Anyone else let down by Chevy Cruze mpg?

[Fr3AkAzOiD]

EDIT: I started this post before the official mpg ratings for the Cruze Eco were released and before that release date was anounced. However I still think from an mpg standpoint they could have done better on the standard Cruze models.
--------------------

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...

[gone-ot]

...yep, Government Motors still seems to have their engineering head up their proverbial anal orifice.

...GM Salemanship 101: "...promise them everything, deliver nothing more than minimally necessary!"

[Zerohour]

Well they may have done it right finally. You need to remember test mileage versus actual mileage has historically been wrong. It was only recently since they updated the mileage test to maintain an average speed of 50+mph. The old tests from the 80's through the 90's had an average speed of 48.x mph. There was the issue. if marketing wanted to push a car "highest fuel economy in the class, they vehicle had to be engineered to beat its competition in the standard test. Meaning the best mpg was acheived at unrealistic driving conditions. There were many vehicles that out did their mpg rating in the real world because of the car was built for real world conditions.

The next standard test may giving the cruze 36mpg, but true world driving may be 40+ at reasonable 60-65 mph highway driving.

[cfg83]

Fr3AkAzOiD -

I'm ok with it as long as it is in the top-3 in it's class. At 2900 lbs curb weight, 38+ MPG is pretty good.

I just wish this stuff could have been done for the pre-Chevy-Cobalt XFE and Saturn Ion platforms. It was there just *waiting* to happen.

CarloSW2

[Fr3AkAzOiD]

With a smaller engine I was hoping for the same or less weight then the Cobalt but the Cruze isn't 2,900 lbs, it's 3,100 lbs and it isn't 38+ mpg, it's 36 mpg.

I will fix one thing above and thats the turbo engine gets it's mpg's with an automatic with O/D instead of a manual.
For that I will give it some credit as Chevrolet finaly got away from it's lousy 4 speed auto's and it did put an overdrive in the Cruze.

Though I have heard some people complain about the 6 speeds changing gears more often then needed on the Malibu and I'm hoping that did not transfer over to be a problem with the Cruze as well.

[cfg83]

Fr3AkAzOiD -

Originally Posted by Fr3AkAzOiD

With a smaller engine I was hoping for the same or less weight then the Cobalt but the Cruze isn't 2,900 lbs, it's 3,100 lbs and it isn't 38+ mpg, it's 36 mpg.

My mistake. However, I'm still happy with the *direction* they are going :

GM says Chevy Cruze Eco with an automatic will hit 36 mpg highway — Autoblog Green

The Cruze Eco, when equipped with a manual transmission, is projected to hit 40 miles per gallon on the highway. But let's face it, most buyers will opt for the slushbox.

Choosing the auto trans will drop the efficiency numbers for the Cruze Eco, but not by much. General Motors executives recently told Edmunds AutoObserver that the EPA has slapped a fuel-economy rating of 36 mpg highway on the auto-equipped Cruze Eco. The is in line with GM's target for the automatic model, which leads us to believe that the manual trans version will also hit GM's projected 40 mpg rating when it receives final certification from the EPA. Production of the Cruze Eco is slated for this December, with sales starting early next year.

I was hearing that there wouldn't even be a Cruze-Eco with a manual tranny. I thought they were going to copy the Ford-Focus auto-only strategy if you order the Eco package. This is good news to me if GM is offering a Cruze-Eco-Manual.

CarloSW2

[Fr3AkAzOiD]

Originally Posted by cfg83

I was hearing that there wouldn't even be a Cruze-Eco with a manual tranny. I thought they were going to copy the Ford-Focus auto-only strategy if you order the Eco package. This is good news to me if GM is offering a Cruze-Eco-Manual.

CarloSW2

I think you heard right cause the 1.8 NA engine has manual standard with auto as an option while the 1.4 turbo has auto standard and manual "not available".

2011 Chevy Cruze Specs and Features | Chevrolet

Would be interesting to know if it would be possible to put the 6 speed & 1.8 liter in my XFE when my engine dies.

The 1.8 has to be lighter then my 2.2 (unless GM just used the same block for both). If it can get 36 mpg in a 3,100 lb Cruze using the 100 lb = 1 mpg rule putting that engine in my 2,700 lb Cobalt coupe XFE should get me 40+ mpg even before hypermiling.

[cfg83]

Fr3AkAzOiD -

Yup, the GM site was my first assumption. Maybe the autobloggreen article is blowing smoke. It's quoting GM with the implication that there will be a follow-on Cruze-Eco-Manual offering that is currently awaiting EPA testing.

This would make sense because your Cobalt XFE got best-in-class MPG in 2008 for ICE's because of the manual tranny (right?!?!?).

Oh well, time will tell.

CarloSW2

[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.

[cfg83]

ecofreak -

I need 80 miles minimum for my daily round-trip.

CarloSW2