New 2017 Cruze 1.4L - WHERE TO START?

[JSH]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

I would go for a manual transmission Cruze hatch , turbo not required.

Otherwise the sedan will be getting a different manual transmission diesel trim.

2017 Chevrolet Cruze manual gets 52 mpg highway, 30 mpg city

I would never buy a Cruze with an autotragic

The Cruze is only available with a turbo. 1.4L turbo gas or 1.6L turbo diesel.

I loved my 2003 TDI wagon but I don't see the value proposition for diesels anymore. The fuel costs too much, the mileage is too low, and they require too much maintenance.

Today it is hybrids or EVs for me.

[rmay635703]

Don't buy a 2017 Cruze and a 1.8 na with a stick is available in other years.

My main point is transmission I'm diesel agnostic until GM s diesel reliability on the next gen can be determined in a few years

[Xist]

Of course, their gold star stickers are not even based on actual effective driving.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Don't buy a 2017 Cruze and a 1.8 na with a stick is available in other years.

My main point is transmission I'm diesel agnostic until GM s diesel reliability on the next gen can be determined in a few years

The last year for the 1.8L NA was 2015. When Chevy redesigned the Cruze for 2016 they went turbo only.

Also the 1.8L NA gets poor fuel mileage. Only 26 mpg w/ the Auto and 29 mpg with the manual. The 1.4L Turbo is rated at 34 w/ the auto and 32 w/ the manual.

I've driven many miles in 1.4L Cruze rentals with the 1.4L auto and the auto worked very well. It also has a manual mode that will hold a gear until the driver tells it to shift.

[ME_Andy]

The diesel might be worth it if you do lots of highway. Otherwise I'd look at turbo, manual.

[Fat Charlie]

Originally Posted by JSH

Also the 1.8L NA gets poor fuel mileage. Only 26 mpg w/ the Auto and 29 mpg with the manual. The 1.4L Turbo is rated at 34 w/ the auto and 32 w/ the manual.

Is rated ≠ gets.

Manuals give the driver much more opportunity for every kind of performance.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

Is rated ≠ gets.

Manuals give the driver much more opportunity for every kind of performance.

That was true when automatics were slushboxes with a torque convertor and 1/2 the speeds of a manual. It is much less likely to be true now that many automatics have more gears than the manual and are increasingly manuals with a computer controlled clutches.

The Cruze's automatic can be left in auto or the driver can manually control the gears. In manual mode it will hold a gear from idle to redline. The gearing is also different between the two with the Manual having a shorting gearing in 6th so it turns higher RPMs at highway speeds.

Then there is the fact that the 1.8 NA is an older and heavier engine than the new 1.4L Turbo (which is different than the old 1.4 Turbo in the previous generation Cruze.) If you care about fuel economy the 1.8 NA is not the engine to select. An 18% fuel economy deficit is hard to overcome with careful driving considering the same driving can be done with the 1.4L engines.

Like I said above, I've driven plenty of Cruze rental cars with the 1.4L turbo and automatic. I've had no problem getting 40 - 42 mpg in mixed driving.

[Fat Charlie]

Aside from not having to wait for a computer to pick a gear ratio for you without knowing what you're actually trying to do, it's great not having the computer try to second guess your choices. It's even better being able to pick "none of the above" as a gear ratio.

The EPA test isn't real world either for idiots or people driving for mileage, and an actual manual gives you a lot more real world choices than an appliance optimized for results on a scripted EPA test with a nod towards 0-60 time. Until everything's electric, we're going to need transmissions. TCMs are reactive: only understand input and pressure, they can't see outside the car or anticipate your actions. I don't like autos.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

... I don't like autos.

Most of your complaints describe old technology autos with torque convertors. Have you driven a car with a DCT (Dual Clutch Transmission). They are basically 2 manual transmissions with computer controlled clutches. Alternating gears are on different shafts and during a shift one shaft disengages and the other engages almost simultaneously. The result is gear selection control the same as a manual transmission but shifts and rev matching that are faster and better than any human. Or you can stick it in auto mode and let the computer control everything. With a DCTs you get the best of both worlds: full control of gear selection when you want it, and auto mode for traffic jams.

I agree EPA tests aren't a measure of real world performance. They aren't meant to be. They are a measure how different cars perform given a set lab test so that those vehicles can be compared. If one car gets 34 mpg and another gets 26 mpg it is a pretty good bet that a driver well get better mileage in the car rated at 34 mpg. With either car a lead-foot will get less and a careful driver more than the rating.

EDIT: BTW some vehicles can see outside of your vehicle. A combination of cameras, radar and GPS positioning allow the vehicle to adjust to traffic conditions and hills. An Example: http://www.overdriveonline.com/detro...iner-cascadia/

[rmay635703]

JSH I think you need to schedule a ride along with someone that knows how to drive to demonstrate the fuel economy differences and potential of an auto and manual XMSN version of the same car.

There are many master hypermilers who can demo.

I have driven both an auto eco trim Cruze and a manual 1.8 base.

Over the same route same day I was able to coax 62mpg out of the manual xmsn Cruze using very basic techniques but even driven with extreme methods the eco auto xmsn Cruze just wouldn't do better, I couldn't get the instantaneous MPGs within 10mpg of the manual in any gear at any speed, trip ended at 44mpg.

My old Cobalt all summer returns mid 50's on each tank when I'm driving, it is far less efficient than any of the Cruze variants but yet does just fine.

Autos are getting better but comparing an auto to a manual is apples to oranges, just no comparison.

Also for those of us in climates with 5 months of cool to cold weather the autos extra fluid and warmup time massively reduces economy, My MT cars can many times maintain fuel economy down to about 10F the autos I've had usually loose starting around 50f and get cut in half around 10f, the new dual clutch cars seem to still have this behavior