Rising gas prices...aren't you glad you bought a Cruze now?

I wonder if history will repeat itself.
As a young man, back (waaaaay back) in the 60's, gasoline was running around 29.9 cents for regular, 32.9 cents for premium.
Nobody thought a thing of cars only getting ten to twelve mpg, and the fun stuff, (Camaro/Chevelle/Mustang/Fairlane/Challenger/Barracuda.....you get the drift), maybe eight/nine on a good day when you behaved yourself, was the norm.
Then came the first fuel 'shortage'.
Gasoline, for the first time ever, passed $.50 cents a gallon......today that is laughable, but back then, making $1.75 an hour was ok dough.

As soon as gas broke the magic fifty cents though........everything that burned fuel was traded in on the first wave of small imported cars.
Had I only had the resources and knowledge of the future (don't we all wish this?).

My wife saved the auto sales section of the newspaper (that thing that preceded the internet, heh heh) from our wedding day, 1971.
1969 Olds 442 4 speed car....$950.00. .......1968 HEMI Charger, automatic car (dual quads btw) $1350.00.

The dealers were giving these things away.....they were back lot specials because there were so many.....and they were cheap....even for those days by virtue of so many not wanted.

I figure, if we hit $4.00 again, it'll be a replay of the 70's......only this time, lots of unwanted, large SUV's.

Rob

wildabouthorses said:

As I watch the gas prices go up here in Oklahoma where we usually have some of the lowest prices in the nation, I am so glad I have a gas saving 2017 Cruze to drive ( averaging 34 city 39 hwy using premium 91). What surprised me when looking at compact cars and smaller how the Cruze mpg beats many.

Click to expand...

If you're comparing a compact car Cruze to an SUV or truck, then yes, it beats those. If you're talking about the Cruze versus the Corolla, Elantra, or Civic, then no. Wife and I rented a Corolla and a Elantra for a long mandatory trip and got 40 mpg highway on 87 octane gas, despite the EPA mpg saying highway was around 36. City MPG's were all pretty much the same, despite having bigger engines. Performance was similar. None of those vehicles had auto stop or a turbo. Nothing wrong with a turbo per se as long as it works, but it is another potential thing to have a problem with.

We've only got 2500 miles on ours so far, but currently are getting 29.5 to 32 mixed, 34 mpg 50/50 c/h, and 40-42.9 straight highway, depending on whether it's a level highway or very hilly, etc.

wildabouthorses said:

Almost have to get a hybrid to do better gas wise but the cost jumps too so not sure if it's really a savings all around. Ironically the carmakers say the buyers are now buying gas guzzlers because gas has stayed low. Well what do these buyers do when gas starts to go up and up and up back to nearly $4 a gallon? I think us Cruze owners will be laughing and smiling at the gas pumps eh?

Click to expand...

The wife and I are retired and living on SSD, so there won't be any laughing. We can get along just fine with a compact car for everyday driving, although we do have an 06 silverado 4wd for those occasional times when you absolutely need a gas guzzler to do something in particular, or the snow is up to your knees because it blew off the fields and onto the local roads. (we live in the boonies) We know however that not everyone can comfortably drive a compact car, like my wifes parents, or my granddaughter with 6 kids and a husband. I think that if there is anyone out there buying a gas guzzler simply because 87 isn't $4 a gallon right now should reconsider. Even if it doesn't go to that this summer, it will eventually anyway.

Speaking of prices, none of the other car options I previously mentioned had any issues with pistons cracking. I've heard one possible solution is 91 octane. Where I live 87 octane was 2.559 a gallon at the local station. If we use 91 octane as some have suggested to prevent pistons from cracking, the current price is 3.499 already. So if you're having to use 91 octane to prevent pistons from cracking, it doesn't compare to a similar class of car that can run just fine on 87 and doesn't have a history of that kind of problem. Using 91 instead of 87 is going to cost you where I live thousands of dollars more over 100k miles, all to allegedly prevent a problem that shouldn't be happening in the first place. If the car can't reliably run on 87, Chevrolet should've said so, so people would know what they're getting when they buy the thing, and comparing it to other compact cars.