Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/AmericanFlag.jpg 1.4-liter, 4-cylinder turbocharged engine that delivers 138 horsepower (http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/drive-she-said/2011/01/todays-rant-disappointing-mpgs-in-the-chevrolet-cruze.html)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/2011_Chevrolet_Cruze.jpgJill Ciminillo - CHICAGONOW (http://www.chicagonow.com) - January 05, 2011

What could you get in the Cruze in the same conditions? --Ed.

I had such high hopes for the Chevrolet Cruze. But I suppose that's when you get let down.

The test car, a Cruze LTZ model, came equipped with a 1.4-liter, 4-cylinder turbocharged engine that delivers 138 horsepower. Fuel economy estimates on the all-new compact car ring in at 24 mpg in the city and very beautiful 36 mpg on the highway.

Well it it would be beautiful if it actually worked that way. During the time that I tested the Cruze, I had primarily highway driving. Without traffic. I had maybe one or two days of city driving, but overall, the majority of my driving was pleasant highway driving.

And at the end of the week, I only managed 23.5 mpg.

OK, I should point out a couple factors probably played into some of this. It was at or around 20 degrees for 5 out of 7 of the test days. And on at least 4 occasions, I did use the remote start. But I just don't think that should combine to create mileage that is completely below EPA estimates. Especially when a couple weeks prior, I managed to get 22 mpg in an AWD SUV.

All that being said, I'm seriously hoping this was a fluke. And I'm looking forward to giving it another go in the Eco model.


... http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/drive-she-said/2011/01/todays-rant-disappointing-mpgs-in-the-chevrolet-cruze.html

There are several factors that she is leaving out. Yes it was cold, but how long and how fast was he driving the car. What was the psi in the tires at the time. I could easily see a 10 mpg drop in gas mileage with this Cruze under the right conditions.

Example I had my Volvo wagon with snow tires set at 36 psi at my local garage two days before leaving on a trip. Temperatures out side were around 20 degrees compared to 70 degrees in that garage. When I checked my tire pressures in Virginia due to the large drop in my fuel mileage I found them all around 10-12 psi low. I would normally would have been getting over 28 mpg in the wagon and I was getting 22-23 during the first leg of my trip. :( Bumped up the tire pressures and my gas mileage jumped back up into 27-28 mpg as the temperatures also climbed into the thirties on the next leg of the trip.

I'm betting these factors contributed to the lower fuel mileage.

1. E10
2. Low air temperatures
3. Low tire pressures related to low ambient temperatures.
4. Higher than normal highway speeds?
5. Remote stater probably worth a 1-2 mph loss in fuel economy

I drove one on a short stint test drive. It was abysmal. Cold day, cold engine, mostly 40-55 mph driving. 9.9 miles, 28.9 MPG. I can get that in my 4AT non-turbo Elantra.

And at the end of the week, I only managed 23.5 mpg.

OK, I should point out a couple factors probably played into some of this. It was at or around 20 degrees for 5 out of 7 of the test days. And on at least 4 occasions, I did use the remote start.

The man is a complete idiot.

Harry

[I]

The man...

Harry

Jill is a woman!

Okay, I didn't bother to read the report once I read the part about using remote start.

Harry

Hi Harry:

I know Jill and she is far from what you called her!!! In fact, she is probably one of the most down to earth and straight shooting Chicago area auto writers out there. The reason why she usually pulls such poor FE is she drives like most do in downtown and the suburbs of Chicago. Meaning both feet on the pedals at the same time, remote start if it is available, lives in downtown Chicago in the worst area imaginable to pull decent FE from and finally, she spells it out like she sees it. She has a great working relationship with GM yet laid out her review as experienced and as you can tell, it was not complimentary thanks to the poor FE by any means…

Al, all her reviews occur from the same starting location using the same garbage Chicago based E10 winter/summer RFG (depending on season). In addition, the Vehicle handlers are all very careful to send the Press Vehicles to us with tires at placard + or - 2 or 3 pounds. Her winter FE is wicked bad no matter what she drives due to her location but when she said she drove an AWD SUV at almost the same FE as the Cruze, she means it!

All, you will see and hear more about Jill during an upcoming event drive beginning later this spring if the schedule is accepted per our discussions with the major auto manufacturer.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/523/Jill_C_with_the_Super_Duty.jpg
Jill C. with our 2011 F-250 Super Duty Press Vehicle last Spring in the Chicago Suburbs.

Wayne

A broken-in vehicle counts too. My last two bought-new cars really didn't start improving their MPG until at least the 9000 mile mark.

1. E10

Haha isn't it lovely that epa ratings and estimations are done based on straight gas, but yet the predominate fuel available in the u.s. is crappy ole e10...:D

23.5 is just barely below the EPA city rating. In the dead of winter. I'd call that "not bad". It's just a shame the car is so low to start with.

Wayne,

Ok lets have Jill do this again around April 15 or later and we can get a pretty good idea of what this car will get in real world driving. Testing in 20 degree weather isn't what I would call great conditions for a fuel mileage test unless your testing a snow mobiles fuel economy. Those air pressures were probably set in a warm GM dealers garage and here is Jill riding around on tires probably at least five or six psi lower than place-card.

Not arguing the point just pointing out a flaw that I see in the fuel mileage numbers Jill is reporting. Nothing wrong with Jill's report at all on the Cruze's fuel mileage that she saw during her week with the car. GM should have let her do this test back in late October or early November, not during the harsh winter in Chicago.

Al

It could be that Jill's driving style may change a bit by April 15th.;) If not, she may be WELL exposed to the possibilities of maximizing fuel economy. :)

Hi Al:

All of Jill's winter review drives occur in the same conditions including tire pressures. She is simply reporting the FE as she received it. It was not a fuel economy drive or review as that is not her audience. It simply is what it is and she darn near pulled better FE from an AWD FSP just a few weeks prior in similar conditions and the Cruze received a lot more highway then the AWD vehicle!

Similarly, I requested of some way up there GM PR reps that they not release a Volt into the Chicago Press Fleet until after April 15th due to the notoriously low FE Chicago area Journalists usually produce. I actually mentioned a review of a TwoMode SUV that Jill tested last winter allowing a whopping 12.x mpg over her week with the FSP as a reason you do not want to bring your fuel efficient offerings into the Midwest (Chicago being the worst) in mid winter.

We will see if they listen but why would they listen to us when it comes to fuel economy capabilities :rolleyes:

Al already has seen the initial planning for it and as Mike and I have hinted, Jill will be exposed to an unusual drive in the very near future and will surely learn some things about high FE in a vehicle not known for high FE... Stay tuned ;)

Wayne

There are times when I have to run my Prius with the heater on, forcing it to run continually, to defrost the windows so I can see where I'm going. And that's only under extreme conditions, where scraping the outside of the glass won't get the job done.

But I certainly would not characterize any fuel economy readings I got under those circumstances as representive in any way of the fuel economy of my car, and she should recognize that. Using a remote start just so she won't feel a chill getting underway is nice for her, but certainly unfair to the car she is rating.

Harry

Harry you should own my Prius in the winter. It's not the glass on the outside that is the problem it is the inside of the windshield that freezes up. I have to run the car until the water temperature gets warm enough to melt the ice on the inside. Talk about killing my fuel mileage. This is the biggest culprit that is causing me to have a 35.2 mpg tank going right now. :( My heat shield helps a little if I put it up if the car is sitting. Sun heats up the black dash, and then the dash radiates that heat to the inside of the windshield. Sun goes down windshield cools, condensation forms inside and freezes :rolleyes:

I live about 125 miles north of you, so I do own a Prius "up north." Most days I walk to work, and walk home for lunch. By the time I drive the car, it has usually de-iced itself.

I've never been accused of being a GM fan-boy, but GM put an honest effort into making a fuel-efficient car when they designed and built the Cruze, and to have a reviewer trash it's fuel-economy ratings by running it in her driveway for who knows how long while she sips coffee and allows the car to get toasty is dishonest and unfair to GM.

Worse yet, people will get the idea that the Cruze is not fuel-efficient based on her biased review, and decide to buy something else that is less efficient. If you take on the task of reviewing a vehicle, your first responsibility is to be fair.

Harry

You'd think she'd use a scanguage to see what it gets in different conditions...

Hi All:

Whooa, many here are attacking other journalists as bad as the way we are attacked at places like Auto Weak and Road and Track. Pull back your horns because the way the rest of America sees it, Remote starters and heated seats are installed as “features” in today’s cars and Joe and Jane Q. are damn well going to be use them whether we like it or not!
But I certainly would not characterize any fuel economy readings I got under those circumstances as representative in any way of the fuel economy of my car, and she should recognize that. Using a remote start just so she won't feel a chill getting underway is nice for her, but certainly unfair to the car she is rating…

Harry
Harry, that is exactly the types of FE that the average guy living in any urban center is getting in winter and in some cases, they are getting far worse! The average FE across the entire US light duty fleet is only 21.5 or so mpgUS and do you know how that comes about? Idling in front of the Wal-Mart while Joe and Jane Q. go in for 30-minutes of shopping, idling in the drive through for 10 minutes while waiting for two happy meals and a Sundae, driving into a stop light at 40 mph and then mashing the brakes and accelerating from the same at 4,500 RPM + because you can and driving at 72 mph in a 55 mph PSL because “everybody” else is…
Most days I walk to work, and walk home for lunch. By the time I drive the car, it has usually de-iced itself.
Jill reviews cars, not walks to her PC so she can write about the car(s) without driving it.

I've never been accused of being a GM fan-boy, but GM put an honest effort into making a fuel-efficient car when they designed and built the Cruze, and to have a reviewer trash it's fuel-economy ratings by running it in her driveway for who knows how long while she sips coffee and allows the car to get toasty is dishonest and unfair to GM.

Worse yet, people will get the idea that the Cruze is not fuel-efficient based on her biased review, and decide to buy something else that is less efficient. If you take on the task of reviewing a vehicle, your first responsibility is to be fair.
CGautomotive just got done with the same Cruze just a few weeks ago and their FE was not much better! IIRC, it was 26 mpg but maybe somebody can go look it up?

This is not a case of trashing a vehicle because they can or are willingly doing it. It is simply driving the way the unknowing Joe and Jane Q. drive. Each and every one of us see it every time we get on the road so do not bash a reviewer for distorting the actual. She is driving it just like anyone else living in a congested urban center in the winter months and the FE results are what they are.

As far as I am concerned, Jill is a work in progress and one of the reasons I invited her along on an upcoming event drive. Nobody has a worse location to drive from or to. In addition, few have as heavy a foot as she does in the kinds of traffic she deals with which makes her a prime candidate to go through a patented "Hypermiling clinic." In fact, some of this may be imparted to some of her readers someday. And trust me; she has a big reach in and around the Chicago area.
You'd think she'd use a scanguage to see what it gets in different conditions...
That is not how the review business works. You are lucky if you get a car for a week and you drive it around your area for said week to write about its strengths and weaknesses. While we at CleanMPG do extra long drives to figure out any number of details many gear head publications could give a damn about, I have to plead with manufactures well in advance to do a 400 + miler because the more miles on a press fleet car, the less they receive when the vehicles are auctioned off.

In addition, do you know how many vehicles in the real world are ScanGauge equipped? We are by far in the minority by a long shot. Again, average Joe and Jane Q. do not even know what their FE is let alone care other than to bitch that it costs $90.00/week to fill their FSP.

Good Luck

Wayne

Hi All:

I am reposting a tweet Jill uploaded a few minutes ago in response to this discussion with more detail of her Cruze drive. It was not all that tough and seeing the other Chicago area group (CGautomotive) tweet similar results, the 1.4L Turbo equipped Cruze in the winter simply appears to suck? "Suck" in the fuel consumption sense of the word that is :D


@CleanMPG thnx for defending my honor. fyi: about 90% hwy driving, no traffic, 65 mph, ea. drive more than 30 min, remote start 1-5 min max.
Saying all of this, she is looking forward to driving the 2011 Cruze ECO this spring as much as we are in order to experience better FE then what was just achieved.

Good Luck

Wayne

Just as an aside, a desiccant in the car will go a long way toward preventing internal ice-up. One of our members once suggested that a cheap alternative to commercially available desiccant is cat litter. He recommended putting some in a Tupperware knock off with holes punched in the lid to allow air circulation... then put it under a seat. I haven't tried it but may yet -- I've got two cats so there is plenty of (clean!) litter to play with.

I'd call that a GM PR failure. It should have only handed out cars and keys in Florida, Arizona, and Southern California in December and January. Chicago shouldn't be on the schedule until April or May.

Hi Darrell:

If so, there would be no Chicago, Detroit or NY City area journalists. Given the northern states experience winter for about 5-months per year, it is real world for much of us.

That said and as mentioned above, I have mentioned to GM’s PR (all the way to the top) that they hold off bringing the Volt to the Chicago Press Fleet until spring for this exact reason ;)

Wayne

Wayne, GM should promote its AWD, go-anywhere SUVs in Detroit and Chicago this time of year. It's stupid to show the Cruze in snow county in the Winter, when 30 mpg is unlikely for average automobile journalists.

Wayne
The 21.5 mpg you mention as fleet average- is that actual mpg or EPA mixed mpg?

I would be pleasantly surprised to find out that we-USA drivers- actually average 21 mpg.I would guess more like 18 mpg considering all the large vehicles and urban/suburban driving.

My wife is an average driver. She gets-no kidding- 36 mpg with the 2006 Prius in pure short trip-1-6 miles- trips with 15% ethanol. She gets much less than 10 mpg when she drives "our other vehicle.". I get 55 and 17 same trips, same vehicles with out too much effort.

My wife doesn't drive fast, but she is a typical gas, brake, gas, brake USA driver.

Folks on this forum sometimes have no idea what sort of mpg "normal" drivers get.

Charlie

Just as an aside, a desiccant in the car will go a long way toward preventing internal ice-up. One of our members once suggested that a cheap alternative to commercially available desiccant is cat litter. He recommended putting some in a Tupperware knock off with holes punched in the lid to allow air circulation... then put it under a seat. I haven't tried it but may yet -- I've got two cats so there is plenty of (clean!) litter to play with.

I'm sure I had more problems with internal ice-up because I had damp cloths in the car. I'd use them to wipe down lights and so on.

Also, I take water to work with me and one of the containers isn't a fully sealed one. That can't help.

Can you recommend a cat litter that doesn't have a nasty odor. ;) Alternatively, perhaps I should stop throwing out those silica gel packs that come with some packaging.

We use Scoop Away brand (Complete Performance) litter -- it just smells a bit like a bland laundry detergent to me.

My problems with moisture in the car are almost all from exhaling and a bit from damp, just showered hair. On really cold days (-15F or lower) I just make sure I have a hat on and a scarf across my nose and mouth to help retard ice formation until the engine is warm enough to let a little forced air circulation (air pressure through the external vents due to vehicle speed causing internal vent leakage without the fan on) warm the inside surfaces.

Hi All:

Jill has even more to say with a really good write-up about driving the Cruze and in the process, took her own potshots at all of us ;)

Chevrolet Cruze: CleanMPG vs. Drive, She Said (http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/drive-she-said/2011/01/chevrolet-cruze-cleanmpg-vs-drive-she-said.html)

Harry, you were called out directly :eek:

Wayne

While I completely understand her position on remote start in the cold, this logic doesn't add up:

I felt like I got better MPGs quicker this way.

Of course the instant readings will look better after it's warmed up. But averaging in zero for 240+ seconds more than cancels that out.

An interesting issue that Ms. Ciminillo raises is the relative fuel economy of the 1.4l turbo car vs. the large SUV, probably with a V-8 or V-6, under winter urban/suburban driving conditions. It occurs to me that the big-block vehicle may be warming up much more quickly due to it's engine configuration that packs many more cylinders close together. This could lead to the smaller relative fuel economy advantage that she observed compared to EPA ratings.

I've tested the "warm up to get better mpg" theory and it doesn't work. At best, the higher mpg will pay back half the fuel you used to warm it up. It's still a net loss. My best mileage comes when the engine warms up the least over the full trip. (I wish it did. My commute would be much more cozy.)

This is not the Cruze Eco. It has a poor city mpg rating, made worse by winter weather, and the test drive bears that out.

This is the V6 she was driving around December 20th:

Consistently averaging around 21 mpg in the #mitsubishi outlander ... With AWD! http://twitpic.com/3gmcya

I'm curious -- has anyone asked for a press vehicle to be equipped with an engine block heater?

An interesting issue that Ms. Ciminillo raises is the relative fuel economy of the 1.4l turbo car vs. the large SUV, probably with a V-8 or V-6, under winter urban/suburban driving conditions. It occurs to me that the big-block vehicle may be warming up much more quickly due to it's engine configuration that packs many more cylinders close together. This could lead to the smaller relative fuel economy advantage that she observed compared to EPA ratings.

Her follow-up said it was mostly highway driving in low traffic. All things being equal the obvious suggestion would be that cruising at 65-70mph with the heater running in cold temperatures makes the engine work too hard to get good economy.

My wife commutes in our Civic, with ups and down and most miles at speed 50-60mph and gets 30mpg in winter. That's a regular 1.8L.

I never doubted the writer. Her reporting tells it like it is. I'll take it on face value that Chevrolet has a problem with the Cruze' FE. We hypermilers can speculate how we might better Jill's FE, but we'll be working from the same platform that just yielded ~7mpg below its EPA highway estimate for her. We're just the same as the hot rodders who criticize any writer who can't better their best 1/4 mile drag strip time with the same car.

It seems Ms. Ciminillo and I have similar commutes - as I drive from Aurora, IL to (almost) downtown Chicago, roughly a 60 mile round trip. I can attest to the (relatively) warm weather and light traffic between Christmas and New Years - I wish traffic was always like that!

Now, my car will never be traveling at 65-70, I stick to the 55 mph limit, however, I would think given her conditions, the Cruze should have gotten better than 23.5 mpg. Even during the wintertime, my Mazda3 can still eek out at least 36-38 mpg overall with mixed highway and city driving. Even on a recent trip to MN (even colder) where I did drive 65-70mph, I still managed nearly 35 mpg.

I would like to have seen a side-by-side comparison of similar vehicles (2011 Elantra, ECO Cruze, etc) being driven in the same conditions. Sadly, winter driving is part of the game here in the north, so comparing how well cars do during these frigid months definitely has merit and is worth reporting.

My crude guess/calculations show the writer idling the Cruze only cost .7 mpg- not much.

If she idled-warmed it up- for roughly 60 minutes(10x 6 minutes?) over the period she had it-she would have used maybe .3 gallons extra.I'm guessing it uses under .2gph once warm, and averages .3gph during warm up.

If the 23.5 mpg was over 235 miles-(just guessing)-she used 10 gallons. If we consider all the 0.3 warm up gallons wasted- the no warm up MPG would have been 235/9.7=24.2 mpg.

So the warm up really didn't "cost" very much in respect to mpg. 24.2mpg is not too great for a car with 36 mph EPA hy.

99.9% of folks in the N (and MW) would use remote warm up.You N ,MW guys are a bunch of sissies. I rarely even use my heater-despite living in a bitterly cold area(ha,ha-yes I am joking)!!

Why did it get such middling mpg? I'm guessing this is roughly what a Accord 4 cyl,Camry 4 cyl (heck maybe even a V-6 Accord) would get driven the same way.

Let's hope the Cruze is just particularly cold sensitive- or maybe this one is a lemon?It didn't have snow tires on, right?

Charlie

It's a heavy car.

I am seeing complaints about fuel economy on the 2011 Elantra as well. It's rated at 29/40 and people are seeing quite a bit less.
The trip computer calculates that to around 28-29 mpg. This seems exceptionally low, as we are easily at a 50-50 mix of city/highway. It's probably more like 30/70 city/highway honestly. I've seen the estimate peak as high as 33-35, but it never seems to stay that high.
I've generally been disappointed with my gas mileage, as well.
The figures you are quoting seem in line with my own experience.
Cold weather starts and short trips can really drag the mileage down. I bet we will all be getting better mileage come summer.
My last 60 or so miles in the city is yielding about 27 mpg.

My guess - The 1.4T in the Cruze and 1.8L in the Elantra are small engines that run at high LOD, and offer up to 140hp if you spin the tach completely around one full revolution. They can deliver the EPA rated numbers at room temperature and a raw egg taped to the gas pedal, but the cars aren't being driven that way.

The little six speed automatics are all the same basic Lepelletier gearset with a first gear ratio of over 4:1 and a second gear that is shorter than the first gear in most 4AT and 5AT units. Unless the driver backs off the throttle during initial acceleration, or has a very gentle foot, the computer will run the tach right up to peak hp before shifting. With the wild ratio used for first gear, it happens almost in the time it takes to cross an intersection when leaving a red light.

A 1.4L engine burn through as much air/fuel at 6000rpm as a 2.8L engine at 3000rpm or a 4.2L engine at 2000rpm - and that doesn't figure in the turbo's mild boost that offers more hp by cramming in more air (which also allows more fuel for the air mass) and making the 1.4L engine act more like a 2.0L engine.

These small displacement/high LOD engines are capable of impressive fuel economy if drivers are willing to change the way they drive to make use of what these engines offer. Buy any Cruze/Elantra/Fiesta and bury the pedal and the acceleration and fuel-burn rate are going to match those of cars one size larger.

Hmmm.....ElantraClub members are saying that they're getting 42's, 44's on the highway. Lead may not be heavy enough for their feet - try Osmium....

My suspicion is that car's FE isn't so great with the AC compressor on to run the defroster, and the alternator maxed out to run the rear window defogger, blower and lights all at once. You might have to stomp the accelerator to "move with the flow of traffic. "

Does this ECU dump fuel without using much downstream feedback from O2 sensors etc. under heavy acceleration? Going open loop can play hell with FE.

My suspicion is that car's FE isn't so great with the AC compressor on to run the defroster, and the alternator maxed out to run the rear window defogger, blower and lights all at once. You might have to stomp the accelerator to "move with the flow of traffic. "

Does this ECU dump fuel without using much downstream feedback from O2 sensors etc. under heavy acceleration? Going open loop can play hell with FE.

That coupled a car that's not broken in, unknown oil velocity, unknown tire pressures, and unknown unknowns can wreak havoc on the economy of a lower horsepower engine.

I have learned long ago to, "Only expect what you inspect." This is especially important in regards to mechanical equipment.

I'm sure with all the banter that she has read, she will be up for a rematch in the Cruze.:D

I've tested the "warm up to get better mpg" theory and it doesn't work. At best, the higher mpg will pay back half the fuel you used to warm it up. It's still a net loss. My best mileage comes when the engine warms up the least over the full trip. (I wish it did. My commute would be much more cozy.)

...

I've had different results, but they were for relatively short warm-ups in cold weather. When it's -20 you may want to let the car warm up for a minute, particularly if it's diesel or automatic transmission. I would describe the idea as let it get up to the temp of a Texas cold start before you drive. ;)

ILAveo

What the heck??!!
They use the AC compressor to defrost the rear window?
A small window unit compressor(5500 BTU) takes close to 500 watts to run-2/3 hp or so- so it certainly would hurt FE.

Why don't they just run heating elements through the glass to defrost the rear window?
They actually run a little duct all the way to the rear window? Sure seems like that is doing it the hard way(though it would be quicker than heating elements).
How exactly do they do that-defrost with the compressor-? Do they capture hot air from the condenser coil and pump it backwards?

Guess they have a good reason-seems kinda complicated relative to some wires in the glass?

msirach- maybe she'll get a chance to test the full on eco model in late spring?
It is disappointing that the Cruze delivered Accord 4 cyl FE.It is 10" shorter and 200 lbs lighter- it should do better than that.
I wonder if the writer has a site where she posts other winter tests? She got almost the same FE with an AWD SUV, so that indicates it is the car, not the driver, that is "at fault."

Maybe these small 4 cyl are extremely sensitive to driver style-like Maxx said?

The Cruze might turn out to be a good hypermiling car, but just a average "normal driver" car.
Charlie

Charlie, I believe he was saying the extra current to run the rear defroster heater elements causes the alternator to put extra load on the engine... just like (but in smaller measure than) the AC compressor used for defrosting the front windshield.

Hi All:

An addition that Jill tweeted yesterday...


fyi #GM says there might have been a problem with Chevrolet Cruze test car b/c of mpgs & they're looking into it. Will keep you updated...
IIRC, She recently pulled 33.9 mpg from I believe the same Mazda 2 w/ a stick we drove last month with an EPA rated 32 mpgUS combined.

While our Review FE was a bit higher than hers per the aFCD, we never did get a top off fill to top off fill calibration to certify the results.

CleanMPG Previews the 2011 Mazda2 Touring (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36744)

Wayne

Charlie, I believe he was saying the extra current to run the rear defroster heater elements causes the alternator to put extra load on the engine... just like (but in smaller measure than) the AC compressor used for defrosting the front windshield.

Yeah that's what I mean. Judging from fuse blocks (usually 20 or 30 amp w/out much else on the circuit), I'd say it pulls around 15 amps, which, accounting for inefficiency of the alternator, would be around .3 horsepower load on the engine. I can see changes in the scangauge values when I turn it on in the Aveo.

Other people know more than I do, but I'm guessing that my little list draws around 50 amps which might take around 1 horse power to generate. You can definitely feel the performance difference in our Saturn when all that stuff is on.

Right Lane-ILAveo
Got it-so the rear window just uses heating elements-roughly 180-200 watts or so.



So there is a suggestion that maybe this Cruze-one hand selected by GM- is a lemon in respect to FE ?

Charlie

......



So there is a suggestion that maybe this Cruze-one hand selected by GM- is a lemon in respect to FE ?

Charlie

To me it sounds like it's just something to check. Maybe they'll say the adaptive transmission was out of whack from abusive previous drivers?

My guess is that it isn't very FE under the turbo and she used the turbo a lot because otherwise the car felt like it didn't have enough power to get out of its own way.

ILAveo
So this little 1.4 has a turbo sized so it spins up at relatively low RPMS?
The 3100 lbs is pretty heavy for 1.4 liters.


WHAT ARE THE CR numbers on the Cruze?Have they tested it yet?
CR is disparaged on the forum, but there methods are good, and I find them very useful for comparing relative FE vehicle to vehicle for "average" drivers.

I don't subscribe to CR anymore, so I can't check the numbers.

Charlie

ILAveo
So this little 1.4 has a turbo sized so it spins up at relatively low RPMS?
The 3100 lbs is pretty heavy for 1.4 liters.



Charlie

1.4 isn't enough displacement to make 3100 lbs accelerate at a "normal" rate at low rpms unless the turbo is spun up. My father's '90(?) Lebaron 2.2 Turbo had similar issues. Either the RPMs go up or the turbo spins up or both if you want to accelerate.

It seems like an adaptive tranny could learn more different wrong patterns for FE if a turbo driver really thrashed the car

They have a Cruze Eco 6AT at a dealer about 25 miles from here. Maybe I should go take it for an extended spin and see what I can get out of it. I'd have to drive it until it hits closed loop, and then, if I can't wring 30 or more out of it in suburban testdrive mode, it would suggest that the platform in general needs advanced techniques to beat the EPA.

ILAveo
Is it a fancy variable vane turbo, or just a "little turbo."

Maxx- it sure would be informative to have an adept driver give it a "standard" sort of test.

The Cruze certainly should get at least 30% better-city- than your old Malibu Maxx. Heck, what is the Maxx's city EPA-18 mpg or so?

Charlie

ILAveo
Is it a fancy variable vane turbo, or just a "little turbo."

Maxx- it sure would be informative to have an adept driver give it a "standard" sort of test.

The Cruze certainly should get at least 30% better-city- than your old Malibu Maxx. Heck, what is the Maxx's city EPA-18 mpg or so?

Charlie

The turbo is small and provides only mild boost. It's intended more to fatten the torque curve than provide big hp numbers for magazine ads. The displacement of 1.4 liters is the engine size used by the '67 VW Beetle, the base '71 Pinto, and the base '76 Chevette Scooter. And they were all "Stairway to Heaven" cars. From a standing stop, floor the accelerator, press "play" on your Zeppelin cassette, and by the time the song Stairway to Heaven ended, you had just reached 60mph.

The Maxx is rated at 20/28 under the 2008 EPA, and I am right around 30mpg with it. The Cruze Eco 6AT is rated at 26/37, so I should be able to get to 40mpg during the test if it has the same capability. The closest Eco 6MT (EPA 28/42) is 70 miles away - a lot of fuel to burn just to see how much the Eco could save. The Eco 6AT is along the route to my brother's house, so next time I visit, I can stop in and feign interest in the car and go for a revealing test drive. We should start a poll to see which profane word the sales rep gasps the first time I FAS to check if the aFCD updates during ICE-off. Now I just need an excuse to go and visit my brother.

Hi Chris:

The std. Cruze will halt the aFCD through a FAS so I doubt the ECO will provide any different operaation :(

Wayne

Maxx
He will wet his pants if you turn the engine off while it is moving.

Do a "standard" run with your Maxx-just motor on pulse and glide to the speed limit and 8 below-get a number. You should be able to do stealth motor on pulse and glide with the salesman next to you, and compare that to a standard run with your Maxx.
20 VS 26 so it should deliver 30% better.
Yeah, you shut that motor off he will wet his pants.
Hmmm, wonder if he will let you plug in a Scan gauge?
Charlie

PS -We- my wife,well in 4 years my wife-had a 1980 Chevette-
What a Rocket that was-probably 25 seconds 0-60 despite the MT!
We traded it for a 1985 Corolla MT with a 60 hp motor-the Corolla felt like a dragster next to the Chevette. I bet the Corolla was a solid 16 second car (0-60 16 seconds).

John Biel with CGAutomotive tweeted the following today: Liked much about Chevy Cruze, but tight backseat and uneven auto trans performance raised questions. 20.2 mpg mostly in city.

... . And they were all "Stairway to Heaven" cars. From a standing stop, floor the accelerator, press "play" on your Zeppelin cassette, and by the time the song Stairway to Heaven ended, you had just reached 60mph...

.

Ahem, 8 track. :p

My mom's 63 Beetle's 60 was "maybe if you have a tailwind and it's not uphill"

My 1958 VW might not have reached 60 mph , and only got 20 mpg. It used my knees for a front bumper. Cars have come a long way.

The new bug is a lot safer than the old, but they are a lot more costly to fix.


It will be interesting to see what kind of mileage people will be getting with the new Cruze. If Jill and John's mileage is any indication, there will be a lot of unhappy owners.

There have been 3 people log mpg for the Cruze on fueleconomy.gov: average-30.4mpg range-28 - 32mpg

@dalybrandon:
how are you digging #Elantra? Gotta admit, pretty jealous!

Jill Ciminillo
really liking it. mpgs holding steady around 36 RT

andrew_mcguckin
That's great! Makes me go "hmmm" about the Cruze.

jill_ciminillo
exactly!! #elantra = truth #cruze = lie

nevynpa
I drove a 1.4T Cruze Auto. The transmission was barf. Shifted slow, too often.

jill_ciminillo
... had an "issue" earlier this year with #cruze and mpgs. couldn't get more than 23 in hwy driving ...

Hi Andrew:

I could almost bet you were going to post this ;)

Elantra – 36 mpgUS
Cruze Eco – 23 mpgUS

And I bet Jill is using the aFCD meaning 34.5 for the Elantra and just 20 for the Cruze? The Cruze was driven in much colder winter temps however.

Wayne