2014 2.0L Turbo Diesel Cruze is here!

[razor02097]

Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian

Yes, but that's the old-old epa rating. Fueleconomy.gov only goes back to 1984, but that year's Chevette diesel is new-epa rated 33/42. In other words, about the same as this Cruze, which is a better car in almost every way. (including that 0-60 time )

The Chevette is 33 years old with 70's technology... Saying the new 2014 Cruise is a better car isn't saying much. With all of the new car standards and the EPA sticking their head up the OEM's butt the best they could do is match a 33 year old car's fuel economy...

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Hopefully the diesel uses the exact same xmsn configuration so a 6mt can be dropped and alternative gear ratios selected.

Chances are the the computer would not like that so well and would be in permanent limp home mode.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

Chances are the the computer would not like that so well and would be in permanent limp home mode.

Yes, the automatics have a Transmission Control Module (TCM) actually located *inside* the transmission--in the fluid--but still "talks" back to the Engine Control Module (ECM).

[niky]

Originally Posted by razor02097

The Chevette is 33 years old with 70's technology... Saying the new 2014 Cruise is a better car isn't saying much. With all of the new car standards and the EPA sticking their head up the OEM's butt the best they could do is match a 33 year old car's fuel economy...

While the diesel Chevette/Kadet/Gemini was a wonderful little car, you're comparing apples to watermelons.

The Cruze is around nine inches wider and nine inches longer in the wheelbase. Meaning you get much more cabin space than in the Chevette. And there's nearly twenty inches more length, giving you a nice big trunk (which the Chevette doesn't have). You could go for the Kadet/Gemini sedan variant, which gives you a nice little trunk, but I've sat in that, and there's absolutely no contest in which is more comfortable or more spacious. Your current Indian supermini has more space than one of those suckers, and more crash safety. A Chevette would score zero stars or less on any modern crash test.

A modern equivalent to the Chevette would be European/Asian market superminis, which can and do get better economy than the old 1.8/1.9 diesels, are faster, drive better, have more interior space and better safety. And they don't pollute nearly as much.

A 1984 equivalent to the Cruze would be the Citation, though it was somewhat smaller. The Citation was around 300-400 pounds lighter, still not as safe, and only capable of 31 MPG on the highway, in its best year, with the manual and the Iron Duke... which was a lot slower than what's in the Cruze today.

[razor02097]

Originally Posted by niky

While the diesel Chevette/Kadet/Gemini was a wonderful little car, you're comparing apples to watermelons.

The Cruze is around nine inches wider and nine inches longer in the wheelbase. Meaning you get much more cabin space than in the Chevette. And there's nearly twenty inches more length, giving you a nice big trunk (which the Chevette doesn't have). You could go for the Kadet/Gemini sedan variant, which gives you a nice little trunk, but I've sat in that, and there's absolutely no contest in which is more comfortable or more spacious. Your current Indian supermini has more space than one of those suckers, and more crash safety. A Chevette would score zero stars or less on any modern crash test.

A modern equivalent to the Chevette would be European/Asian market superminis, which can and do get better economy than the old 1.8/1.9 diesels, are faster, drive better, have more interior space and better safety. And they don't pollute nearly as much.

A 1984 equivalent to the Cruze would be the Citation, though it was somewhat smaller. The Citation was around 300-400 pounds lighter, still not as safe, and only capable of 31 MPG on the highway, in its best year, with the manual and the Iron Duke... which was a lot slower than what's in the Cruze today.

I'm not comparing anything. I made a statement. The article posted is what compared the cruise to the chevette.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

But it still shows how EPA struggles fuel-efficiency thru its regulations. With the technical advances, most notably in engine management systems, a larger car could get better mileage than a subcompact, requiring less oil to be drilled, less energy to be spent refining it, less usage of tanker ships or trucks, and on...

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

But it still shows how EPA strangles fuel-efficiency thru its regulations. With the technical advances, most notably in engine management systems, a larger car could get better mileage than a subcompact, requiring less oil to be drilled, less energy to be spent refining it, less usage of tanker ships or trucks, and on...

...fixed it for ya!

[niky]

Too bad you can't get stratified fuel injection there. But I think the biggest problem with modern diesels is the DPF regeneration schemes which hinder biodiesel use.

Originally Posted by razor02097

I'm not comparing anything. I made a statement. The article posted is what compared the cruise to the chevette.

You stated:

Originally Posted by razor02097

With all of the new car standards and the EPA sticking their head up the OEM's butt the best they could do is match a 33 year old car's fuel economy...

Which implies no progress was made.

The Cruze Diesel is one-and-a-half size classes larger than the Chevette, much safer and a whole lot faster, yet gets around 25% better economy, with an automatic.

I'd call that progress.

The metric you're using is completely wrong. If you look at the mpg per carrying capacity, the Cruze's advantage isn't a mere 25%...

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by niky

The Cruze Diesel is one-and-a-half size classes larger than the Chevette, much safer and a whole lot faster, yet gets around 25% better economy, with an automatic.

I'd call that progress.

The metric you're using is completely wrong. If you look at the mpg per carrying capacity, the Cruze's advantage isn't a mere 25%...

Not exactly, what is wrong is that a version of the Cruze is not offered in the chevette weight and area class with the improvements you mention.

Imagine how much more progress that would represent; 60mpg+ would be childs play using a simple 5 speed stick on a narrow lightweight diesel cruze.

[niky]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Not exactly, what is wrong is that a version of the Cruze is not offered in the chevette weight and area class with the improvements you mention.

Imagine how much more progress that would represent; 60mpg+ would be childs play using a simple 5 speed stick on a narrow lightweight diesel cruze.

Blame the buyers.

Oh, I know that's a very convenient excuse, but in part, it's true. Audi tried with the A2. Very high-tech, aluminum, low coefficient of drag, high mpg. Nobody bit.

Then there was the Honda Fit. After the 2008 crash, sales spiked then bombed.

Chevrolet tries with the Spark, which is even smaller. Sadly, they had to saddle it with the unimpressive 1.2 for the US market, not the 1.0, which gives excellent economy. Too slow, as it takes just a few seconds less to hit 60 mph than the Chevette (as opposed to the 1.2, which does 60 a few seconds sooner). Yet it's still larger in terms of cabin space... a hell of a lot larger. Not a great reception.

Nobody wants a Chevette-sized car, anymore. Not in the United States. Suzuki could make a killing with its 60 mpg penalty boxes and reverse the continuing death of the brand Stateside if they did, but it can't sell anything there smaller than the SX4, which is the largest car it makes elsewhere besides the Kizashi.

Out here outside America, you CAN buy a car with the same size as the Chevette and 40-60 mpg. It's called the Maruti/Suzuki Alto. And it's faster than the Chevette, to boot. But even so, it's a dying class, because consumers everywhere want more, bigger, faster, better and safer. Even when the government doesn't mandate the "safer" part.

One only has to look at the dismal sales of the Tata Nano to see this.

If people would buy them, car companies would sell them. Only if the Spark is a huge hit will other makers jump on the bandwagon. As it is, I don't see that happening. Only Mitsubishi seems desperate enough to try.