Chevrolet Cruze Forums banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Dealer called me, saying they needed used cars and wanted to buy my car ( in other words, they want me to buy a new car from them ). Usually that is not a win situation for anyone but the dealer, but I figured I'd get a number. They called back and told me that Chevy doesn't offer the eco on the new style. And that all the cruze limited eco manuals were already sold (2016 old style - "limited cruze").

So I went to the chevy site to see what they had in the build configuration... confirmed, no ability to chose an eco model on the newer style.

Did they really just drop the eco model going forward? Or is that configuration just delayed? My eco gets excellent mpg, enabled with with some really simple (non-hybrid) engineering optimizations. Disappointed with Chevy if they've discontinued that line of strategy.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,652 Posts
The new model gets about the same fuel economy as the outgoing eco model but has more power. 42MPG highway.
 

·
Premium Member
2014 Cruze Diesel, 2007 Cobalt, 1981 Camaro Z28, 2017 Volt
Joined
·
5,884 Posts
The new model gets about the same fuel economy as the outgoing eco model but has more power. 42MPG highway.
This exactly. No reason to have an Eco model when your regular models do the same thing.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if they went ahead and brought one out as well - but it also wouldn't surprise me if they didn't.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
25,596 Posts
But what about all of us with Eco MT's that are getting 48+ MPG's?
Remains to be seen. The LT Automatic is rated at 42 MPG highway, but we need to see what the real world results will be.
 

·
Premium Member
2014 Cruze Diesel, 2007 Cobalt, 1981 Camaro Z28, 2017 Volt
Joined
·
5,884 Posts
The all new cruze with manual transmission is rated within 1MPG of the outgoing eco manual. No reason to think it would not be capable of similar MPG.
Exactly - it's lighter and potentially more aerodynamic...very possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Handles

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,296 Posts
Ha, for me the Eco always has been a joke, getting even better fuel economy with a 2012 2LT with a manual transmission than what the EPA claims for the Eco. Provided I use ethanol free summer gas. EPA never tells us what they are using.

Wind shutters are a joke, direction of the wind you are driving in sure makes a difference, vacuum would even be far superior. Ha, when I burn 18 pounds of fuel from a full tank, darn near own an Eco.

Believe Eco is short for ecologist, most I have met are nuts and have a science IQ of less than zero if this is even possible, but is with ecologists. So really don't want to drive a vehicle with the name Eco on it.

And you can't get a spare tire in this thing without getting an AT first? Could tell you what I really would like to do with that can of spray, but not ready to banned from this board yet.
 

·
Premium Member
2014 Cruze Diesel, 2007 Cobalt, 1981 Camaro Z28, 2017 Volt
Joined
·
5,884 Posts
Wind shutters are a joke
Uhh, that's not even correct at all, haha.

You block the drag-creating open lower grille and you've just decreased the drag coefficient...more aerodynamic, less power required to push the car through the air, less fuel used, fuel economy increase.

If it were a joke, half the vehicles on the market wouldn't be using them. It's simple fluid dynamics.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
25,596 Posts
Ha, for me the Eco always has been a joke, getting even better fuel economy with a 2012 2LT with a manual transmission than what the EPA claims for the Eco.
And the ECO also gets significantly better fuel economy than the EPA. The ECO is rated 33 combined and I'm at 42.7 lifetime, which is also over the highway estimate of 42. These conservative EPA numbers combined with GM US not gaming the EPA testing are what make our Hypercruzer badges possible. The reality is that 5-10% over the EPA estimates is very easy to do in just about any GM product.

As for the EPA testing - 91 octane 100% gasoline with a very specific set of detergents and additives is used. The engine emissions are measured and then the raw CAFE efficiency number for the engine is generated. It is then adjusted downward once for drive train losses and vehicle weight to the the CAFE number. At this point the car is put on a treadmill and the five cycle city and five cycle highway tests are run with these results figured into the CAFE numbers, the car's aerodynamics, and accessories such as A/C to get the Mulroney sticker numbers that are advertised.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,296 Posts
So for these CAFE tests, they are not using E10 almost, maybe not 87 octane Wisconsin winter gas that is half air and water.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I had the opportunity to compare a LT auto vs my eco manual on a 600 mile - mostly highway - trip. Very similar whether, same fuel, etc.... pretty straight up comparison. Eco got 25% better mpg, calculation. Eco is no joke, the changes they made definitely make a big difference. And you gotta love approaching or beating hybrid mpg w/o the added cost or complexity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Anyone know the weight on the Eco wheels? I know they weigh practicality nothing. If I remember correctly with the gearing in 6th in an LT vs Eco at 60mph is about 500rpms lower?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
10,712 Posts
Anyone know the weight on the Eco wheels? I know they weigh practicality nothing. If I remember correctly with the gearing in 6th in an LT vs Eco at 60mph is about 500rpms lower?
like 17.8 with the bad years adding another 18.


As for the shutters, the ATS has the entire grille area blocked with shutters if need be. This pic kinda shows them but not really. View image full size if you can.




 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,296 Posts
Average 46 mpg at 65 mpg, but only with summer gas, really drops down with this winter crap.

How about GM installing a fan clutch, even back in the 60's to save on fuel in a 425 CID, somebody was really smoking crack even though we didn't have crack back then.

Fluid coupling, thermostatically controlled, would leak, and was a fortune to replace, even back then. Maximum cooling is needed for city driving and engine would overheat if that dang thing would spin. At highway speeds, windmilling vastly reduced the engine load. But even worse case loading for city driving was only a third of a HP at most.

Least back then, could go to a wrecking yard and buy a good old fashion fixed pitched fan to solve all of my overheating problems. And didn't make a bit of difference with fuel economy, but start and stop driving in the city sure did.

Give me stories about less wind drag with shutters, would have a much greater effect if you drove 2 mph slower. Better yet, only drive with a tail wind.

Sure made a difference in aircraft, with a normal cruise speed of 135 mph, with a 40 mph tail wind, ground speed would be 175 mph, but with a head wind, more like 95 mph. Least you could try to find an altitude where the head winds were more favorable, can't do this with a car.

Electric fans were really a major headache, most powerful blast is needed at low engine speeds, again in city driving, when the alternator was least capable of generating this much higher current load. Measured some vehicles with underhood temperatures of 325*F on a hot summer day down south.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
i have the new Premier model and on highway i get around 36-45 MPG and have hit 50mpg on longer drives depending on speed and cruise control on or off
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top