Topic: First Drive: 2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco

[Danno001]

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

Cool - huh?

 

[CatsEye68]

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

Why not?

- It's a GM car.
- GM gets forgiven for no past sins, and accused of a lot of others that it never even committed
- We all know the same people who designed and built your dad's '74 Vega are all still there doing the same dastardly things
- They do not put the sainted "slanted H" logo on their cars, which, as everyone on here knows, means a vehicle that can do no wrong, is made from magical lightweight materials unlike any other, achieves fuel economy numbers far beyond what the regulatory authorities state, and essentially defies the laws of both physics and economics.
- And if all else fails, if a reviewer finds something good to say about a GM car, accuse the reviewer of being a dupe.

All perfectly explainable.

[Jaeger]

Does Greg make any posts without mentioning Hyundai?  I didn't know he was quite THAT obsessed.

Jaeger

[Gamefreak]

The Cruze Eco 6MT was the only other car I took a serious look at, but the better city mileage and spare tire on the Elantra, along with high reliability ratings on the prior generation Elantra, tipped the balance in Hyundai's favour.

[dirtyjeffer]

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.

FWIW, my new Elantra Touring is getting 8.0L/100 kms so far (just over 400 kms on it now), 97% city driving...that is pretty respectable for a brand new car...i think the city rating is actually something like 9.3L/100 km...Jaegar's car i believe was able to get decent fuel economy ratings too, provided you don't stomp on it, so yes, Hyundai products can meet their rated figures...it is much better than the close to 10L/100 kms we were getting with our Focus...with just over 400 kms on the car, i would need to fill up with gas in the next day or so with the Focus...as it stands, i can wait until the weekend now.

[dirtyjeffer]

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.

i have already posted that in the other thread we debated...not surprising, you chose to ignore it, and change the subject...google it if you're bored.

[dirtyjeffer]

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

this has nothing to do with Hyundai...someone else made false statements, i merely corrected them...i already said the Cruze is a nice car and will sell very well.

[greengs]

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

With their EPA numbers being 2mpg apart why would you expect the Cruze to beat the Sonata by that much?  I think those numbers are where they should be.  What's more interesting to me is the Turbo Kia Optima only getting 20 mpg even though the EPA rating is 26mpg. 

[aaronk]

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

With their EPA numbers being 2mpg apart why would you expect the Cruze to beat the Sonata by that much?  I think those numbers are where they should be.  What's more interesting to me is the Turbo Kia Optima only getting 20 mpg even though the EPA rating is 26mpg. 

Are those long term numbers or road-test numbers on the Optima? As others have mentioned, a road test is presumptuous and not a great reflection on real-world numbers. After all, part of a road test is repeated testing of acceleration and performance, which if tested liberally can drink a lot of fuel. If those numbers are over a longer-term test, that is indeed surprising.

Back to the Cruze, were I in the market I would like to drive it back-to-back with an Elantra GLS 6-speed manual and see which one suited me better. Both have good equipment, both have exceptional fuel economy, both have a manual (a must in my books) and both have won tons of awards. If it means anything, it was the Cruze that took the AJAC Canadian Car of the Year.

[CatsEye68]

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

With their EPA numbers being 2mpg apart why would you expect the Cruze to beat the Sonata by that much?  I think those numbers are where they should be.  What's more interesting to me is the Turbo Kia Optima only getting 20 mpg even though the EPA rating is 26mpg. 

There goes Jaeger again, bringing up Hyundai in a GM discussion. Even when I put him on ignore he continues this bizarre behavior that I see when others quote him. When will it stop?

[Jaeger]

Are those long term numbers or road-test numbers on the Optima? As others have mentioned, a road test is presumptuous and not a great reflection on real-world numbers. After all, part of a road test is repeated testing of acceleration and performance, which if tested liberally can drink a lot of fuel. If those numbers are over a longer-term test, that is indeed surprising.

Back to the Cruze, were I in the market I would like to drive it back-to-back with an Elantra GLS 6-speed manual and see which one suited me better. Both have good equipment, both have exceptional fuel economy, both have a manual (a must in my books) and both have won tons of awards. If it means anything, it was the Cruze that took the AJAC Canadian Car of the Year.

Those are long-term numbers, but it's a fairly recent introduction, so the very poor results that come from the track test session are included and have a greater negative impact at this stage.  The Cruze and Sonata have both been around a while.  On its one long roadtrip, the Optima returned pretty decent numbers.

You should drive both Cruze and Elantra back to back if you are interested in them - I did - the comparative strengths and weaknesses become readilly apparent.

Oh, and Greg - you bring up Hyundai waaaaaaaaay more than I do.  Or anyone else, for that matter.  Like in every second post.  I think you have a secret man-crush on them. 

Jaeger

[mlin32]

I would love to consider the Cruze Eco for purchase if it came in a wagon or hatchback form. And perhaps a diesel (wishful thinking here). Until then, I'm not convinced it's for me.

Probably worth a test drive for kicks though.

[CatsEye68]

I would love to consider the Cruze Eco for purchase if it came in a wagon or hatchback form. And perhaps a diesel (wishful thinking here). Until then, I'm not convinced it's for me.

Probably worth a test drive for kicks though.

So what cars with those bodystyles are on your list for consideration? Probably a pretty short list.

[Shnak]

Anyone aware of a review/test drive article where they compare a regular Cruze 1.4T against the Cruze Eco? I'd be curious to know how these two compare in terms of fuel economy when driven in a similar fashion on the same course. Because really, that's the only way we'll be able to know if the extra cost of the Eco is worth it, if it's truly more economical than the non-Eco Cruze's in the real world, and by how much.

[mlin32]

So what cars with those bodystyles are on your list for consideration? Probably a pretty short list.

Yeah, it's a really short list. The VW Golf TDI and the Ford Focus. I'm not a fan of the interior in the latter, but its worth a consideration for comparison purposes. Annoyingly, VW North America decided to fudge up the options (3 packages only now, each one requiring a previous package) for 2012 so I may very well stick with the car I have now.

It's far easier to fit my mountain bike into a hatchback than a sedan, even if the sedan has split-folding rear seats.

[dirtyjeffer]

you could consider a Hyundai Elantra Touring, Mazda3 Sport, Toyota Matrix and Kia Forte5 to add to your list...i too was recently in the market for the exact same thing you are looking for and chose the Elantra Touring...despite its similar exterior dimensions, it is MUCH larger than other compact hatchbacks and is almost as large inside as the Golf Wagon (93% as big, to be exact), but is less expensive, has a longer warranty, better finance rates and is rated better in terms of reliability...there are plenty of cars in that category to consider though...as well, there is a Cruze Wagon, but i don't know if it will be here and when.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/111030330969/chevrolet-cruze-hatchback-in-geneva-video

[Jaeger]

Anyone aware of a review/test drive article where they compare a regular Cruze 1.4T against the Cruze Eco? I'd be curious to know how these two compare in terms of fuel economy when driven in a similar fashion on the same course. Because really, that's the only way we'll be able to know if the extra cost of the Eco is worth it, if it's truly more economical than the non-Eco Cruze's in the real world, and by how much.

I'd be curious to see the result of such a comparo as well.

Jaeger

[whaddaiknow]

Anyone aware of a review/test drive article where they compare a regular Cruze 1.4T against the Cruze Eco? I'd be curious to know how these two compare in terms of fuel economy when driven in a similar fashion on the same course. Because really, that's the only way we'll be able to know if the extra cost of the Eco is worth it, if it's truly more economical than the non-Eco Cruze's in the real world, and by how much.

I'd be curious to see the result of such a comparo as well.

Jaeger

I highly doubt that ANY manufacturer, not just GM, would agree to provide two cars for such a test. Too high a risk. Unless it takes place in a controlled environment according to the rules set by the manufacturer (to give them a chance to run their own test beforehand in order to be confident in the outcome). I know if I were marketing these cars, I would absolutely shoot it down.

[aaronk]

Anyone aware of a review/test drive article where they compare a regular Cruze 1.4T against the Cruze Eco? I'd be curious to know how these two compare in terms of fuel economy when driven in a similar fashion on the same course. Because really, that's the only way we'll be able to know if the extra cost of the Eco is worth it, if it's truly more economical than the non-Eco Cruze's in the real world, and by how much.

I'd be curious to see the result of such a comparo as well.

Jaeger

I highly doubt that ANY manufacturer, not just GM, would agree to provide two cars for such a test. Too high a risk. Unless it takes place in a controlled environment according to the rules set by the manufacturer (to give them a chance to run their own test beforehand in order to be confident in the outcome). I know if I were marketing these cars, I would absolutely shoot it down.

True. More likely to pit it up against the competition rather than something in their own fleet. Still, would make for an interesting read. I have yet to be convinced by LRR tires but with the numbers some of the manufacturers are throwing around it is tempting. Like $300/year fuel savings for the average driver...it sounds good in theory.

[MKII]

Anyone aware of a review/test drive article where they compare a regular Cruze 1.4T against the Cruze Eco? I'd be curious to know how these two compare in terms of fuel economy when driven in a similar fashion on the same course. Because really, that's the only way we'll be able to know if the extra cost of the Eco is worth it, if it's truly more economical than the non-Eco Cruze's in the real world, and by how much.

I'd be curious to see the result of such a comparo as well.

Jaeger

I highly doubt that ANY manufacturer, not just GM, would agree to provide two cars for such a test. Too high a risk. Unless it takes place in a controlled environment according to the rules set by the manufacturer (to give them a chance to run their own test beforehand in order to be confident in the outcome). I know if I were marketing these cars, I would absolutely shoot it down.

True. More likely to pit it up against the competition rather than something in their own fleet. Still, would make for an interesting read. I have yet to be convinced by LRR tires but with the numbers some of the manufacturers are throwing around it is tempting. Like $300/year fuel savings for the average driver...it sounds good in theory.

Autoexpress UK did a new Focus petrol vs diesel comparo 1.6L EcoBoost 150hp vs 2.0 TDCi 140hp
 http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/carreviews/grouptests/266845/ford_focus_shootout_petrol_vs_diesel.html