Anyone else let down by Chevy Cruze mpg?

[Zerohour]

Originally Posted by ecofreak

I love how they can make an 110-mile range car in the 1990's yet take 4 years to come out with a proof-of-concept electric car that has a 40 mile range. They aren't marketing anything anymore. Anybody hear that the Volt might now be a series-drive hybrid?

Also, I can't convince my friends that you wouldn't need a car that had a range beyond 60 miles.

I hate defending GM engineering, but I'm going to stand up for this one.

There is a large difference between building a $500,000 prototype and creating a mass produced vehicle that costs $20K-$30K. Quite simply when you have a team of engineers/researchers trying to nab every last bit of fuel economy out of project car, yes the end result should be amazing.

Now when you need to build an entire assembly line to produce a new product on a 6-7 year time scale you will not need meet the 50,000 man hours put into a prototype. Not to mention the car has to meet different standards both government regulated and consumer expectations. With over 25,000 pieces to a modern car it cannot be done to produce 40,000-80,000 vehicles that are top absolute peak performers. The car comes off the factory floor as a finished product in under 7 days. The system cannot be designed to make a perfect vehicle with tolerances. If team sat there and fine tuned every vehicle the time would jump from 7 days to month, the costs would go from 20K-30K to 100K-120K and no one would ever buy the vehicle.

Be happy that large scale companies are finally producing hybrid and electric vehicles that will get to the general public. Its something that should have been pushed before I was even born. But the cost of producing was just too much and the technology did not exist. The infrastructure to provide the batteries, to produce the electric motors, and ability to have a supply chain from stable companies took 15-20 years to develop. And quite honest, if it was for a massive push from laptop/notebooks/cell phones to conjure up producers of lithium, you current hybrids and electric cars would have NEVER been produced.

[Frank Lee]

General Motors to test battery-powered models of its Cruze in South Korea | StarTribune.com

[gone-ot]

...but, still, "...no plans for introduction to US market..."

[orange4boy]

Be happy that large scale companies are finally producing hybrid and electric vehicles that will get to the general public. Its something that should have been pushed before I was even born. But the cost of producing was just too much and the technology did not exist. The infrastructure to provide the batteries, to produce the electric motors, and ability to have a supply chain from stable companies took 15-20 years to develop. And quite honest, if it was for a massive push from laptop/notebooks/cell phones to conjure up producers of lithium, you current hybrids and electric cars would have NEVER been produced.

Electric motors:

The first commutator-type direct current electric motor capable of turning machinery was invented by the British scientist William Sturgeon in 1832.

But the cost of producing was just too much and the technology did not exist.

The only major differences in producing an electric vehicle over gas ones are the batteries motor and electronics and batteries are the only technology that requires any major innovations in manufacturing.

Electric vehicles first came into existence in the mid-19th century, when electricity was among the preferred methods for automobile propulsion, providing a level of comfort and ease of operation that could not be achieved by the gasoline cars of the time.

The NiMH ovonic batteries that were installed in the Toyota Rav4 EV and the 2nd Gen EV1 in the early 90's are still in use on a large number of Rav4s and give it the range and cycle life that lithium is just catching up to now(or is it?) at a lower cost. The EV1 got over 125 miles on the ovonic batteries.

From the Wik:

EV1:"

Cars with the lead-acid pack had a range of 80 to 100 miles, while the NiMH cars could travel between 100 and 140 miles between charges.

RAV4:

As of 2010 there are 800 units still in use

with a range of 100 to 120 miles (160 to 190 km). The 95 amp-hour NiMH battery pack has a capacity of 27 kWh, charges inductively and has proven to be surprisingly durable. Some RAV4 EVs have achieved over 150,000 miles (240,000 km) on the original battery pack.

The RAV4 EV's batteries can be recharged from being fully depleted to fully charged in about 5 hours,

Sorry, but most of your last paragraph sounded like a GM PR exercise. So I'm happy they are producing them but I'm not letting them off the hook for the reasons you give.

[Titanium]

Originally Posted by Fr3AkAzOiD

When they first announced the Cruze there was all this rumbling of 42 mpg.

Which later fell to 40 mpg.

Now they are saying 40 mpg is only on the Eco version that will be another year off.

Specs are now on the Chevrolet site and they are saying 26/36 mpg (manual)with the N/A engine and 24/36 (auto with O/D) with the turbo.

The two different engines they are offering are the same HP just with a bit more torque on the turbo version. Whats the point of two options then.

US also misses out on the hatchback as that is Euro only.

They even failed on weight. 200 lbs more then the Cobalt Sedan and 20 less hp to push it around.

I guess they couldn't make it too good at MPG or else no one would shell out money for the Volt.

I do have to say I haven't seen one in person so it may be a bit larger then then Cobalt and I have heard the interior is quite a bit better but still....

I was kind of expecting 38+ highway and better city numbers considering how much smaller the engine is.

Maybe I was just expecting too much...

I have owned a 1997 Chevy Cavalier(manual trans) and a 2003 Chevy Cavalier(automatic) that I am currently driving. The 1997 Cavalier I bought from my father in law with 150,000 miles on it and I drove that car to 227,000 miles and it always averaged 30 MPG the whole time I had it. The key switch failed at 227,000 miles which I replaced and I sold that car still running good and everything working fine in the car. The A/C was Ice cold, the stock CD player worked, the cruise control worked, no overheating problems, no head gasket problems, the front end was rock solid with no parts replaced and it did not need an alignment at 227,000 miles. The only parts that failed on the 1997 Cavalier was at 175,000 miles I had to replace the water pump and the key switch failed at 227,000 miles. This car still had the original clutch in it because my father in law is a truck driver and he can shift without using the clutch very much. The car was babied with all the general maintenance it ever needed and 3,000 mile oil changes. The car was also never abused by bad driving habits.

I mention the Cavalier because this was the car that was replaced by the Cobalt and now the Cobalt has been replaced by the Cruze. Both of the Cavaliers I had averaged 30 MPG with the A/C on and I do allot of freeway driving due to my commute to work is 70 miles round trip.

The Cruze getting 36 MPG on the freeway is good. Chevy is touting the Cruze as being Lexus quiet as far as road noise in the car which is a plus because the Cavalier is not Lexus quiet concerning road noise.

If the Cruze get 36+ MPG on the freeway, is Lexus quiet inside the car from road noise and is as reliable in every way as the two Cavaliers I have owned then I have to say the Cruze is a big improvement over the Cavalier and Cobalt.

Chevy builds better cars than the general public thinks they are. I don't mind people bashing on Chevy though because anyone who watched the movie 'Who Killed the Electric Car' knows Chevy is tied to closely to the oil companies.

[Fr3AkAzOiD]

I'm not bashing, I love my Cobalt XFE.

I'm just thinking they could have done better.

[tjts1]

Its built by the UAW. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.
Report: GM, UAW clash over Chevy Cruze repairs — Autoblog

[Titanium]

Originally Posted by Fr3AkAzOiD

I'm not bashing, I love my Cobalt XFE.

I'm just thinking they could have done better.

I'm going to agree with you 100% in that they could have done better and gotten a higher MPG rating on the Cruze, but I look at what the general American public really buys car wise. A high percentage of Americans love powerful engines. They want a certain level of performance or they will not buy it. High gas prices will eventually change this mentality though.

I bought a 2000 Toyota Echo brand new from a Toyota dealer. Great car and that car did get 40 MPG overall. It was not loved though and did not sell well. That car did really well in all of the Consumer Reports car reviews. That is a very hard car to find used especially with a manual transmission due to low sales numbers.

When I find a used Honda VX for sale 70% of the time the car has had a more powerful engine swapped in it(the tuner crowd loves this car). The original engine is gone...

[cfg83]

tjts1 -

Originally Posted by tjts1

Its built by the UAW. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.
Report: GM, UAW clash over Chevy Cruze repairs — Autoblog

Ha ha, that's one of the reasons I would buy it.

CarloSW2

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by Titanium

High gas prices will eventually change this mentality though.

When?

I just read somewhere that buyers NOW have been going for the big cars, SUVs, and pickups again.