Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/AmericanFlag.jpg Cruze and the Volt to be highlighted. (cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=242214)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/2011_Cruze_and_Volt_in_LA.jpgWayne Gerdes - CleanMPG (cleanmpg.com) - Nov. 17, 2009

The 40 mpg highway rated Chevrolet Cruze (right) next to the Volt could be the real $ earner for a GM comeback.

Chevrolet commitment to fuel solutions and building refined, eco-friendly vehicles will finally be realized with the debut of the U.S. production version of the Cruze at the Los Angeles Auto Show, on Dec. 2. The Cruze, along with the much-anticipated Volt, will give visitors to the L.A. show a close-up view of Chevrolet’s only two yet to be released gas-friendly and gas-free products.

“With expected highway fuel economy up to 40 miles per gallon, Cruze will be extremely gas friendly while the Volt electric vehicle can be operated gas-free," said Brent Dewar, vice president, Chevrolet. “Chevrolet's focus is on forward-looking technologies to the benefit of our customers, such as the highly efficient, small-displacement turbocharged engine in the Cruze or the Volt electric vehicle with extended range.”

The Cruze has already launched to high acclaim in Europe and Asia and has undergone refinement for America. It goes on sale in the U.S. in the third quarter of 2010 but has already logged more than 4 million miles in quality and durability testing worldwide, making it one of the most globally tested Chevrolet products prior to a U.S. launch.

Cruze is designed to achieve class-leading highway fuel economy using a new family of efficient engines that include a 1.4L turbo. It will lead the way for Chevrolet in small-displacement, turbocharged engines that are designed for excellent fuel efficiency and durability – while also being fun to drive.

Defying preconceptions of what a compact car can be, Cruze will offer a more spacious interior and cargo capacity than the Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla, and upscale infotainment amenities such as a navigation system, Bluetooth connectivity and XM Satellite Radio. Ten standard air bags that provide a safety cocoon for occupants – along with OnStar– also make it one of the safest vehicles in the segment.

The Chevrolet Volt is still on track to deliver 40 miles all-electric range without using a drop of gasoline or emit a any tailpipe emissions. When the Volt’s Li-Ion battery is depleted, an engine/generator seamlessly operates to extend the total driving range to more than 300 miles before refueling.

1.4L turbo doesn't sound bad, however, chevy's city fuel mileage has gotten terrible ratings all over. Hopefully they can get at least 27mpg city epa with this car. That will definitely put them as a definitive winner.

This doesnt impress me much, Im a practical man, and and an engineer too. Here Im seeing a very costly item - a turbo being added, which Iknow from personal experience dont last much beyond 50k miles and are VERY expenisve to fix when the turbo bearings go out. Thats a bit scary to me. The Volt is still a big joke to me. Who in thier right mind would spend over 40k + rent a 17K battery on top just to save a few bucks at the pump - A better deal by far is the Vue hybrid or Escape FEH. $25k and your there. Cmon GM, were not fools!

Chris

Chris, the last time I checked the battery was included in the cost (not rented), but yes the $40K number is quite over the top.

As for turbos, what is the reliability record on VW TDI or Subaru engines? I haven't checked...

My understanding is that the TDI engines are the good part - it's the car around them that keeps breaking.

This past summer, we just sold off a Dodge Daytona with the original turbo that was still going strong. And the kid we sold it to hasn't had any trouble at all with it either. The reason? Synthetic oil, proper oil changes, and not beating the heck out of it.
The turbo is coming back once again to the family sedan or CUV, courtesy of EcoBoost and the new GM 1.4L. And reliablity should be fine, considering the fact that today's PCM is so capable of keeping everything under control. There is nothing wrong with the concept of a turbo, and the 18 wheelers all have them and they last hundreds of thousands of miles. That being said, people who are going to beat the car to death and do once-a-leapyear oil changes are going to get socked with a nasty repair bill.

The 1.4L turbo is expected to hit 135-150hp, or about the same as the current 2.2 Ecotec. At light throttle with no boost, the 1.4's 35% lower displacement does hold the promise of some amazing highway numbers if they gear it right. And with six speeds (automatic, and rumored to have a 6MT too), they can go for the crazy-low rpm on the highway.

The Volt will get people into the showroom, but they will drive away in a Cruze. And if the EPA numbers are around 30 city and low to mid 40s highway, and there are no notable first-year bugs or poor build/material quality, they have a fair shot if they can get people to trust the car and the company.

With what i've noticed with GM in recent times, it seems like they are willing and able to return really good hwy fuel economy numbers compared to other automakers. For this reason, I believe they can capitalize on the cruze. The current cobalt wearing a 2.0 gets 25 city and 37 hwy with xfe. The 1.4 should do significantly better on the highway getting into the low 40's. I'll expect a modest city mpg increase at about 27mpg. If this motor is refined, then 30mpg is in the bag. A 6MT and AT will have GM fighting to keep these on the lots if they market these right.

Here Im seeing a very costly item - a turbo being added, which Iknow from personal experience dont last much beyond 50k miles and are VERY expenisve to fix when the turbo bearings go out. Thats a bit scary to me.

That hasn't been true since the 80s. Back in the day turbos were both lubricated and cooled by the oil, and the bearings weren't that great to begin with. These "teething problems" resulted in life far short of the life expectancy of the engine. (But even for those cars I think 50k is a low-ball estimate.) Starting in the early 90s (or perhaps sooner) manufacturers got smart and started water-cooling the bearings which had a major impact on life, boosted now by even better bearing technology. Take my father's 94 Volvo as an example, which has something like 160k on the clock and the original turbo still runs just fine.

These days I wouldn't give a second thought to buying a turbocharged engine, especially a small-displacement/high-FE variant like the Chevy.

Sounds like this car will offer similar fuel economy to the current 2.0 engine in the VW TDI cars?

Hi Tyler:

___Whooa, I did not think of that and a very good point!

___We have discussed why Honda should be concerned given Insight-II sales will get murdered with a 40 + mpg highway, $13,000 - $16,000 non-hybrid that will clean its clock in the 0 to 60 game as well???

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Wayne,

If this car is really 30/40 EPA I think the internets will have some verrrry bumhurt TDI & Insight-II owners :o

Once EPA numbers are announced I want to check the reaction over at TDIclub.net.

Sounds like this car will offer similar fuel economy to the current 2.0 engine in the VW TDI cars?

At 30 city/42hwy for the TDI, (41 hwy for the MT) this will really get the circuits buzzing of a gasoline getting the equal of a diesel engine. I think if Gm thinks along these lines they will go after the TDI. If they can hit 43mpg hwy or just match the 42, it will get tossed in the ring with the TDI and the Insight as Wayne says.

If this car is really 30/40 EPA I think the internets will have some verrrry bumhurt TDI & Insight-II owners

verrrry

My understanding is that the TDI engines are the good part - it's the car around them that keeps breaking.

The VW the PD diesel engines of the early to mid 2000's were not trouble free. The major issues were cam flatteneng, intake clogging and subsequent engine damage and glow plug failure with severe engine damage are the big ones that come to mind.

One thing I can give GM credit for is that their vehicles have always gotten good highway FE. Historically their small cars have been good for 8-10mpg better on the highway than in the city. Presumably this can be attributed to decently tall gearing?

The VW the PD diesel engines of the early to mid 2000's were not trouble free. The major issues were cam flatteneng, intake clogging and subsequent engine damage and glow plug failure with severe engine damage are the big ones that come to mind.
Ah, thanks. Good to hear from someone who actually knows something. ;)

One thing I can give GM credit for is that their vehicles have always gotten good highway FE. Historically their small cars have been good for 8-10mpg better on the highway than in the city. Presumably this can be attributed to decently tall gearing?
And why can't Honda and others do the same?! It's a VERY easy thing to do. If you start with a better baseline, the highway mileage could be that much more better (:p).

Taller gears would generally load the engine a bit more, so possible long term reliability issues might turn honda away from that prospect. It will look good for GM now, but later on down the road...:(, not so sure. As long as the modified the design parameters, internal stresses should be at a minimal.

That doesn't sound right. If anything I would expect an engine to last longer when coupled to a taller-geared transmission than if the final drive were short. Lower revs means fewer cycles per mile driven. That means fewer cycles for the rings, cylinder walls, bearings, camsafts... basically everything that is subject to wear. If the engines in countless Prius can go hundreds of thousands of miles at ~70%+ load (which is just how the car operates) I can't think of a good reason why any other properly designed and built can't cope with a little bump in highway gearing.

I think the real reason why certain automakers (I'm looking at you, Honda) shorten the final drive is to improve top-gear passing performance on the highway. Heaven forbid we might have to change down on a hill!

The taller the gear, the closer the engine goes to "lugging". This puts more load on the engine and less on the transmission (unless I have this backwards), but it becomes more difficult for the engine to turn the transmission. The amount of energy required is still there, granted in most cases, automakers have a safety net built in to avoid even getting close to this point.

Gearing for higher rpm is needed on small multivalve engines because they make so little power (torque) at low rpm. For acceleration of any kind, a downshift is required. GM's secret for the longest time has been using pushrod engines which have flatter torque curves and much more power just off idle. They use wide ratio transmissions - both AT and MT - and program the automatics to get into top gear at ridiculously low speeds. My pushrod V6 car shifts to overdrive at 38mph, with an engine speed just over 1000rpm. Note how many auto reviews of GM's older AT cars note the transmission has a "tendency to hunt between gears". The car is shifting to top gear for steady speed cruising at an engine speed just off idle. And the car can accelerate from that speed - in top gear - if you're gentle. Push hard on the pedal and it drops to 3 or 2 and bolts off.
The reason some other manufacturers don't get the same bad "gear hunting" press is that they use smaller engines and run them faster, so there less of a need to downshift. A 3.4 liter engine at 1100rpm is going to burn the same air/fuel volume as a 1.7 liter engine at 2200rpm. So you get the same mpg (all other things being equal), but the half-size engine runs twice as fast to do the same work.

The Cruze will end up with the 6T40 automatic. It's a clutch-to-clutch design and so it can downshift faster. So their secret-weapon XFE only needs a small coding tweak to keep the little engine just off idle, and then drop from 6 to 5 or 4 if the driver gooses the go-pedal. A small engine at low rpm, if any manufacturer were willing to really do it, would have drivers worried that their gas gage was broken because the needle never moved.

I think it's true that Honda (and others) gear their MTs short because their engines produce less power at low RPM than, say, the engines in comparable GM cars. But I doubt that longevity or reliability has anything to do with it. They gear the cars shorter so they feel more 'responsive' on the highway, end of story.

A small engine at low rpm, if any manufacturer were willing to really do it, would have drivers worried that their gas gauge was broken because the needle never moved.

Ahem.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/605/Day_35_tank.jpg

;)