Well they did it today Monday, passed more taxes to give teachers a raise, said both gas and diesel are getting more taxes among other things here in oklahoma but didn't tell us how much it will go up! Shortly after I started driving in my teens we dealt with the gas lines and gas shortages...guess it made me cautious today when it comes to gas, gas saver cars and the crazy prices not long ago.
Rising gas prices...aren't you glad you bought a Cruze now?
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. 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?
41 - 60 of 68 Posts
Yeh so; how is that suppose to help me?I just came from a gas guzzling Chevy Blazer (16 mpg) to a 2018 Cruze hatchback and I am super happy to be getting 36 mpg on 87 octane. I havent had it on the freeway yet, but expect some nice numbers there when I do.
Yours and my taxes may be going up. But the rich have gotten huge tax breaks over and over again. Their taxes are going down and down. Just sayin'.
Is it supposed to?Yeh so; how is that suppose to help me?
I have no idea, since you never asked for help with anything? But I wonder, why the 89 octane?Yeh so; how is that suppose to help me?
Is that all? My wifes 2017 has so far been getting 42-43 mpg highway with an automatic. And she doesn't drive in the manner most suggest for the best mpg either.2nd gen Cruze is rated at 40 highway with a manual, and 2017 Elantra 2.0 is rated at 36 highway with a manual.
Pretty sure that is four less, not ten more...
Before she bought the Cruze, we rented an Elantra, it got 40 mpg with auto trans highway.
I'm in the great lakes region, and today the local station lowered the price of premium to 3.40, some hills around here but not a difference of 2500 feet, more like a few hundred feet. Road construction can slow things to a crawl sometimes.Premium (91) is $4.09 here in SoCal....good thing I went E85 and only paying 2.49 with an average of 22mpg. My 25 mile drive to work really sucks. I go from 2,500ft elevation to 1,000 and then back to 2,500...with hills in between and lots of traffic going from 20-80mph. I cant get the awesome mpg some of you report on your 1.4s
I think the E85 is what might be killing your gas mileage. Though, with that big of difference in price, it might be worth it. I drive from 1200 ft to over 2600 ft, down to 2100 feet on the way to work, and then the opposite on the way back home. I have been averaging well over 40 mpg, usually around 45. Though the speed limit for most of the trip is 65. Though it is 70 for a little while, and 55 up the mountain and back down.Premium (91) is $4.09 here in SoCal....good thing I went E85 and only paying 2.49 with an average of 22mpg. My 25 mile drive to work really sucks. I go from 2,500ft elevation to 1,000 and then back to 2,500...with hills in between and lots of traffic going from 20-80mph. I cant get the awesome mpg some of you report on your 1.4s
Its not the e85, I was getting 24-26mpg on 91 before I converted. I as able to get 31 once (80ish mph most of the drive) but that was the only time I have driven for a long distance on a mostly empty flat road. I think its the constant stop n go both ways in my 50 mile round trips. I did see a mild drop in mpg with e85, but it is still well worth it. I was spending $450-500 a month on gas using my truck (12mpg). I now barely go over 200/mo and my car payment is only 175.I think the E85 is what might be killing your gas mileage. Though, with that big of difference in price, it might be worth it. I drive from 1200 ft to over 2600 ft, down to 2100 feet on the way to work, and then the opposite on the way back home. I have been averaging well over 40 mpg, usually around 45. Though the speed limit for most of the trip is 65. Though it is 70 for a little while, and 55 up the mountain and back down.
My mistake the house of reps passed the teachers raise and extra taxes, now the Senate needs to vote then on to the governor...
I live in the North East. Every winter I think about how nice it would be to have a 4 wheel drive, or an all wheel drive. I would say the Cruze is average in the snow, not great. Now that March is winding down, I am looking forward to nicer weather driving, and getting good gas mileage.
I think it's more about the ability or power to do 100MPH when you need it, than to actually do it.And clearly at 100 mph, your goal is getting somewhere faster - not maintaing fuel economy.
If your car can do only 80MPH top speed, and you have to get somewhere at 80MPH, your car will not like this.
There's something like a 20-40% overengineered car, that gets the job done well.
The Elantra I drove had 50MPG at 75MPH instantaneous. My Cruze Eco on the other hand in the same situation, would do about 40-45MPG. With that I mean, the readout over several miles. Not just looking at the highest number, or releasing the throttle and taking a pic of the readout.
This week even I was pondering about the accuracy of the pump.
We all base our readouts at the pump, but do you know that pumping gas, there's a vent hose that will recycle gasoline vapors, and sometimes even gasoline, back in the tank?
We expect the pump to be calibrated, but a lot of things can cause an off reading.
Like small spills, fuel in the vapors being sucked back up, fuel pumps pumping air or other debris (I had a Marathon gas station that had small pebbles in the fuel); ...
And then we're bitching about the incorrect fuel readout of our cars?
You CANNOT use the "instantaneous" MPG numbers for comparison. I frequently saw 99 MPG and 0 L/100KM (no fuel used) on my 2012 ECO MT at all speeds. This just means the car throttled back to maintain the speed. The fact that the Elantra reports throttling back faster than the Cruze means just that - it reporting the throttle back faster. The Cruze only updates this display once a second despite the car being able to do a complete throttle off/on cycle in about half a second. I would even go so far as to say that in my experience, cars that only show only instantaneous MPG numbers mislead the driver into thinking they're getting better fuel economy than they really are. I don't know if the Elantra is doing this but I do know that Hyundai/Kia was caught in 2013 or 2014 cheating on their EPA numbers, resulting in a large fine paid to the EPA and mandatory Visa gift cards to all "original" owners each year to cover the cost differential from the corrected numbers and the originally reported numbers.The Elantra I drove had 50MPG at 75MPH instantaneous. My Cruze Eco on the other hand in the same situation, would do about 40-45MPG. With that I mean, the readout over several miles. Not just looking at the highest number, or releasing the throttle and taking a pic of the readout.
In addition, the Elantra is a larger car than the Cruze. More specifically it has a larger frontal area, which increases the amount of horsepower needed to drive at any speed once the car's in top gear. More HP always requires more fuel, regardless of source (gas, diesel, electric, etc.).
From fuelly.com:
Elantra
2018: 30.1 MPG
2017: 31.3 MPG
For the same two model years 2nd Generation Cruze
Cruze
2018: 37.7 MPG
2017: 32.9 MPG
I limited the search to just the two model years to ensure both cars are "single generation".
Lots of variables. Two big ones:In addition, the Elantra is a larger car than the Cruze. More specifically it has a larger frontal area, which increases the amount of horsepower needed to drive at any speed once the car's in top gear. More HP always requires more fuel, regardless of source (gas, diesel, electric, etc.).
The relative aerodynamic performance of the two cars. Coefficient of drag. A 'slipperier' car will require less horsepower at a given speed, for the same frontal area. The Elantra is larger? If its drag performance is better than Cruze, then they may be equals.
The thermodynamic efficiency of the engines & drivetrains. A more efficient engine will require less fuel to output the same power. Small displacement turbos are not necessarily more efficient than other schemes. Depends on usage patterns. I think what a turbo gets you is better peak hp, and better economy but only when the majority of demand is lower hp. Attention to detail really matters - low tension rings, roller cam followers, stuff like that. Then there are turbos, long expansion cycles (forgot what that's called), now Nissan? has a variable compression, more really exotic stuff. 30% for a gasoline auto engine is considered pretty good I think, 40% is like a moonshot. (Fact of nature, there will be no magic. Cost, size, weight, complexity vs. efficiency.) Not sure where Cruze or some of the new efforts land on this.
..like I said.. Perhaps just go back and read what I wrote??You CANNOT use the "instantaneous" MPG numbers for comparison. I frequently saw 99 MPG and 0 L/100KM (no fuel used) on my 2012 ECO MT at all speeds. This just means the car throttled back to maintain the speed. The fact that the Elantra reports throttling back faster than the Cruze means just that - it reporting the throttle back faster. The Cruze only updates this display once a second despite the car being able to do a complete throttle off/on cycle in about half a second. I would even go so far as to say that in my experience, cars that only show only instantaneous MPG numbers mislead the driver into thinking they're getting better fuel economy than they really are. I don't know if the Elantra is doing this but I do know that Hyundai/Kia was caught in 2013 or 2014 cheating on their EPA numbers, resulting in a large fine paid to the EPA and mandatory Visa gift cards to all "original" owners each year to cover the cost differential from the corrected numbers and the originally reported numbers.
In addition, the Elantra is a larger car than the Cruze. More specifically it has a larger frontal area, which increases the amount of horsepower needed to drive at any speed once the car's in top gear. More HP always requires more fuel, regardless of source (gas, diesel, electric, etc.).
From fuelly.com:
Elantra
2018: 30.1 MPG
2017: 31.3 MPG
For the same two model years 2nd Generation Cruze
Cruze
2018: 37.7 MPG
2017: 32.9 MPG
I limited the search to just the two model years to ensure both cars are "single generation".
It's an instant MPG averaged over a few miles; the same as when you reset your avg MPG while driving, and see the final result after a few miles; but without doing that reset.
It's also at wind still, level ground. Uphill it goes down by 20 or 30 MPG, downhill, it goes up.
50MPG is what I'm getting at a constant speed, level ground, no wind.
Also, the Elantra revs a lot lower (has higher final gear drive) than the Cruze.
Do this and post the results:..like I said.. Perhaps just go back and read what I wrote??
It's an instant MPG averaged over a few miles; the same as when you reset your avg MPG while driving, and see the final result after a few miles; but without doing that reset.
It's also at wind still, level ground. Uphill it goes down by 20 or 30 MPG, downhill, it goes up.
50MPG is what I'm getting at a constant speed, level ground, no wind.
Also, the Elantra revs a lot lower (has higher final gear drive) than the Cruze.
Fill your tank to the first click off.
Reset Trip A or Trip B (I don't know if the Elantra has two Trip odometers)
Drive down the highway and then back again to the same station. Make sure you drive at least 50 miles in each direction. You want to drive both ways on the road to eliminate subtle elevation changes from the calculations.
Fill the tank to the first click off at the same pump.
Post a picture of the pump and your odometer. I think you will be surprised to see the calculated fuel economy is significantly lower than your car is reporting.
Here are my actual MPG numbers since getting my 2017 LT 11/15/2017Do this and post the results:
Post a picture of the pump and your odometer. I think you will be surprised to see the calculated fuel economy is significantly lower than your car is reporting.
From my Excel spreadsheet:
Total miles driven 2163
Total gallons purchased 83.13
overall total “actual” MPG 26.02
(filled up today) 315.7 total gallons 11.49 / 27.48 MPG
DIC trip A shows 315.7 Avg 30.1 MPG
It should be noted that the mix is 75% City (lots of short trips + colder weather) 25% highway (40 miles longest trip / 70 mph) AND yes I’m retired so not many miles driven per month. And yes I’m happy I got my Cruze.
I took a picture of the DIC but not sure how to put it in.
Attachments
-
323.9 KB Views: 208
I see the pic was included. 2163 miles driven because the car had 57 miles already on the odometerI took a picture of the DIC but not sure how to put it in.
I'm not going through the trouble.
When I say I hit 50MPG on the instant meter, it is 50+, 55 from time to time, or an occasional 57; it shows 3 to 4 of these readouts, and one drop out to 37 every x-amount of readouts (I think the display refreshes about 1,5 to 2 times a second).
This averages at 50 for me.
My actual MPG is 37, but I am not addressing regular driving, just constant cruising at a fixed speed.
Acceleration also the Elantra wins, as turbo cars often are much more inefficient than NA.
This does not include acceleration, but just keeping it steady.
I'm not here to boast numbers.
It's just that the Elantra is more efficient at speeds of 60+MPH, mostly due to the higher gearing.
Think of it whatever you want.
When I say I hit 50MPG on the instant meter, it is 50+, 55 from time to time, or an occasional 57; it shows 3 to 4 of these readouts, and one drop out to 37 every x-amount of readouts (I think the display refreshes about 1,5 to 2 times a second).
This averages at 50 for me.
My actual MPG is 37, but I am not addressing regular driving, just constant cruising at a fixed speed.
Acceleration also the Elantra wins, as turbo cars often are much more inefficient than NA.
This does not include acceleration, but just keeping it steady.
I'm not here to boast numbers.
It's just that the Elantra is more efficient at speeds of 60+MPH, mostly due to the higher gearing.
Think of it whatever you want.
Hyundai instrument cluster MPG calculations are notoriously inaccurate. They were sued over fudging their EPA ratings as well.I'm not going through the trouble.
When I say I hit 50MPG on the instant meter, it is 50+, 55 from time to time, or an occasional 57; it shows 3 to 4 of these readouts, and one drop out to 37 every x-amount of readouts (I think the display refreshes about 1,5 to 2 times a second).
This averages at 50 for me.
My actual MPG is 37, but I am not addressing regular driving, just constant cruising at a fixed speed.
Acceleration also the Elantra wins, as turbo cars often are much more inefficient than NA.
This does not include acceleration, but just keeping it steady.
I'm not here to boast numbers.
It's just that the Elantra is more efficient at speeds of 60+MPH, mostly due to the higher gearing.
Think of it whatever you want.
I've rented Elantras that were actually 3-5 MPG worse on gas on road trips than my Gen 2 Cruze. They were the older 1.8 models rather than the 2.0 Atkinson cycle engine though.
https://jalopnik.com/hyundais-mpg-scandal-finally-ends-with-a-41-2-million-1788296156
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Yes, there's a huge difference between the 1.8l and the 2.0 liter engines.Hyundai instrument cluster MPG calculations are notoriously inaccurate. They were sued over fudging their EPA ratings as well.
I've rented Elantras that were actually 3-5 MPG worse on gas on road trips than my Gen 2 Cruze. They were the older 1.8 models rather than the 2.0 Atkinson cycle engine though.
https://jalopnik.com/hyundais-mpg-scandal-finally-ends-with-a-41-2-million-1788296156
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Perhaps like you say, the combination between different engine (atkinson), and being higher geared (rev lower at highway speeds), make this car's MPG numbers pretty impressive!
It basically has about the same HP and torque (within a few HP or lb ft difference).
And the numbers that were off, were for the older, 2016 models.
The newer models boast 37MPG highway, but I think that number is much lower than real life.
We drove from Miami to Jacksonville and back on one tank of gas (and still had fuel left over).
That's 630 miles, mostly highway, on less than 14 gal of fuel, averaging 45-48MPG.
Hyundai wasn't the only company being sued for those numbers. Honda, Ford and a few others as well.
41 - 60 of 68 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
