Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/AmericanFlag.jpg Engineers working on XFE version of new GM compact. (motortrend.com/auto_news/112_0912_chevrolet_cruze_impala/index.html)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Chevrolet_Cruze_-_Exterior.jpgMotorTrend (motortrend.com) - Nov. 5, 2009

2010 Chevroelt Cruze XFE - Price TBD and up 44 mpgUS highway.

When you're late to the party, it helps to make a grand entrance. -- Ed.

Fuel efficiency has been slipping on the 2011 Chevrolet Cruze even before its North American debut. A couple years ago, then-General Motors chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner announced the car would achieve 42 mpg highway with a manual transmission. Since then, GM officials have toned that down just slightly, to "about 40 mpg" on the EPA highway loop. Whatever the actual mileage, the Cruze will achieve it with a 1.4-liter turbo four. But that new engine will be an option over the base 1.8-liter normally aspirated four that powers the European-market Cruze already on sale.

Enter the Special Project, GM's high-fuel-mileage version of the Cruze, fashioned after Chevy's Cobalt XFE and Silverado XFE. Engineers reassigned from GM's Performance Division are tweaking the 1.4-liter turbo and the Cruze's six-speed automatic with the goal of achieving 44 mpg in EPA highway-mileage estimates. A Cruze XFE would better take advantage of the Volt's halo and would put some extra distance between itself and the 2010 Malibu, which is rated 33 mpg highway (22 mpg city) with the base 2.4-liter Ecotec four and six-speed automatic... http://www.motortrend.com/auto_news/112_0912_chevrolet_cruze_impala/index.html#ixzz0W12txmLx

If they can really deliver on that promise then I think the Cruze will get some market share when it hits the ground. It looked like a well designed, high-quality car that should compete well with the likes of the Focus and Corolla. (In short it's the first thing to come out of GM that I have actually been excited about! Ever!) It will have to be well priced, though, because GM seems to be a little behind on long-term reliability. They will need that incentive to draw in new buyers. They will also need to build it well so that they can earn a little more price later.

While the Cruze is about a year too late so far (and still not here), it is refreshing to see them prepping an XFE version with a meaningful 10% gain in the EPA estimate. What I wonder is how the city number will stack up, as the Cruze likely weighs more than the Cobalt (EPA 24/25 city). The 44 highway is a nice goal but not with 25 city. If it's 30 city, they have a chance to compete with others in the market segment, who will already be at or near that goal when the Cruze finally lumbers in after the party is almost over (and complaining that there's no bean dip left).

Hi Chris:

___Excellent find and oh boy does this mark a change for GM. This will put the Insight and HCH-II out of business if the Cruze's QC and interior are up to the sub and compact Honda's standards.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

I wonder how far you can turn up the boost on that 1.4 before things start getting interesting.

You wouldn't be interested, because it's FWD.

I think the blender-boost (mild psi increase from what I am reading) is needed to set a tall final drive and have the engine idle as the car rolls down the freeway. The turbo allows a higher engine load and faster response if sudden acceleration is needed. The XFE so far appears to be the 1.4L turbo and 6 speed automatic. The 6 speeds use clutch-to-clutch operation and can downshift faster than the existing 4 speed AT designs. As I wrote above, the 44mpg highway EPA is a great target, but I hope they don't forget about city mpg too. I'd like to see 30 city and 44 highway. It is possible in the AT car if they gear it right and calibrate it to upshift at very low rpm.

The Equinox/Terrain have an Eco button that allows lower converter lockup. The EPA tests with all these custom button settings switched off. So a quick boost to the Cruze FE would be to set the powertrain controller to upshift at 1500rpm tops and lug the engine, and maybe set the throttle to slower and lazier opening (like the Eco in the Prius III ), and incorporate an aggressive fuel cut. Then add a Power button (that the EPA leaves 'off') for people who simply must get to the next light two seconds earlier.

Since the Cruze won't be all that much lighter than the Malibu, I would love to see the same powertrain dropped into the midsizer for a Malibu XFE that can get maybe 42 on the highway.

I hope they have Howie Long (or whoever that NFL guy is on those Chevy commercials) on a long contract. I can hear the Cruze XFE ads now - "Chevy Cruze gets better highway mileage than Honda Insight hybrid..."
And those highway claims are all just ad-chatter, but it benefits everyone in the long run as it prods the various manufacturers to keep focused on fuel economy and beating their competitors.

I hope GM won't ask crazy money for the XFE. If is actually sells for under $19,000 in XFE livery, it should be a good seller. It would be delivering "almost" Prius/HCH2 hy mpg for $4000 less.
I would guess maybe 26-27 mpg city.Like Maxx said,It would be tough to get 30 mpg with 3200 lbs or so.

I'm pulling for GM.

The existing Cobalt XFE is actually cheaper than the automatic trans version. Any MT Cobalt with steel wheels and touring tires gets the XFE badge. For the Cruze, the fact that they are adding their magic to the turbo engine and automatic means it will cost more than the MT 1.8L base version. But there is no reason to suspect that it would cost any more than any other turbo and AT Cruze. My hunch is that the work they did on the DeltaII platform for the Volt is being "borrowed" for the Cruze XFE - right down to the probable use of the FuelMax tires. For people who drive long distances, it is conceivable that the Cruze XFE could end up with lower annual fuel costs than a Volt that spends much of its time in charge-sustain mode (assuming the Volt doesn't quite hit 44mpg over long distances).

Probably wouldn't have save Wagoner's ass if they had this earlier, but would've made them look better to the public.

Hi Chris:

___Excellent find and oh boy does this mark a change for GM. This will put the Insight and HCH-II out of business if the Cruze's QC and interior are up to the sub and compact Honda's standards.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

My thoughts exactly!

JP

Its good to see that GM is at least trying, but they need to increase their mpg goals. It might just be me, but I have a tough time getting excited about any small car that isn't getting at least 60mph on the highway.

Hi Basjoos:

___On the 08 EPA, the 2006 Honda Insight w/ a stick is worth just 52 mpgUS combined and 58 mpgUS on the highway. Is your vehicle even close to the fuel efficiency of a Honda Insight? It is not only about what we achieve, but what we achieve over and above the EPA rating. The new EPA test cycles are not designed to show great FE anymore.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Is there any indication they'll release this thing with a tall 6spd manual transmission option??

I am glad GM is trying as well. The cobalt was a good try ill give'em that. The SS really moved, but I think they will have a tough time with the european focous coming to are side of the pond.

Is there any indication they'll release this thing with a tall 6spd manual transmission option??

So far, the Cruze is selling in Europe and Australia with a 5MT - probably the same one in the current Cobalt XFE. Since MT cars don't sell too well in the US, I'm not sure there's much money available to develop a new 6 speed light-duty manual transaxle for the Cruze. The automatics are another story because they aren't much more than a 3 speed with an overdrive and underdrive clutch, shifting in a manner similar to a bicycle with two front sprockets and several rear sprockets. With the AT making up the great majority of sales, they seem to have put the available cash into the automatic, and so far it's doing well in the Malibu. Considering that about 90% of current sales are automatics, it is a good thing to see them working on an AT XFE model. The current Cobalt is a ho-hum 24/33 with AT and only gets the highly advertised 25/37 if you opt for the three-pedal version. As the CAFE grip tightens, we can hope that GM locates and certifies a 6MT at some time after the initial intro.

Probably wouldn't have save Wagoner's ass if they had this earlier, but would've made them look better to the public.GM had nothing like this during his tenure - giving the perception they were not even trying.

In regards to 60mpg vehicles, it's a little harder to do with the extra weight of bumpers, airbags, and consumer demand for performance. The EPA was changed, but it does not prevent a Prius n00b like me to do 60mpg @ 60mph.

In regards to 60mpg vehicles, it's a little harder to do with the extra weight of bumpers, airbags, and consumer demand for performance.

HAHA exactly. All cars nowdays are heavy pigs whether they be large or small. This is why I will contine to drive my saturn as long as it will hold up and run. It weighs 1000 pounds less than this car and already has two airbags...I don't need any more of them.

I'd be happy with a tall geared 5spd MT -- works great in my Insight!! :D

60 @ 60 needs a caveat though... no A/C, or it's likely not to work. And, truly mountainous terrain seems to put a damper on it. Rolling hills though, it works great on. I'm just dying to get a tank in where the wife doesn't drive (and the warm weather holds).

I wonder where that 44 MPG is based on? Like, what speeds? With A/C? Summer gas? etc. Since the average Prius driver can't be bothered to roll at the posted limits (and thus gets far worse than the EPA estimates), it'd be nice to see what tests they use to derive their number.

60 @ 60 needs a caveat though... no A/C, or it's likely not to work. And, truly mountainous terrain seems to put a damper on it. Rolling hills though, it works great on. I'm just dying to get a tank in where the wife doesn't drive (and the warm weather holds).

I wonder where that 44 MPG is based on? Like, what speeds? With A/C? Summer gas? etc. Since the average Prius driver can't be bothered to roll at the posted limits (and thus gets far worse than the EPA estimates), it'd be nice to see what tests they use to derive their number.
60 @ 60 with light A/C on the interstate

Hi Matthew:

___The EPA test cycle details can be found in the Why's and How to Hypermile (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1510).

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Hi Basjoos:

___On the 08 EPA, the 2006 Honda Insight w/ a stick is worth just 52 mpgUS combined and 58 mpgUS on the highway. Is your vehicle even close to the fuel efficiency of a Honda Insight? It is not only about what we achieve, but what we achieve over and above the EPA rating. The new EPA test cycles are not designed to show great FE anymore.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

If you look at the Mileage Logs, my car with its 75 mpg average on the lean burn engine, is in the mid to upper part of the range of average mileages for gen 1 Insights. Considering that that it is a larger, heavier vehicle than the Insight and seats 4, I would say that it is at least as fuel efficient as the gen 1 Insight and well above that of the gen 2. And if you want to compare fuel efficiency at the 80mph posted speed limits on the interstates in the western states, the Aerocivic would leave even the gen 1 Insight behind in its almost non-existant wake.

Hi Matthew:

___The EPA test cycle details can be found in the Why's and How to Hypermile (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1510).

___Good Luck

___Wayne

If they're relying on the EPA estimates for that 44 figure, than there's not a snowball's chance the typical driving public is going to see that figure. Bummer.

ophbalance
I don't know about that. The new EPA highway numbers are pretty realistic even for the general public.
My 17 mpg hy vehicle gets 20-21 mpg at 62 mph and 17 mpg at 71 mpg.This is with the CC set on a level highway.
If you can keep your foot off the brake, and keep your speed just under 70 mph the EPA is easy.
Of course, 75 mph and constant accelerating/braking on the highway will bring you to just 80% of EPA.This is why most 1/2 ton owners complain of "just 15-17 mpg" with 20 mpg vehicles.
Nothing you don't already know of course.Folks just can't keep their foot off those two pedals- it is either one pedal or the other.

Charlie

Hi Basjoos:

___The 75 mpgUS figure tells us much about how the Aerocivic compares to the Insight. It does not and thus my point. If an Insight is only worth 52 mpg combined on it, your Aerocivic I would guess maybe 47? The 08 EPA also includes a high acceleration, high speed (80 mph) test as well although most vehicles FE estimates are still derived vs. actually placed in the climate box and run the LA4.

___If we compare size and weight, should we also compare amenities, emissions and safety? New automobiles are far safer than our older daily drives and their emissions are miniscule by comparison. We pay for this in weight.

___The next time any of us drive a super diesel or hybrid, you will discover why most enjoy the amenities of the latest new vehicles vs. the missing pieces and parts from our old ones. These vehicles provide great FE while surrounding you in comfort, luxury, safety and reliability. We cannot say that about our older vehicles.

___Matthew, the 08 EPA test cycle is a very tough test and is why 90% of owners fall within its estimates plus or minus 10%. We can hypermile our way far beyond thanks to the techniques available to us but when a manufacturer says they have achieved 40 + per the highway estimates under the 08 EPA regiment, they have performed what we can call pulling a rabbit out of a hat. It is truly amazing and if the Cruze is rated at 42 to 44 mpgUS highway, you can bet we have a shot at 70 +. A 35 mpg rated highway vehicle and we have a shot at 60. A 30 mpg rated highway vehicle and we have a shot at 55 + and so on...

___More importantly, if the Chevrolet Cruze matches the Civics, Corolla’s and future Focus’ in terms of $’s, QC and an aesthetic interior plus blasts out 40 + highway on the 08 EPA, we should all cheer as this will be GM’s first fuel miser for the masses that makes sense vs. the garbage they have been producing (or selling) the past two decades including the Cavalier/Cobalt and Metro/Aveo.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Oh, I do wish them the best of luck. Especially if they can bring their quality up to typical import (perceived and other) level. Hopefully, it doesn't go pear shaped and they really do deliver on this. That, and maybe if they find a way to push this into the smaller offerings as well.

Can the Cruze XFE really be expected to be a serious competitor in fuel economy at 44 mpg highway (? 39 mpg combined average?) when it arrives in a couple of years?

The current 2010 Fusion/Milan Hybrids are rated 36 highway EPA gives them a 39 mpg combined.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=26405

So how is the EPA incorporating these new tests into the city/highway mpg structure? The high speed test is obviously highway (so is the new highway and average of the old highway and the high speed?) and the high/low temp tests seem to fall more into city mpg.

Hi Basjoos:

___The High speed is indeed a different animal and I have not seen the formula that incorporates the 5 together either through (2) test derivation or the 5 actual yet. I stopped looking for them formula about a year ago and should probably begin the search anew now that we know at least 5-manufacturers actually performing all 5 tests as they are spelled out by the CFR.

___The high and low temp tests are indeed City cycles.

___Good Luck

___Wayne