Topic: First Drive: 2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco

[Autos_Editor]

Fed up with high fuel prices? Chevrolet is answering with the Cruze Eco, a special high-mileage model, reports Jil McIntosh.

Read More...

[theonlydt]

The "eco" doesn't use the watts linkage because it adds weight, complexity and cost. It surprises me that with the non-eco car that haven't gone down the weight saving route of this eco version - it would simplify the tooling and production line if all vehicles used the same welds and gauge steel - shaving a useful 50kg or so off the normal car.

[5 Wheel Drive]

So a review of the fuel economy model of the Cruze, and she didn't have a chance to calculate the actual fuel economy and simply relied on the trip computer?  It kind of defeats the purpose of reviewing this particular model of the Cruze.  Jil's reviews are usually a little better than that... 

[wing]

It's a first drive which means she had the car for at most a few hours and never visited a pump (they keep you on a pre-determined route).

[hemusbull]

Big gimmick from GM! Instead the manufacturer to invest in competitive engineering to cut the overall weight of the heaviest (even it's one of last launched) cars in its class, GM transfer the risk (and costs) to the customer. Buyng unique and manufactured in small numbers car, make it unpredictable from point of view reliablity and most of all service costs. The only reliable (but expensive) real eco compact is Prius (sorry Honda). Be eco-friendly with this one here is buyer's risk.

[whaddaiknow]

It's a first drive which means she had the car for at most a few hours and never visited a pump (they keep you on a pre-determined route).

That makes it even worse when the manufacturer wants you to report on fuel economy but forces you to rely on the computer that may be 'a bit' optimistic. Cheap trick from GM, and the whole article sounds like a paid commercial. I usually enjoy reading Jil's articles but this one is 

[Gardiner Westbound]

"It also uses a tire sealant and inflation kit in place of the compact spare found in the other models (the doughnut tire can be optioned on the Eco if desired)."

Betcha this has more to do with beancounting than fuel economy.

Chiseling away consumer value and hoping we won't notice put GM on taxpayer life support! Guess what, we noticed!

[whaddaiknow]

I see the haters are quick to pounce on this one.

I found the review informative and consider the car an interesting upstart in a segment historically dominated by imports. 

What exactly did you find so informative in this article? That the biggest trick in the car is the electronically controlled shutters? Or that the trip computerr showed 5.6l/100km on back roads with a speed limit of 80km/hr. Or that the gas prices are soaring?

I don't hate the car, I hate the way GM is trying to create a perception of the car without substantiating by real-world data.

Given how many gullible people there are, GM may get away with it.

[Jaeger]

Well, the fuel consumption aspect is lacking in the review, but as James points out, there's not much that could have been done on that score given the nature of the test.  Also, it's pretty easy to get good highway fuel economy when taking secondary rural highways with an 80 km/hr speed limit.  I'd be more interested to see what it could accomplish on 400 series highways.

That aside, it's good to see that this Eco model doesn't drive a lot differently than the regular (turbo) Cruze, as that one drives pretty well overall.

Jaeger

[wing]

Based on many vehicles, the trip computer is usually very accurate.  I am still baffled by the complete skepticism people have with them.  It isn't guessing.  The computer knows how much fuel was injected into the engine, and it knows how far the car has traveled.

[theonlydt]

Our Nissan is pretty accurate with the trip computer (I check it as always go full to full and have odometer - the odometer has also been checked by GPS and is correct to within 1%) - always within 1.5%. Some other vehicles I've driven aren't so great on the trip computer - one would almost think it's been tweaked for optimism! Something that doesn't help is when people "chip" their cars - because chipping fits between your ECU and airmass sensor it fools the ECU in to over-fueling, whilst miscalculating the total fuel added - so the trip computer mpg goes up, despite real mpg going down. (Remaps are the only decent tuning option).

Anyway, I digress. I don't have much time for GM, but the Cruze is a half-decent car with a decent engine. I wouldn't buy one, as GM's new line still hasn't exactly proven itself, but I can see why people would. Decent fuel economy, performance, quiet and mostly comfortable - could do a lot worse.

[Jaeger]

Based on many vehicles, the trip computer is usually very accurate.  I am still baffled by the complete skepticism people have with them.  It isn't guessing.  The computer knows how much fuel was injected into the engine, and it knows how far the car has traveled.

That's been my experience as well.  The real limiting factor here for useful mileage info was the short time over a planned route, rather than the absence of manual calculation.

Jaeger

[TopGun]

.....Buyng unique and manufactured in small numbers car, make it unpredictable from point of view reliablity and most of all service costs. The only reliable (but expensive) real eco compact is Prius (sorry Honda). Be eco-friendly with this one here is buyer's risk.

 

Car & Driver echos statements I've heard from the AutoBlog guys that if you're going to get a Cruze, this is the one to get given it's the only combo available with the turbo and MT - "The low-rolling-resistance tires don’t seem to have a similar effect on handling and braking, though; from behind the wheel, the Eco feels nimbler and more responsive than other Cruze"

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/11q1/2011_chevrolet_cruze_eco-first_drive_review


Here's an excerpt from an AutoBlog first drive...cover your eyes so as to not look at the terrible mix of colour and textures in the interior - "On the one hand, the Bowtie lands in the same field as fuel-savvy sippers like the Honda Insight hybrid at 40 mpg city/43 mpg highway with its MSRP of $18,950, but oversteps the Ford Fiesta Hatchback SE at 29 mpg city/40 mpg highway with a price tag of $16,865. Considering that the Cruze offers more passenger space than either of those contenders, we have to think that the newest Chevrolet is the first of a new class."

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/04/2011-chevrolet-cruze-eco-quick-spin-review-road-test/

[wing]

I wonder if they said the same about the Cobalt eco version hahaha

[CatsEye68]

Sounds like an interesting and well-executed option. What I would be wary of are the compromises one has to make to reduce the weight of the vehicle, i.e. smaller weld flanges, thinner sheetmetal, i.e. the Hyundai lets-take-away-some-structure strategy. Might be short term gain for long-term pain. At least it doesn't seem to have resulted in the noisy interiors other competitors in this class are afflicted with.

[TopGun]

Sounds like an interesting and well-executed option. What I would be wary of are the compromises one has to make to reduce the weight of the vehicle, i.e. smaller weld flanges, thinner sheetmetal, i.e. the Hyundai lets-take-away-some-structure strategy. Might be short term gain for long-term pain. At least it doesn't seem to have resulted in the noisy interiors other competitors in this class are afflicted with.

I agreed with your assessment...right up to the Hyundai non-sense. 

Going with smaller welds and thinner sheet metal seems ounces wise and pound foolish!  Wouldn't they need to repeat the crash test ratings for this given the thinner metal?

[cruzzer]

A highway rating of 61 mpg is pretty amazing. Chevrolet is making some good choices and the Cruze seems like a better than average car in almost all respects. Great that you have to get a manual in order to get the best mileage too. Cheaper to buy, more reliable, quicker acceleration and more fun to drive. In Europe where small cars are a way of life, 80% are still sold with manuals.

[dirtyjeffer]

Sounds like an interesting and well-executed option. What I would be wary of are the compromises one has to make to reduce the weight of the vehicle, i.e. smaller weld flanges, thinner sheetmetal, i.e. the Hyundai lets-take-away-some-structure strategy. Might be short term gain for long-term pain. At least it doesn't seem to have resulted in the noisy interiors other competitors in this class are afflicted with.

you don't seem to get it, do you?

the difference is Hyundai uses high strength steel (more of it) to keep the structure in tact and reduce weight...in the case of this car, GM has instead chosen to use smaller welds and thinner sheet metal...Hyundai has chosen to put their dollars into ensuring quality and safety don't take a back seat to saving a few dollars on building the car...the little money GM saved in the sheet metal they likely spent on the high strength plastics they used for the active front vents...personally, i would have rather seen regular vents and high strength steel...while the car might not have been as slippery, it might have been slightly lighter and wouldn't have sacrificed any potential structural rigidity.

[dirtyjeffer]

i still the think the Cruze is a decent car, and deserves to be on someone's shortlist...it appears to "check a lot of boxes" and is priced competitively in the class.

[aaronk]

Please for the love of goodness don't make this another thread ending up battling out Hyundai's imminent world domination... PLEASE!!!

Back on topic, I think it's a great model not just because of the ridiculously good mileage but because the fact that I could get a 6-speed manual and the new 1.4T engine. For under $20K. Sure there are cheaper ways to save fuel but you'd be in an expensive and complex hybrid or a cheap and cramped supermini. This is a nice balance that keeps costs down by leaving out the hybrid batteries. I might be a little worried about thinner sheetmetal though...I would like to know more on that issue specifically.