local streets I get 28 MPG roughly
* Highway I get about 32 IF I do 55 MPH. Only ONCE I got 37 MPG going to FL doing 55 mph
* I just did 361 miles and used 12.93 gals which equals to 27.9 MPG

I love my cruze and its been pretty reliable (valve cover and oil cooler failure) but I am not impressed with the MPG considering it is an ECO.

Thoughts?
First thought is that you're over due for both the transmission and brake fluid services.

For your local streets you're exceeding the EPA estimate of 26 MPG. The EPA highway is 37 MPG. I think both these numbers got dropped by the EPA recently as part of their national fleet review last fall. I do remember the ECO AT was originally rated 39 MPG highway.

For the city, take a look at your driving habits - spirited can be the issue. At what engine speed is the transmission shifting? For the highway what is your average speed? A lot of people overestimate how much highway driving they're actually doing. The trip to Florida needs to be examined in more detail as that should have gotten you closer to 40 MPG if not over 40 MPG at that speed.

Also, I'm not sure the ECO ATs ever really met their EPA highway numbers. This trim of the Cruze wasn't specifically tested. The numbers were estimated from the LT AT based on weight and aerodynamic changes. The ECO MT was tested because there were more changes than the EPA would allow as "minor modifications" to the tested vehicle.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
25,596 Posts
And frankly, what were you expecting? What is the magic number that should impress you?
OP's highway numbers are too low. His city number is ok.
 

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
17,479 Posts
Yeah, the 1st gen autos were never really the MPG champ that either the LT MT, Eco MT, or Diesel were. The engine seems a lot more taxed out on the highway with the AT attached to it. Not sure if that's from pumping around fluid, the gearing (LT actually runs more RPMs), or just throttle/boost map differences. Generally, the MT comes into the torque peak at 2500 RPM, and keeping it below that achieves some excellent MPG. The auto hits peak torque @ 1850 RPM.

I took a 2013 2LT auto on a 2400 mile trip, mostly at 65-72 mph, and was very disappointed at the MPG (average was about 31) compared to what my LT MT would have gotten on that long, flat highway journey (probably 36-40) at 75.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,254 Posts
Yeah, the 1st gen autos were never really the MPG champ that either the LT MT, Eco MT, or Diesel were. The engine seems a lot more taxed out on the highway with the AT attached to it. Not sure if that's from pumping around fluid, the gearing (LT actually runs more RPMs), or just throttle/boost map differences. Generally, the MT comes into the torque peak at 2500 RPM, and keeping it below that achieves some excellent MPG. The auto hits peak torque @ 1850 RPM.

I took a 2013 2LT auto on a 2400 mile trip, mostly at 65-72 mph, and was very disappointed at the MPG (average was about 31) compared to what my LT MT would have gotten on that long, flat highway journey (probably 36-40) at 75.
I just got back from the Corvette museum, I took the Cruze along. Keeping with the flow of traffic on the way down from Columbus I averaged 80-90 MPH. Got 28 MPG, was pretty content with that. Cruze held up good too considering it was almost at 3k RPM's for hours.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
401 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
So I guess I should be happy then. appreciate the help. My tires need to be replaced soon, I also have Amsoil tranny fluid waiting to put in as well. I was expecting 40mpg on the highway but I dont drive 55 on the highway, norm here is about 70. Still like the car and still has treated me well.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,535 Posts
My 2012 eco auto always exceeded my mileage expectations.
Mobil 1 from first oil change on.
Tires always at 50 psi.
87 octane 60f and below, 89 octane when temps were stable above 60.
I am in the flatlands of Illinois and I am (due to always heavy traffic) a rather moderate driver with about 80% around town driving.
My around town was always in the 33/35 range......never below thirty and always hand calculated.

On the highway, 60/65 (2000 rpm) usually in the 42/44 range (not much effected by the a/c). Windless days at a steady 60 it would often break over 50mpg on the DIS but hand calculated in the 48/49 range.

Same engine/trans in my 2wd 2015 Trax and my around town is steady at 30.2 plus or minus .1 depending on stoplights.
I generally average on the highway around 33.5....sometimes 34 hand calculated.
This too is with Mobil 1 and the NOT LLR tires at 40 psi.

I find this remarkable as well since the Trax is boreing a somewhat larger hole through the air. The wind resistance is likely the reason for the small mpg spread between city and highway.....that little engine has gotta be working its nutz off above 65.

I suspect the OP could have a good size improvement by airing up the tires and lightening up on the go pedal.......takes lotsa oats to feed the ponies.

Rob
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,170 Posts
The largest drop of MPG for me is cold starts. If I fill my tank while the car is warm, start it and drive the entire tank out in one go, I get CONSIDERABLY better mpg.

When I'm just commuting to-from work, my car's coolant barely gets warm on the 7.5 mile journey. In one tank, I might have 30 cold starts, and usually I get somewhere around 28mpg commuting with 14 stop lights and stop signs in between me and work. Cold starts and hard acceleration will ruin economy. My lifetime average for the car is 32.6 which is well above the 30mpg combined epa figures.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
313 Posts
My eco has treated me pretty well other than cold weather which we get a lot of in Wisconsin. Was down to around 38 mpg when we had a lot of snow but latley milage has been about 48 even with only a 13 miles drive to and from work. Weather has been in 30s consistently for most of this. Only pic I have ATM deleted the rest this was with the last snow storm.
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
313 Posts
I will say milage should be better in my opinion though. I mean I was averaging over 40 with my Saturn when I had that. That's without any milage saving techniques. I mean I drove like a 19 year old kid cuz that's what I was lol that car did better highway than the Cruze eco going 70 that's for sure. If I drive highway I typically see right about 40 the Saturn seemed to be about 44. Hard to tell for sure with no DIC. Bigger motor with no turbo. When I drove the Saturn nice I managed 48 so not sure why even adding pulse and glide I can hardly break 50 with the Cruze. The vehicle industry can do better that's for sure. I expect to see 60 to 70 mpg cars consistently in the near future. Epa in the 50s without being hybrids.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
I never got very good mileage out of my 2012 Cruze either. I wasn't impressed with the performance since it was new off the dealer's lot, either. At 95,000 miles, I decided to change the timing belt. Before I took the belt off, I lined the marks up and noticed that they didn't line up at all. The were approx. 1 tooth off. It had been mis-timed at the factory. After I put the new belt in, it ran like I added 50 horsepower and got 39mpg. You might want to consider that the timing may be off. ??
 

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
17,479 Posts
I will say milage should be better in my opinion though. I mean I was averaging over 40 with my Saturn when I had that. That's without any milage saving techniques. I mean I drove like a 19 year old kid cuz that's what I was lol that car did better highway than the Cruze eco going 70 that's for sure. If I drive highway I typically see right about 40 the Saturn seemed to be about 44. Hard to tell for sure with no DIC. Bigger motor with no turbo. When I drove the Saturn nice I managed 48 so not sure why even adding pulse and glide I can hardly break 50 with the Cruze. The vehicle industry can do better that's for sure. I expect to see 60 to 70 mpg cars consistently in the near future. Epa in the 50s without being hybrids.
The Saturn was also quite tiny and weighed next to nothing. Cars in the 90's were able to run leaner as well because of emissions standards (NOx) at the time. Don't know what model yours was, but the SL2 was a whopping 2400 lbs (a typical Cruze is in the 3100-3200 range).

I never got very good mileage out of my 2012 Cruze either. I wasn't impressed with the performance since it was new off the dealer's lot, either. At 95,000 miles, I decided to change the timing belt. Before I took the belt off, I lined the marks up and noticed that they didn't line up at all. The were approx. 1 tooth off. It had been mis-timed at the factory. After I put the new belt in, it ran like I added 50 horsepower and got 39mpg. You might want to consider that the timing may be off. ??
1.8? That might explain many things...surprised it never threw a CEL. I mis-timed a car once by only a tooth and it was all sorts of pissed off.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top