New diesel midsize (Chevrolet Cruze) - Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum

justme1969 · 02-08-2013, 07:14 AM

Unveiled at today's Chicago Auto Show, Chevrolet says the new version of the Cruze powered by a 2-liter, four-cylinder turbo diesel will offer buyers 42 mpg on the highway and a range of 650 miles between fill-ups. With 148 hp and 258 ft-lb of torque,

the urea tank??? used to treat exhaust gases in most models must be refilled every 10,000 to 15,000 miles or the car won't restart, a requirement of the Environmental Protection Agency.

As a result, diesel cars accounted for only 0.8 percent of U.S. vehicle sales in 2012. But with fuel economy rules pushing for ever-more efficient models between now and 2025, the industry expects diesels to finally catch on. This year, Jeep and Mazda will offer diesel variations of the Grand Cherokee SUV and the Mazda6 sedan

justme1969 · 02-08-2013, 07:17 AM

My feelings on this are that the peppy diesel is volkswagon ad ploy.
Chevy should have searched for 80mpg hybrid turbo diesel.
it would have sold much better my 2 cents.

pete c · 02-08-2013, 07:22 AM

42 mpg?

and i gotta buy expensive diesel and deal with that urea BS?

The 1.4 turbo gets very close to the same mileage. I am a big fan of TDs, but don't know if this one will make financial sense.

What does it cost to have that urea system serviced, BTW? Can I do it myself?

big shafe · 02-08-2013, 08:13 AM

I'm getting better mpg's with a 2006 VW Beetle TDI. All these new emissions equipment requirements are really killing mpg numbers.

CAPTAIN CHAOS · 02-08-2013, 08:47 AM

42mpg is not only unimpressive, it's downright pathetic. I would have expected something much closer to 50mpg.
Between the pitiful mpg, the diesel cost premium and the annoying urea tank this car has "utter failure" written all over it.
It's a real shame as the gas versions seemed promising.

justme1969 · 02-08-2013, 08:51 AM

Yep choking down the capabillity of the diesels. pretty sad.
Same with the gas engines though.
The study I would like to see is where the restrictions and modifiers reduction numbers are equated against real world mpg and the surreal world 4 cyl diesels that pull 80mpg+
How much more pollution v/s waste is created by supposedly improving emissions numbers but dropping mpg numbers.
Ill bet NOX actually drops when mpg efficiency is factored into the bigger picture.
I remember about 10 years ago when SVO was first being trumpeted throughout the country people actually complained because it smelled like french fries.
We need leaders who actually see and react to the big picture not to voices in thier 5 minute office session who spend thier days shmoozing their so called advisors.
If regulation reduces efficiency in an ICE then find a better way or dont add it.
I dont much care what CARB says or does!

pete c · 02-08-2013, 09:14 AM

^^^^^ +1

Sometimes I think the idiots running EPA should be shot. Everything is PPM with these a-holes. They could give a crap about the actual amount of garbage that gets pumped into the air.

Of course the folks at the large automakers don't mind it a damn bit. Forcing cars to be complex keeps little guys from competing and that is all that matters to them.

MetroMPG · 02-08-2013, 09:28 AM

See also: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ere-24872.html

PaleMelanesian · 02-08-2013, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by big shafe

I'm getting better mpg's with a 2006 VW Beetle TDI. All these new emissions equipment requirements are really killing mpg numbers.

This is 42 mpg EPA highway. Your beetle is rated 38 epa. Gotta compare apples to apples. If your beetle gets better than epa, maybe this will as well. I'm going to wait and see before passing judgement.

A bit pricey, though.