Topic: First Drive: 2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco

[ArticSteve]

Same old GM 

When your product doesn't meet a certain standard, market your way out of it.    Not unlike those preposterous "mild" hybrids GM came to market with when they really had nothing in the hybrid department and still don't.

At least this Eco unit will give the dealer sales staff some additional "numbers" to trick customers with.

[TopGun]

....

At least this Eco unit will give the dealer sales staff some additional "numbers" to trick customers with.

Here's some numbers they could "trick" me with - 1.4 with the 6 MT.

Goodness, I hope you're kidding.  If not, you're no better than CatsEye.  What numbers do they use to trick Corolla customers with?  A savings due to lack of sleeping pills they won't need if they buy a Corolla?  By every account I've heard and read, the Cruze is way better than the Corolla...yet...people keep buying them like crazy.

.....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.
.....

Well balanced and stated.

[ArticSteve]

Goodness, I hope you're kidding

Fack no!  Buyers in this segment are generally pretty clueless.  Chevy sales ppl will now be able to show fuel mileage "numbers" (generated by GM) from the "ECO" and apply them to the Cruzes that ppl will actually buy.

Corolla customers buy Corollas because the car has a 20 year life span.  Watch     year 7 the turbos will be either spinning bearings or leaking.  Tax in probably 2K to replace. 

[CatsEye68]

the difference is Hyundai uses high strength steel (more of it) to keep the structure in tact and reduce weight

We have seen no evidence that this is true.

[whaddaiknow]

Same old GM 

When your product doesn't meet a certain standard, market your way out of it.    Not unlike those preposterous "mild" hybrids GM came to market with when they really had nothing in the hybrid department and still don't.

At least this Eco unit will give the dealer sales staff some additional "numbers" to trick customers with.

Exactly!

When reading an article like this with no real data to really back up the claimed numbers, I can't help but remember the other GM vehicles test. GMC terrain is a good example. Here's an exerpt from this very site, using the same GM buzz word "Eco"

"
...
With the four-cylinder engine and all-wheel drive, the Terrain’s Natural Resources Canada fuel consumption ratings are 10.1/6.9 L/100 km (city/highway); using Eco mode almost exclusively, a week of cool-but-not-cold weather and driving that included less congested city driving than usual, got me an average fuel consumption figure of just over 11.0 L/100 km.
...
"
Who were they kidding? How is it NOT just pure marketing targeted at gullible people?

Sure, on a short carefully pre-planned stint, the computer reading was 5.6 l/100km. In pretty much ideal conditions - 80 km/h speed limit with only a few slow downs. It might even be better than the NRC testing conditions. Give it a more realistic test, and then I'll muster up some respect for the Cruze. For now, all I see is marketing.

Again, nothing against the vehicle itself, but the (mis)presentation is appauling. To make the article all about rising gas prices and how this new car can help you achieve that without giving any factual data masking it behind the rules set by the manufacturer, I don't buy it. But that's only me, as I'm sure many will go by whatever number GM feeds them.

[whaddaiknow]

Goodness, I hope you're kidding

Fack no!  Buyers in this segment are generally pretty clueless.  Chevy sales ppl will now be able to show fuel mileage "numbers" (generated by GM) from the "ECO" and apply them to the Cruzes that ppl will actually buy.

Corolla customers buy Corollas because the car has a 20 year life span.  Watch     year 7 the turbos will be either spinning bearings or leaking.  Tax in probably 2K to replace. 

This is especially NOT cool when I know other manufacturers don't try to 'trick' the system to generate numbers that are totally unrealistic in real life. I know I can and I have beaten NRC numbers in my Fit without trying hard staying with traffic. I'd love to see someone beating the NRC number for the Cruze. 4.6 l/100km??? R-I-I-I-I-GHT

[aaronk]

Our Santa Fe was also rated at 7.7L/100Km highway from Hyundai - we average 10.5 and I'm not surprised. Nobody drives a steady 80 Km/h for extended periods of time with zero traffic and no incline. If you're out to hang GM for posting 'false' numbers, you'll have to include the rest of the industry in your rant.

[whaddaiknow]

Our Santa Fe was also rated at 7.7L/100Km highway from Hyundai - we average 10.5 and I'm not surprised. Nobody drives a steady 80 Km/h for extended periods of time with zero traffic and no incline. If you're out to hang GM for posting 'false' numbers, you'll have to include the rest of the industry in your rant.

You picked the wrong fight here. I used to own a 3.3L Santa Fe. In 3 years, I measured my fuel consumption numerous times, and going close to 100km/h (not even 80km/h), I easily achieved 8.5l. With large CUV the fuel consumption skyrockets once you get past 110km/h, and I was getting 9.5 going 120 km/h. 10.5 average for a Santa Fe is actually a pretty good number, and much better than a smaller engine GM terrain that got over 11L/100km in "Eco" mode.

[TopGun]

Fack no!  Buyers in this segment are generally pretty clueless.

I'm with you on that one.  Especially after...

Exactly!

When reading an article like this with no real data to really back up the claimed numbers
....
But that's only me, as I'm sure many will go by whatever number GM feeds them.

And y'all complain just about CatsEye right?  Whaddaiknow, I can't keep up with your silly posts to reply as well as I should.

Quickly:

• This was a First Drive, and I don't think was done to back up any claimed numbers.  There are many other drives available should you wish to review.
• The EPA test is a standardized test used for comparison basis.  Any "real world" number depends on all kinds of factors.  It sounds like you're an efficient drive.  Why don't you take out a Cruise for a full fuel tank and see how well you can do.
• We consumers are the one's at fault for people trying to maximize the test results.  Just reading many posts around here will have you believing a 1-2 mpg difference means the less fuel efficient car will have zero sales.

[whaddaiknow]

Fack no!  Buyers in this segment are generally pretty clueless.

I'm with you on that one.  Especially after...

Exactly!

When reading an article like this with no real data to really back up the claimed numbers
....
But that's only me, as I'm sure many will go by whatever number GM feeds them.

And y'all complain just about CatsEye right?  Whaddaiknow, I can't keep up with your silly posts to reply as well as I should.

Quickly:

• This was a First Drive, and I don't think was done to back up any claimed numbers.  There are many other drives available should you wish to review.
• The EPA test is a standardized test used for comparison basis.  Any "real world" number depends on all kinds of factors.  It sounds like you're an efficient drive.  Why don't you take out a Cruise for a full fuel tank and see how well you can do.
• We consumers are the one's at fault for people trying to maximize the test results.  Just reading many posts around here will have you believing a 1-2 mpg difference means the less fuel efficient car will have zero sales.

I see you are getting a little irate and becoming personal by calling my posts silly. I follow a very strict logic, and you are purely emotional. I substantiate my claims with factual data that you don't bother to read. I'll reserve my judgement until the next fuel challenge and take my hat off if Cruze beats the Civic and Corolla. The numbers sure put it on the podium. Do you believe it will win? I don't. No point going back and forth arguing about it until we get more credible data.

All I'm saying in my 'silly little posts' is that GM involves a bag of tricks and publishes unrealistic numbers that ONLY work for the NRC test but not real life while OTHER manufacturers' NRC numbers CAN and HAVE been beaten in real life. If it's not a concern for you, it is for me.

[ArticSteve]

I see you are getting a little irate and becoming personal by calling my posts silly

...and, dude, the word is "appalling".
Ya know ya landed one when ppl start correcting one misspelled word. 

[whaddaiknow]

• This was a First Drive, and I don't think was done to back up any claimed numbers.  There are many other drives available should you wish to review.
• The EPA test is a standardized test used for comparison basis.  Any "real world" number depends on all kinds of factors.  It sounds like you're an efficient drive.  Why don't you take out a Cruise for a full fuel tank and see how well you can do.
• We consumers are the one's at fault for people trying to maximize the test results.  Just reading many posts around here will have you believing a 1-2 mpg difference means the less fuel efficient car will have zero sales.

Now right back at you. Don't you think that a model designated as "Eco" and marketed as the most fuel efficient in its class deserves to be picked on for fuel efficiency making it the primary topic?

Would it matter to you if the car you were going to buy was marketed as the fastest meanest in its class only to realize that an old lady in a '96 Taurus beater can smoke you from the lights? How is this situation any different?

I remember the feeling when I picked up my brand spankin' new Camry with a 3-litre engine, and this old lady in her '96 Mercury Sable took off and I couldn't keep up with her. Was I mad? I was fuming! Since then I take everything Toyota has to say with a grain of salt, and I apply that to every manufacturer. I have no loyalty and no affinity towards any particular brand, just facts.

[whaddaiknow]

I see you are getting a little irate and becoming personal by calling my posts silly

...and, dude, the word is "appalling".
Ya know ya landed one when ppl start correcting one misspelled word. 

You obviously missed the irony of a mispelled word in the context of an "I am too wise to fall for GM's trickery" post.

Dude, you anal-yze too much.

[Jaeger]

I have a hard time seeing how providing a vehicle for a short introductory drive over a prescribed route is any way a machiavellian plot by GM to dupe anybody, but perhaps I lack imagination.

Jaeger

[Erik]

What makes you THink GM is the only company that has good results from EPA figures. Tests around these parts have shown that many manufacturers don't do as well in the real world as the tests. I believe Ford, and definitely Hyundai, have come no where near the fuel economy numbers that the EPA has gotten when tested by the forum.

[Jaeger]

InsideLine just provided a timely update to their long term test fleet, which includes a (non-Eco) Chevy Cruze.  Interesting to note that month in and month out, the Cruze can't seem to post better numbers than the much larger and much more powerful Sonata 2.4 - both are deadlocked at an average consumption to date of 25.2 mpg.

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/05/big-list-of-fuel-economy-april-2011.html

Jaeger

[ArticSteve]

What makes you THink GM is the only company that has good results from EPA figures. Tests around these parts have shown that many manufacturers don't do as well in the real world as the tests. I believe Ford, and definitely Hyundai, have come no where near the fuel economy numbers that the EPA has gotten when tested by the forum.

Agreed.  No manufacturer comes close.  EPA numbers after all are submitted by the manufacturers.

[drederick]

http://www.nationalpost.com/cars/First+Drive+2011+Chevy+Cruze/4642342/story.html

So, do the fuel-saving measures actually work? The answer is yes — and remarkably well. The drive up to Port Perry — a trip of 120 kilometres across undulating side roads — required 6.7 litres of regular gasoline for an average fuel economy of 5.3 L/100 km. True, the average speed of the run was 54 km/h, which reflects the fact that much of the drive was on open road, but there was a good deal of real-world driving through the small towns dotting the route.

On the return route, which was all highway and conducted at 100 km/h, the Cruze Eco matched NRCan’s number of 4.6 L/100 km. In this case, the car sipped 4.5 litres of fuel over the 98-km drive. That, by any standard, is exceptionally good. The fact the outstanding fuel economy was generated by a compact sedan with enough space to accommodate four adults in comfort makes it truly remarkable.

[JohnM]

So all we have so far on the Cruz Eco is fuel computer readings from a couple of journalists who ran far less than a tankful at very low speeds.

I don't agree that fuel computers are accurate enough to trust them particularly if they haven't been checked against several fillups.  My GF's Fit computer is at least 8% optimistic.  It is off more on urban than long trips so she thinks it doesn't include idling.  As bizarre as that sounds, the numbers sort of line up.

Would GM trick us?  Anyone willing to admit advanced age might remember the Car and Driver (or was it Road and Track?) test of the new world beater Citation X-11.  The results were great.  Full of anticipation, I tested one, and found it to be a bloat-mobile.   About a year later the car mag in question ran a follow up piece entitled "Can We Build One for You?".

The gist was the test car was a one-off unit with trick suspension and shaved tires.  Also, GM ran a fuel economy demo years ago in the US southwest from one city which to another city with an altitude difference of several thousand feet and a maybe a tailwind.  Amazing what those two factors will do for "efficiency".

Is the new GM beyond fraud?  Let's hope so but let's also get a full slate of good numbers.

Cheers,
John M.

[Erik]

Can't believe that items from 30 years ago our being dragged up on a simple short road test on a new Chevy.