Archives

Who Would Buy A 2011 Cruze Eco? I Would ,but Who Else Would! And Give Me Reasons!

If it had a cavernous hatch on the back, I would buy one. With a trunk, it's not a car I can use, so no.

Seems like a good car. But I think I would still take a Focus hatch or Golf over the Cruze.

i'm in the hunt for one of those, mainly for FE, i like the car, looking for a new car and as of now, the best deal i'm getting ( Sonata and Elantra not here until the end of the year)... but everyone had its own reasons...

I bought one yesterday. Highest MPG with regular gas. Comfortable driving position (I'm 6"4" and the front seat will go back farther than I need, lots of headroom). Quiet. Good price ($17500).
Focus, Golf Diesel, and Elantra were strong candidates.
Cruze has much better road feel, quieter, and roomier driver postion than the Elantra.
Focus was too cramped for me.
Jetta and Golf get lousy gas milage unless diesel. Diesel models are expensive. Diesel cost more and a gallon weighs more than gasoline, so 40 MPG diesel is like 35 gas.
Corrolla, Sentra, and Civic (2011) not even in the ballpark,

Was that a 2011 Focus you compared it to, or a brand-new 2012?

Was that a 2011 Focus you compared it to, or a brand-new 2012?

I looked at both the 2011 and new 2012 as well as the new Fiesta. Before getting in one I really expected that I would buy a 2012 Focus, but I just couldn't find a really confortable driving position.

It's encouraging how many good choices there are for safe, comfortable, fun, efficient cars.

Hi, I'm new in this forum. I'm really interested in green products. Looking after our planet and our legacy for the next generation.

Hi, I'm new in this forum. I'm really interested in trying to get my post count up by making general comments in a thread about something specific.

For real though, I would not buy a Cruze. Last year I worked for a dealership that sold new Toyota/Scion/Chevy/Nissan/Ford/Honda (one owner, different buildings). I was excited about the Cruze, being a 1.4 turbo and manual tranny. I was terribly disappointed when it came out. The build quality seems poor, the materials seem cheap (well, for $17k, I guess I get it), and the lack of basic features like cruise control left me speechless. To me the seats were uncomfortable, and a number of my coworkers agreed. After driving a Prius for months it seemed very noisy, cheap, and uncomfortable.

Impressive MPG though...I just don't think the car will last long enough for the increase in MPG to be even remotely worth the money over comparable cars like the Corolla.

I am not trying to be a jerk or anything, those are just my honest impressions of it. I do think it's a good looking car though, and a huge step up from the Cobalt. I'm sure you opted for the cruise control too lol, I just think it should be a standard feature in 2011.

I am not trying to be a jerk or anything, those are just my honest impressions of it. I do think it's a good looking car though, and a huge step up from the Cobalt. I'm sure you opted for the cruise control too lol, I just think it should be a standard feature in 2011.

Oh, it's a such a common trick. We know it's really cheap, but the manufacturers package it into a "convenience package" or use it to force an upgrade. Convenience packages typically include power windows too, which we also know are often cheaper than manual windows.

My wife's requirements mean we have to have AT + A/C + C/C which typically means add $2k over the base model. That's pretty normal for the "But It's Really" price.

. I'm sure you opted for the cruise control too lol, I just think it should be a standard feature in 2011.

No cruise on my Cruze. I'll do very little highway cruising in it.

For me it was easily the most comfortable, safe, and fun car in the class. I really like the way it handles and rides. Quiet, firm, smooth. Time will tell about durability. No problems for the first 200 miles:rolleyes:.

The display read 48.8 mpg for my 16 mile commute early this morning. Haven't calibrated it yet, though. I'd rather have less power if it gave even better economy--I wonder if they could get 90 HP and better FE without the turbo.

Don't think so, that car is a bit heavy for that engine with a turbo, NA form, it will need a bigger engine or a serious weight reduction.... think of the LS (1.8l)

Don't think so, that car is a bit heavy for that engine with a turbo, NA form, it will need a bigger engine or a serious weight reduction.... think of the LS (1.8l)

The only thing more peak power gives a car is faster acceleration and worse FE. The Cruze 0-60 time is 10 seconds. Back in the 70's and 80's this was considered fast. My 1984 VW GTI was a performance model and didn't do any better accelerating than today's Cruze Eco I'll take a 15 second 0-60, which means less peak power and an engine designed better FE.

One of the advantages of a turbo is the torque produced vs engine displacement. Usually turbo engines produce a lot of torque compared to the same-size NA engine. For an NA engine to get the same torque it will need more displacement, a 1.4 liter turbo maybe will produce the same torque as a 2.0 liter NA, using less fuel and getting better FE. The Cruze weights 3,000 pounds with 138hp, thats 22 pounds per hp, with 90hp and maybe 70 pound feet/torque, we are looking at 33 pounds per hp, that is a lot of load on that engine. That is the hp of tiny japanese cars that weight 1,000 and 1,500 pounds.

O The Cruze weights 3,000 pounds with 138hp, thats 22 pounds per hp, with 90hp and maybe 70 pound feet/torque, we are looking at 33 pounds per hp, that is a lot of load on that engine. That is the hp of tiny japanese cars that weight 1,000 and 1,500 pounds.

I had a 1980 Rabbit diesel that developed 48 hp and probably weighed 2200 lbs. 45 lbs/hp and I was never wanting for power, except on cold days when it wouldn't start and power = 0.

There has been a gradual paradigm shift to where 33 lbs/hp is underpowered. A 1975 Chevy Impala with a 350 cu in engine was rated at 145 hp and the car weighed 4350 lbs, right at 30 lbs/hp, 0-60 in 13.3 second, and considered perfectly adequate.

I'd wager that I've yet to exceed 40 hp load on my Cruze, so I'm driving around with more than 2X reserve power.

Maybe we are now finally reversing the absurd trend of sacrificing fuel economy at the holy alter of power.

You sir definitely have the right attitude!! :thumbs_up:

I had a 1980 Rabbit diesel that developed 48 hp and probably weighed 2200 lbs. 45 lbs/hp and I was never wanting for power, except on cold days when it wouldn't start and power = 0.

There has been a gradual paradigm shift to where 33 lbs/hp is underpowered. A 1975 Chevy Impala with a 350 cu in engine was rated at 145 hp and the car weighed 4350 lbs, right at 30 lbs/hp, 0-60 in 13.3 second, and considered perfectly adequate.

I'd wager that I've yet to exceed 40 hp load on my Cruze, so I'm driving around with more than 2X reserve power.

Maybe we are now finally reversing the absurd trend of sacrificing fuel economy at the holy alter of power.

ok, you are not understanding my point.. i'm not talking about under or overpower, as you said earlier, you think turbocharging is bad for FE because of the "forced" mass of air into a tc engine is much more than the one for a NA engine; true, more air, more fuel needed, but with a tc engine, the rpm to get hp ( and to get torque) up will be less than for a NA, driven in the same way with the same weight. Take that impala (4350 lbs, 145hp) with the 350ci and lets say that it will need to be at 3,500 rpm to get to 40mph in the highest gear. Now take that same impala but with 1350lbs less and the same 145hp and i'll bet you a trillion dollars it will need less than 3,500 rpm to get to 40mph. Less rpm usually means less fuel consumed. Now lets take a look at the Cruze; what are the two main engine differences between the Cruze Eco and the LS.... displacement and Torque,
1.4L vs 1.8L, the second, torque 148 vs 123, why that smaller engine produces 20 more pound feet of torque??? turbocharging... it is possible for that bigger engine to produce 148pound feet, absolutely yes, but not at 1.8 liters, maybe 1.9, 2.0 or 2.2 but not at 1.8 and more displacement means more fuel consumed. And, maybe we are now finally reversing the absurd trend that turbocharging is only for performance, the fact that car makers are using it a lot these days must be a clue....

ok, you are not understanding my point.. i'm not talking about under or overpower, as you said earlier, you think turbocharging is bad for FE.

I'm quite sure that the turbo in my Cruze Eco is used for more reserve power with a compromise on FE. The Chevy Volt uses a 80 hp 1.4 liter engine without turbocharging. The Volt doesn't need reserve power from the ICE and is optimized for FE. I know that virtually nobody would buy a 80 HP Cruze with a 0-60 time of 17 seconds, but it would be more efficient and have better FE than the 138 HP turbo, and would be faster than the 48 hp 1980 Rabbit DieseL, which I alldued to as adequate for me.

Ok, so your theory is that you will get more than the 33 combined or 42 hwy without the turbo... well, put a Volt engine on a Cruze and then tell me. The Volt engine is used mainly as a generator, not for propulsion, so torque and hp will not be an issue, but the Cruze engine is the main energy source for the car... i don't think it is that hard to understand; turbocharging= less displacement needed= less fuel consumed per rpm.. To move 3000 pounds with only 80 hp and God knows how much torque, it will be reving high and that means more fuel needed, there is no other way..:cool:

Ok, so your theory is that you will get more than the 33 combined or 42 hwy without the turbo... well, put a Volt engine on a Cruze and then tell me. The Volt engine is used mainly as a generator, not for propulsion, so torque and hp will not be an issue, but the Cruze engine is the main energy source for the car... i don't think it is that hard to understand; turbocharging= less displacement needed= less fuel consumed per rpm.. To move 3000 pounds with only 80 hp and God knows how much torque, it will be reving high and that means more fuel needed, there is no other way..:cool:



With a feather foot it takes a surprisingly small amount of power to accelerate and move a well-designed car. I have yet to approach a 80 hp load on my Cruze's ice. 80% of the time or more I probably stay in the range of 5 to 30 hp. The 1.4 liter NA engine would produce the 5-30 hp I use more efficiently than the 1.4 turbo does.

In gas-only mode the Volt get's significantly better highway FE than the Cruze, even though the Volt has a less efficient drive system than the Cruze. In gas only mode the Volt ice generates electricity to run electric motors, which is not as efficient as a manual transmission system directly coupling the wheels to the ice. A Cruze with a Volt motor would have better highway FE than a Volt running in Gas only mode.

My guess is that a Cruze eco mt with a Volt motor would be epa rated at more than 50 mpg highway and about 35 city

In gas-only mode the Volt get's significantly better highway FE than the Cruze, even though the Volt has a less efficient drive system than the Cruze. In gas only mode the Volt ice generates electricity to run electric motors, which is not as efficient as a manual transmission system directly coupling the wheels to the ice.

And the Volt is LOTS heavier than a Cruze Eco, almost 900lbs. Note the Volt is rated at 40mpg on the hwy, in the CS mode.

The efficiency thing is a myth, the series configuration mode of the Volt is actually more efficient than the parallel configuration mode.. but only at speeds below 60-70mph or something like that.. the SAE papers GM recently published go into lots of details. Apparently there are lots of losses in transmissions.

The Volts 1.4L is limited to 4400 rpm I believe, to keep NVH down. The Volt has a 53kw ICE/Genset (70hp) system solely driven by the requirement to cruise at 100mph with an empty battery.. a 35kw system would have been more than plenty for sane driving speeds, due to its nature acceleration would not have been affected.

The sad fact is that any car sold with a 0-60 less than 10 secs is considered unsafe by many people.

The sad fact is that any car sold with a 0-60 less than 10 secs is considered unsafe by many people.

You mean more than 10s, I think?

The Volt engine requires PREMIUM gas! That's not optimized for fuel economy in my book...

Premium gas?? wow, was not aware of that... even better to have that turbo on the 1.4, it runs on regular gas, and got more torque than the NA Volt one.. :)

Premium gas?? wow, was not aware of that... even better to have that turbo on the 1.4, it runs on regular gas, and got more torque than the NA Volt one.. :)

You've almost got me convinced.:Banane35:
well, you and the 42+ mpg I'm getting with the 1.4T using only rudimentary techniques.

by the way, here is link fron CNN about a recall... http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/04/autos/cruz_recall has to do with steering wheel and shift linkage...

The Volt engine requires PREMIUM gas! That's not optimized for fuel economy in my book...

You would put cheap gas in a $42k car?.. are you nutz? :)

The car will run on regular, but you get better economy on premium, enough that its worth it.

I believe they have ramped up the compression ratio for efficiency and they also state that premium lasts better in storage. I'm not sure I believe the latter, but the higher compression ratio could reasonably account for the premium fuel requirement.

That is the reason i'm parking my actual car, premium gas, too expensive this days ( 4.16/gal)....