# Anyone else getting terrible MPG? (Cruze, LT, auto)



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

if you're getting 18 you must be bombing the throttle. im hammering it and still cant dip below 22 mixed with occasional sprints into the tripple digits on open freeway


----------



## j3rdlevel (Jan 27, 2011)

that's the bizarre thing...I'm not doing that at all. I wish I was. At least then the poor mileage would make sense. I guess I'll call the dealership to see what they say. I hope this can be fixed because the only reason I got the car was because it was supposed to get really good gas mileage. If I wanted a car that only got 18mpg, I would have had a lot more options. I feel like I took a gamble on switching to an American car company, and I got hustled. sucks.


----------



## Mahty (Nov 23, 2010)

I like you took a trip from Cleveland to Florida and sometimes got as high as 41+ mpg's but stayed around 65mph or a little higher round trip was about 30+mpg. In the city with careful driving I get 27+ but I think in the summer I can do a little better. Something is not right if that's the best you can do. Go back to the dealer i'm sure they can help you. Good Luck


----------



## FanDamNCSU (Dec 23, 2010)

Yeah I'm getting roughly 30MPG doing a good mix of City/Hwy driving. I get about 34-36 on the Hwy. The lowest I got was 24 when I was stomping it at every intersection.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

35-40 mpg easy freeway, level, 60-65 mph.


----------



## SilverCruzer (Nov 30, 2010)

Your highway mileage sounds like what many others are getting - around 30 mpg _*when driving 80 mph*_. If you drop your hwy mileage to 70 or 65 mph, you will notice a big increase that gets you close to EPA, something that many of us discovered. I am not judging your speed, its just a mileage relationship we have discovered.
However, the city mileage and your "new" mileage of 18 sounds wrong. I have a hard time doing worse than 24 in the city.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

SilverCruzer said:


> However, the city mileage and your "new" mileage of 18 sounds wrong. I have a hard time doing worse than 24 in the city.


I get 30 in city with little stop and go (which really ruins mileage ). Coasting to red light and gently accelerating when green. No "racer boy" for me.


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

After 70 MPH your RPMs are going at about 3k probably, therefore your fuel consumption is greater. The sweet spot on HWY is 55 mph, i got once about 37 MPH. In city i get about the same maybe more because for every 500 ft here, there is a stop light or stop sign .


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...which are you going by, the "display" MPG or "tank-fillup" MPG?


----------



## j3rdlevel (Jan 27, 2011)

I was going by the displayed mpg. I'll try the fill-up method, but I've heard the difference is nominal. I'm going to call the dealership regardless. I'll report back when I hear from them.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

j3rdlevel said:


> I was going by the displayed mpg. I'll try the fill-up method, but I've heard the difference is nominal. I'm going to call the dealership regardless. I'll report back when I hear from them.


Reset the mileage when it is on average as you are driving , it makes it temporarily instantaneous.


----------



## jaygeo1 (Nov 10, 2010)

*Getting 28 to 30 mpg.......and seems reasonable...*

*Because* the 28-30 mpg avg. is 50% Highway/50% City, this has been one of the colder winters here in Michigan *AND* our Cruze gets remote started _at least_ 2 times a day for about 10-15 minutes. We're a couple of _oldies_ and like getting into a warm car and defrosted windows.( Just a carport, no garage.) We haven't been on any long highway trips yet, but I did see a DIC readout of 32 mpg once. Our "My Link" app on the phone shows a_* "lifetime" average mpg of 30*_ at this time. I'm confident when the weather improves and the _remote starts are not performed _the mpg figures will go up accordingly. Considering the starting and driving pattern we're currently doing, I'm OK with these numbers. Now is about the time I really start to think about Spring!!


----------



## cruze 2011 (Oct 20, 2010)

iam seeing the same weather here in illinois too, mileage is about the same iam not too worried about the mileage i know winter takes a hit on mileage it seems alot of peolpe here have no idea what kind of toll winter has on a auto ........ and not to mention driving 80 mpr and wanting to get 36 miles per gallon ........LOL


----------



## cerbomark (Dec 13, 2010)

cruze 2011 said:


> iam seeing the same weather here in illinois too, mileage is about the same iam not too worried about the mileage i know winter takes a hit on mileage it seems alot of peolpe here have no idea what kind of toll winter has on a auto ........ and not to mention driving 80 mpr and wanting to get 36 miles per gallon ........LOL


 so true!


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

cruze 2011 said:


> seems alot of peolpe here have no idea what kind of toll winter has on a auto ........ and not to mention driving 80 mpr and wanting to get 36 miles per gallon ........LOL


80 mph and 36 MPG???? Can anything to that? Can a motorcycle? NOT


----------



## j3rdlevel (Jan 27, 2011)

> 80 mph and 36 MPG???? Can anything to that? Can a motorcycle? NOT


I didn't expect 36 mpg (as I was--and still am--under the impression that car companies fudge their numbers), but that's not how it should be. If the speed limit is 70mph on the highway, you should assume that the driver is going to go a little over that. Nothing shocking there. Regardless, I wasn't really complaining about that. 30mpg on the highway is fine with me...

The numbers that concerned me were the city numbers. I should not be getting 18 miles per gallon in the city. Especially if I'm driving around 40-45 mph on average (on a commute that involves little-to-no traffic) and accelerating at a snail's pace. I should be getting over the estimate in those conditions.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

j3rdlevel said:


> I didn't expect 36 mpg (as I was--and still am--under the impression that car companies fudge their numbers),


EPA does the numbers. Don't blame the car companies. They just build the cars, EPA tells you the mileage. Blame UNCLE SAM.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...FYI, the EPA "average/combined" milage 28 mpg is calculated assuming 55% city and 45% highway.

...what is the percentage YOU'RE actually driving?


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...FYI, the EPA "average/combined" milage 28 mpg is calculated assuming 55% city and 45% highway.
> 
> ...what is the percentage YOU'RE actually driving?




Very good information. I learn something every day! 

So the car companies have nothing to do with EPA mileage, it really is US GOV making he numbers up? Darn, so now I have to blame the all knowing US GOV? Darn


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...no, the factories run their own tests, but can't "publish" them until EPA approves the data...and EPA "randomly" selects 10-15% of the cars and re-runs them just to verify the factory test data...then, when EPA says "OK" that's when the numbers can officially be announced.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...no, the factories run their own tests, but can't "publish" them until EPA approves the data...and EPA "randomly" selects 10-15% of the cars and re-runs them just to verify the factory test data...then, when EPA says "OK" that's when the numbers can officially be announced.


Right on!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## j3rdlevel (Jan 27, 2011)

> ...no, the factories run their own tests, but can't "publish" them until EPA approves the data...and EPA "randomly" selects 10-15% of the cars  and re-runs them just to verify the factory test data...then, when EPA says "OK" that's when the numbers can officially be announced.


So it would seem that from this information, the car companies are, in fact, exaggerating their data. The EPA is just colluding with them. 

What I've never understood about the practice of exaggerating mpg claims is that I always thought it was better to underpromise and then overdeliver (this was something that my profs loved to go on and on about in my mba program). My girlfriend drives a Nissan Rogue , for example, and actually gets better gas mileage than she is supposed to get. Thus, when she found this out, she was pleasantly surprised (and, perhaps more importantly, impressed) at her good fortune. This seems to be a much more effective strategy than touting excellent fuel economy for a product and delivering mediocre and, thus, disappointing results. Especially, in the case of the Cruze, when that is one--if not THE--biggest selling point(s) of the product. 
Just my 2 cents...


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...no, the factories are not exaggerating their data (it's EPA test requirements), we're just not driving anywhere near what the EPA tests are simulating!

...go to this EPA *website* and look at their *Highway* and *High Speed* test cycles, most average only 48 mph, and seldom exceed 60 mph...except for a _very_ short period at _"...up to 80 mph..."_

...when almost all of the tests 'average' _only_ 48 mph, that should tell you something.


----------



## SilverCruzer (Nov 30, 2010)

montgom626 said:


> EPA does the numbers. Don't blame the car companies. They just build the cars, EPA tells you the mileage. Blame UNCLE SAM.


 Not quite. Chevy told EPA the numbers (according to standard criteria), its up to EPA to verify which they do only about 20% of the time. The EPA website explains this.


----------



## SilverCruzer (Nov 30, 2010)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...no, the factories are not exaggerating their data (it's EPA test requirements), we're just not driving anywhere near what the EPA tests are simulating!


Well...many of us griping because we have personal experience to the contrary. With previous cars I owned, I found I could _repetitively EXCEED the 2006 EPA standard by driving 70 mph on the hwy_ so I am surprised that my same driving habbits with the Cruze don't even match the EPA figure.
What I have also discovered with personal experience and Consumer Reports mileage rating is this: With mid size 4 cyl sedans (Camry, Malibu, Fusion, etc), its easy to exceed hwy EPA MPG rating, but difficult to match city. With compact sedans (Corolla, Cruze, etc), its easy to meet/exceed city rating but difficult to meet hwy mpg EPA rating. I found that the case with my Camry, and I noticed that CR shows a much better hwy mileage rating on the Malibu than EPA, but worse with city. This is why I would suggest to people with long but fast interstate commutes to go with a mid size 4 cyl instead of compact.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...as the EPA website states: _"...your milage may STILL vary..."_

...IMHO, the problem stems from EPA mandating inappropriate Highway milage test simulations...they roll "everything" into a single _useless_ test.

...they need a simple, nothing-but-cruising, Highway test at _actual_ _typical_ Freeway / Toll-way / Highway speeds, ie: 65-75-85 mph, ten-minutes at each speed, and then post all three milage numbers! (bet the 65 mph milage is better than the 85 mph milage).

...so, if your roadways at marked 65 mph, you just use the 65 mph milage number as a guideline, etc.


----------



## Knightslugger (Jan 11, 2011)

the trouble with that kind of a test is environmental variables. high or low humidity, possibly rain, wind speed and direction...


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...they (EPA) basically already ignore those factors (except air temperature) now.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

70aarcuda said:


> .
> 
> ...they need a simple, nothing-but-cruising, highway test at _actual_ _typical_ freeway / toll-way / highway speeds, ie: 65-75-85 mph, ten-minutes at each speed, and then post all three mileage numbers! (bet the 65 mph mileage is better than the 85 mph mileage).
> 
> ...so, if you roadways at marked 65 mph, you just use the 65 mph mileage number as a guideline, etc.


yes!!!!! :d


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

j3rdlevel said:


> So it would seem that from this information, the car companies are, in fact, exaggerating their data. The EPA is just colluding with them.


The FEDS design and mandate the test. The manufacturers are required to use the FED test and the FED numbers. The manufacturers are not colluding with anyone. The manufacturers are forced to use the crummy FED test.


----------



## former farmer (Jan 10, 2011)

> montgom626 ...35-40 mpg easy freeway, level, 60-65 mph.


montgom626,

How many miles do you have on your Cruze? I'm not getting close to that kind of mileage. More like 30 mpg at 65 mph. I only have 850 miles on it so far.


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

4k miles and still at 22mpg!


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...which are you going by, the "display" MPG or "tank-fillup" MPG?


...if you're quoting MPG off the dash ("display" = driver info center), you're _fooling_ yourself, because the display is NOT accurate..._close_, yes, but not better than ±10% at best.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Anyone still have their window sticker for the cruze?

Look at the fine print below the large EPA city/highway MPG numbers, both city & hwy list a low/high mpg range, not a static number you will get no matter how or where you drive. 

I did find an image posted online of the window sticker, below is the exact fine print wording most people never read(someone who still has the window sticker can verify the the info below). This info is for a 1.4T automatic. 

"Actual mileage will vary with options, driving conditions, driving habits and vehicle's condition. Results reported to EPA indicate that the majority of vehicles with these estimates will achieve between 16 and 32 in the city and between 29 and 43 on the highway."

If you average the City Low/high numbers you get 24mpg, if you average the highway low/high you get 36, the exact large print numbers everyone sees. Obviously it would be foolish to think everyone will get average results, when looking at any car the fine print numbers tell you allot more.


----------



## racer114 (Nov 7, 2010)

After the second reflash of the tranny, I'm at about 32 hwy and 24 overall. I can live with that. Although, the tranny still shifts at "will" and is very unpredictable.


----------



## mrblanche (Dec 28, 2010)

j3rdlevel said:


> I purchased it in MI and drove it down to Louisiana. On my trip down, I got around 29-30 mpg (all highway, ~80mph the whole way)
> 
> And no, I'm not driving like a maniac. In fact, I have been actively trying to minimize my fuel use (i.e., slowly accelerating, etc.)


Actually, you ARE driving it like a maniac.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

mrblanche said:


> Actually, you ARE driving it like a maniac.


I admit, I drive 80+ mph at times. On the freeway, no snow. Why? Because I love it!!! The car is sooooo smooth. Really sucks the fuel, as expected.


----------



## racer114 (Nov 7, 2010)

I'm now getting 32 hwy at 70-75 mph and 28 overall. I can live with this.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

racer114 said:


> I'm now getting 32 hwy at 70-75 mph and 28 overall. I can live with this.


Agreed, and I accept more speed = more fuel. 32 MPG at 75 mph, you are doing very well my friend!!! My AUDI A8L on winter gas gets 20 mpg at 75-80 mph, but the ride is sooo much fun.And with the paddle shifters, two downshifts and BAM, I can pass anyone at 90-100 mph. Gas mileage sucks (10 mpg) but it is cheaper than tickets to Disney World!!!!


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...filled up the Cruze LTZ today when it got down to a ¼-tank:

• *tank*: 288.6 miles at *10.34* gallons = *27.9* mpg <-- "true"

• *dash*: 288.6 miles at *9.9* gallons = *29.3* mpg <-- "not true"

...that's a *5-percent TOO HIGH "error"* resulting from the ECU _under_-computing the fuel usage. Notice that _both_ calculations utilize the same MILES value, it's only the GALS of fuel consumed that's different. The gallons number from the dash display (DIC) seems to be _consistently_ 5% low.

...*27.9* mpg isn't shabby, but *29.3* mpg LOOKS better--too bad _it's NOT a "correct" number!_


----------



## SilverCruzer (Nov 30, 2010)

spacedout said:


> Anyone still have their window sticker for the cruze?
> 
> Look at the fine print below the large EPA city/highway MPG numbers, both city & hwy list a low/high mpg range, not a static number you will get no matter how or where you drive.
> 
> If you average the City Low/high numbers you get 24mpg, if you average the highway low/high you get 36, the exact large print numbers everyone sees. Obviously it would be foolish to think everyone will get average results, when looking at any car the fine print numbers tell you allot more.


Right, we are all aware of the range and average. However, most everyone reporting here is well below the average, and some not in the range. I find it hard to believe there is an equal amount of drivers above the average not reporting here. Also, for many of us, our driving habbits EXCEED the average with our other cars, but out same driving habbits don't even MEET the average with the Cruze.


----------



## SilverCruzer (Nov 30, 2010)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...filled up the Cruze LTZ today when it got down to a ¼-tank:
> 
> • *tank*: 288.6 miles at *10.34* gallons = *27.9* mpg <-- "true"
> 
> ...


I have compared my dash with tank numbers about five times now. My differences are never that far off. More like 33.1 vs. 33.9.

How are you so sure the tank method is "more" correct than the dash, even if you always fill your tank the same way at the same place with the same conditions?


----------



## tnmats (Dec 2, 2010)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...filled up the Cruze LTZ today when it got down to a ¼-tank:
> 
> • *tank*: 288.6 miles at *10.34* gallons = *27.9* mpg <-- "true"
> 
> ...


The error isn't surprising. My wife's 2010 Equinox average MPG display is typically 1.5-2mpg too optimistic and I've been monitoring it for over a year now.

This isn't a GM-only thing. A friend with a 2010 Subaru Legacy sedan says his MPG display is typically 1-1.5mpg too happy compared to what he calculates. Other car makers seem to have the same issue.

And when it comes to highway mpg, I did a little test on a frequent (240 mi.) round trip I often take in the 2 cars in my garage. In my wife's Equinox, if I click the cruise control on 65mph and activate the ECO mode for the trip, I get 30-32mpg. If I go 70mph, mpg drops to 28-29mpg. 75mph, you're lucky to get 27-28mpg. In my 2005 Mazda3s, same trip at 65mph nets me 31-33mpg. At 70mph, 29-30mpg. At 75mph, I'm getting 28-29mpg.

Speed DOES matter a lot on your highway mileage. Anything over 65mph and you'll see any vehicle's miles per gallon plunge. The wind resistance becomes a huge factor at those speeds in any vehicle.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

SilverCruzer said:


> Right, we are all aware of the range and average. However, most everyone reporting here is well below the average, and some not in the range.


 
I can easily beat the average in my Cruze. It all depends on how I drive and the season. Come summer, when the fuel has more BTU, my mileage will be even higher. Does this make me "above" average


----------



## SilverCruzer (Nov 30, 2010)

montgom626 said:


> I can easily beat the average in my Cruze. It all depends on how I drive and the season. Come summer, when the fuel has more BTU, my mileage will be even higher. Does this make me "above" average


You are in fact beating the average right now? Verified? Not in the future?
Most of us with reported actual results are not beating the average with cruise control set at 70 mph, but 55-65 gets us there. Other vehicles we own we can exceed the average in these conditions.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...hence, my points:

1) *the MPG values from the dash-display (DIC) are too optimistic and not to be taken as gospel!*

2) *the dash-display (DIC) MPG numbers are just an 'approximated' value!*


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

SilverCruzer said:


> Most of us with reported actual results are not beating the average with cruise control set at 70 mph, but 55-65 gets us there. Other vehicles we own we can exceed the average in these conditions.


The EPA test is NOT done at 70. It is done more around 60 MPH. So, when you drive at 65 mph you will of course get closer to the EPA average. Is any of this a surprise? Drive the car at the tested speed (60) and get the test results. Drive the car at faster than tested speed, get less than the tested mileage. Seriously, what am I missing? Go fast, burn more fuel, go slower burn less fuel.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...the "*Laws-of-Physics*" people:

Aerodynamic *drag* _increases_ as _velocity*-squared*_ (*V^2*)...but, *horsepower* required _increases_ as _velocity*-cubed*_ (*V^3*).

Thus, going FASTER needs _more_ *HP*, which eats _more_ fuel...conversely, going SLOWER needs _less_ *HP*, which eats _less_ fuel.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> Thus, going FASTER needs _more_ *HP*, which _eats_ more fuel...conversely, going SLOWER needs _less_ *HP*, which eats _less_ fuel.


Really  I thought if I went faster and just demanded better mileage, it would just happen. I think this Law you mention should be overturned. it is not fair!  Darn republicans


----------



## Socky3076r (Jan 31, 2011)

Check the clamps on your charge pipe that is connected to the turbo charger, the worm gear clamp may have backed off and this will cause a boost leak. Loss of horsepower and fuel economy.


----------



## sedanman (Dec 10, 2010)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...filled up the Cruze LTZ today when it got down to a ¼-tank:
> 
> • *tank*: 288.6 miles at *10.34* gallons = *27.9* mpg <-- "true"
> 
> ...


How do you know the gas station's gauge is accurate? After all there might be an incentive for them to err on the side of more fuel delivered than less. 0.4 gallons would really add up in their bottom line, and no one would notice. For example, you didn't. Even if you did, and pointed it out (or filed a class action lawsuit) they would just either blame the gauge manufacturer and then the gauge manufacturer would have all sorts of explanations as to the difficulties in obtaining an accurate measurement. They'd probably claim it's all well within tolerances. Or if not, that the gauge needs to be cleaned or replaced. Or run under some perfect conditions (temperature, seal with the filler tube neck, power voltage and current fluctuations...etc.)
The bottom line is they'd have a pile of excuses and that's IF you noticed. Or cared. Most don't.

Might be time to try a different gas station brand consistently to see how theirs does before you go blaming the dash gauge. After all I doubt the computer has a hard time measuring how much fuel is going past the injectors. If it did, the emissions would be off by a significant amount.


----------



## Knightslugger (Jan 11, 2011)

it's accurate, because NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), your Local Weights and Measures Division, calibrates the pumps yearly. remember the big sticker that says it's within spec on the pump?

it's not there to be stylish.

Via: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dispenser#The_metrology_of_gasoline

_"In the United States, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) specifies the accuracy of the measurements in Handbook 44. Table 3.30 specifies the accuracy at 0.3% meaning that a 10-US-gallon (37.9 L; 8.3 imp gal) purchase could vary between 9.97 US gal (37.7 L; 8.3 imp gal) and 10.03 US gal (38.0 L; 8.4 imp gal) as to the actual amounts at the delivery temperature of the gasoline."_

*That's plus or minus 9/10ths of a cent on the gallon, there or there abouts.*

The ECU doesn't adjust for fuel temperature, so the actual fuel charge going into the cylinder will vary depending on how cold the fuel is.


----------



## j3rdlevel (Jan 27, 2011)

> ...the "*Laws-of-Physics*" people:
> 
> Aerodynamic *drag* _increases_ as _velocity*-squared*_ (*V^2*)...but, *horsepower* required _increases_ as _velocity*-cubed*_ (*V^3*).
> 
> Thus, going FASTER needs _more_ *HP*, which eats _more_ fuel...conversely, going SLOWER needs _less_ *HP*, which eats _less_ fuel.


Post like this really (really) annoy me. If people were on here arguing that running their vehicles at higher speeds didn't result in increased fuel consumption, this statement would really be a hammer. But I don't think anyone is arguing this here, so it doesn't work. at all. 

My original gripe (see: my original post) was that the estimated mpg numbers for the Cruze (particularly for the city), from my experience, were bullshite. In addition, from my experience, I have found that this is not a uniform occurrence across the spectrum of car companies. I cited my gf's Nissan Rogue as an example of a car that gets BETTER gas mileage than estimated. Thus, the whole "it's not GM, it's the Feds and their faulty test" argument doesn't hold water. If that were the case, then the estimated mpg numbers would skew in the same direction for all car companies. and they don't. 

Thus, bringing in equations and other technical babble doesn't clarify the problem--or support your claim--at all. It just makes you look like a jerk.

Unless there is something here that I'm missing.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

j3rdlevel said:


> Unless there is something here that I'm missing.


May I suggest that 90% of fuel mileage success or failure is the driver. I am reminded of the statement, about a craftsman blaming their tools. This physics-babble just supports that claim. My guess is that we could switch cars, and my mileage results would be the same for me, driving your car or my car. The only variable would be the driver. This is not meant to impugn your driving style, just for you to consider driving style as the biggest factor in poor mileage or good mileage.

Does this help?


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

sedanman said:


> How do you know the gas station's gauge is accurate?


Good point, we don't know how accurate the pumps are. Unless you take a calibrated container and measure it, we all take the pumps accuracy on faith.


----------



## Tear (Jan 21, 2011)

First and foremost there is something extremely dubious about these government authorized tests. It is the same in the US as it is in the EU and Australasia. One region has followed the other in this king-sized fraud of the motoring public.
[FONT=&quot]There are two parts to the European fuel consumption test, an urban and an extra-urban cycle. The cars tested have to be run-in; that means they must have been driven for at least 3,000 km before testing.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]___________________________[/FONT]
*[FONT=&quot]Urban cycle[/FONT]*[FONT=&quot]
The urban test cycle is carried out in a laboratory at an ambient temperature of 20°C to 30°C on a rolling road from a cold start; ie, the engine has not run for several hours. The cycle consists of a series of accelerations, steady-speed driving, decelerating and idling. The maximum speed is 50 km/h, the average speed is 19 km/h and the distance covered is four km. The urban cycle is repeated four times.[/FONT]
*[FONT=&quot]Extra-urban cycle[/FONT]*[FONT=&quot]
This cycle is conducted immediately after the urban cycle, and consists of about half steady-speed driving and the rest accelerations, decelerations and some idling. The maximum speed is 120 km/h, average speed is 63 km/h and the distance covered is seven km.[/FONT]
*[FONT=&quot]Combined fuel consumption figure[/FONT]*[FONT=&quot]
The results of the urban and extra-urban cycles are combined and presented as the final figure. This is arrived at by averaging the two parts of the test and weighting them by the distances covered in each part.[/FONT]
__________________________ 

The US and other Region tests are very similar. However, these tests are conducted by the manufacturers on a test rig and being quite frank, how do Chevrolet test the Cruze at the Daewoo plant in Korea? While the Diesel engines are not sold in the US currently, the so called EU tests reckon that the consumption should be as follows: Urban 7.0Litres/100Km; Extra Urban 4.6Litres/100Km; Combined 5.6Litres/100Km. My combined figure since owning this car is 10.4Litres/100Km. 

It is beyond all reason that any vehicle should use almost twice as much fuel as indicated in these tests!


----------



## jlalill (Nov 1, 2010)

just wait til the Chevy Volt forums start reporting on fuel economy numbers in the real world....winter driving areas will reduce the mpg's ...batteries can't hack the cold...


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

montgom626 said:


> May I suggest that 90% of fuel mileage success or failure is the driver. I am reminded of the statement, about a craftsman blaming their tools. This physics-babble just supports that claim. My guess is that we could switch cars, and my mileage results would be the same for me, driving your car or my car. The only variable would be the driver. This is not meant to impugn your driving style, just for you to consider driving style as the biggest factor in poor mileage or good mileage.
> 
> Does this help?


True story. Driver + City variables (traffic, stop signs, temperature, ETC).


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

iKermit said:


> True story. Driver + City variables (traffic, stop signs, temperature, ETC).


And don't forget to add summer gas versus winter gas.


----------



## SilverCruzer (Nov 30, 2010)

montgom626 said:


> Seriously, what am I missing? Go fast, burn more fuel, go slower burn less fuel.


This is what you are missing and I will state again- The test is done the same way with ALL cars. With other cars we own we can EXCEED the rating. But yet with the SAME drving habbits, we can't even MEET the rating with the Cruze. Same test, same driving habbits, different results with Cruze.


----------



## TSURacing (Jan 1, 2011)

jlalill said:


> just wait til the Chevy Volt forums start reporting on fuel economy numbers in the real world....winter driving areas will reduce the mpg's ...batteries can't hack the cold...


The Volt's battery system can most certainly hack the cold. They have an advanced thermal management system that maintains the battery pack within its optimum operating temperature range regardless of how cold it is outside. For example:

If you park your Volt in your driveway and it is -10 F, and you have the charge cord plugged in, the Volt will keep the battery pack ready by warming and circulating the coolant that flows through the pack.

If you are visiting a friend on this same night and you cannot plug in then when you go to leave in the morning, the ICE will kick on and supply the electricity to drive the car until the battery pack is up to temp. Once the pack is happy, the system will switch back to battery power.

The largest EV range (or mpg) reduction during the winter comes not from the battery not being able to perform in the cold, but from having to heat the cabin. Heartier souls with better gloves can get a better EV range than their soft palmed bretheren (like me) who let the car warm up for 10 minutes and automatically reach for the heated seats the instant they sit down.

When other manufacturers start releasing their air cooled battery systems it will be interesting to see how well those vehicles operate in the cold and if that impacts lifespan of the packs. I think GM has overbuilt the thermal management system in order to err on the side of caution. I am also concerned about a straight air cooled system not being able to keep the battery happy. The best engineering compromise will lie somewhere in between I believe.

OK, Im a little bit over-sensitive about my packs. Sorry :d
I am going to go hug a Volt pack now.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

TSURacing said:


> OK, Im a little bit over-sensitive about my packs. Sorry :d
> I am going to go hug a Volt pack now.


I know you packs are very very big and strong, so we love you man!


----------



## j3rdlevel (Jan 27, 2011)

> This is what you are missing and I will state again- The test is done the same way with ALL cars. With other cars we own we can EXCEED the rating. But yet with the SAME drving habbits, we can't even MEET the rating with the Cruze. Same test, same driving habbits, different results with Cruze.


This is exactly the point that I, too, am trying to get across. Some cars that I've driven have exceeded the estimated mpg (my old Toyota Matrix, for example), some have fallen short (my old Honda Civic) and some, lamentably, have really fallen short (my current Chevy Cruze). Bringing up driving habits, cold/warm weather fuel percentages, and other irrelevant factors does not change this. I'm just glad that someone understands what I am talking about. Reading many of the posts here leads me to believe that the authors have a vested interest in defending GM's image...


----------



## sturtles (Feb 1, 2011)

j3rdlevel said:


> Hello All,
> 
> I just got my Cruze a couple of weeks ago. I purchased it in MI and drove it down to Louisiana. On my trip down, I got around 29-30 mpg (all highway, ~80mph the whole way) and since then, I've gotten around 22mpg (all city driving, with an average speed of around 45-50mph). On my most recent fill-up, I'm now averaging around 18mpg! Is this normal? I know car companies are notorious for exaggerating their mpg claims, but this seems a little egregious. And no, I'm not driving like a maniac. In fact, I have been actively trying to minimize my fuel use (i.e., slowly accelerating, etc.)
> Any insight would be appreciated.
> ...


Well, I'm getting about 18mpgs as well for my last tank. lots of city driving.

My average is about 20-22mpg, rarely 22 though.

Mine's a 1.8petrol, auto.

There's a huge variance with the engine quality imo. GM's not doing a good job on this one.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...hm-m-m-m, that brings up an interesting question: how many *GM*'s are there in a *MoPar*?

• *MoPar* dropped *Plymouth*

• *GM* dropped *Oldsmobile*, *Pontiac*, *Saturn*, *Hummer*, and *Saab*


----------



## sedanman (Dec 10, 2010)

montgom626 said:


> May I suggest that 90% of fuel mileage success or failure is the driver. I am reminded of the statement, about a craftsman blaming their tools. This physics-babble just supports that claim. My guess is that we could switch cars, and my mileage results would be the same for me, driving your car or my car. The only variable would be the driver. This is not meant to impugn your driving style, just for you to consider driving style as the biggest factor in poor mileage or good mileage.
> 
> Does this help?


The more I read about this topic, and the more experience I get trying to get good gas mileage on my Cruze (which btw is getting rated mpgs just fine thank goodness), the more I agree with this. It's the driver more than anything.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

sturtles said:


> There's a huge variance with the engine quality imo. GM's not doing a good job on this one.


And how do you "know" this?


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

SilverCruzer said:


> This is what you are missing and I will state again-


I bet you I can get the rated mileage if I drive your car.


----------



## Tear (Jan 21, 2011)

It appears to me that the old GM adage, "Blame the driver" is seeping into the equation. Whenever my Cruze has been taken into the workshops to investigate high consumption, they've always tried to blame "driving style" as the cause, and they've repeatedly done this in every case I know of throughout Europe. They don't let you accompany them on tests and the standard reply is, "The engine is tuned perfectly, there is nothing wrong with the car". When I asked to be present during the engine test on the Sun Analyser, they told me that I wouldn't understand it! When I told them I would because I just happen to have had a career with engine analysers and hold a B.Sc honours degree they jumped about until they decided, on "Health & Safety" grounds I wasn't allowed in the workshop. When I collected the Cruze a couple of days later, one of the mechanics (the Chevy Specialist???) told me that they could prove the car was achieving a much lower MPG with another driver. Now wait for this one - it's a classic. He turned the engine on and pointed to the driver information display and changed it to the "Average MPG" reading. With a triumphant gesture he said, "There, just 8.2 Litre". I said, "Did you zero it before the trip?" He replied, "No need, it continually updates the average. There is no zeroing". I then zeroed the reading and asked him how he felt! A lot of bumbling about and then he vanished.

Expert, my ass!


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

Tear said:


> It appears to me that the old GM adage, "Blame the driver" is seeping into the equation.


The adage of blame the driver is not exclusive to any one company. Take it to another dealer.I have owned GM products for decades and never has anyone from GM blamed me. Sorry you have been singled out.


----------



## SilverCruzer (Nov 30, 2010)

montgom626 said:


> I bet you I can get the rated mileage if I drive your car.


 And....you're still not getting it.
_I can, and have, achieved the rating myself as well, but with a much more conservative style than needed with other cars_. Please...read my entire post.

The craftsman blaming the tool analogy - If a carpenter buys two hammers, uses them exact same way, but one does not work as claimed but the other one does, do you blame the carpenter for bad use?


----------



## SilverCruzer (Nov 30, 2010)

j3rdlevel said:


> Thus, bringing in equations and other technical babble doesn't clarify the problem--or support your claim--at all. It just makes you look like a jerk.
> 
> Unless there is something here that I'm missing.


 I feel your pain. Either the responders to our comments are not reading our comments, or they just hammer out the same statement over and over regardless. I feel like a 16 yr old being told that driving fast reduces gas mileage. I don't need this forum to tell us that.


----------



## Tear (Jan 21, 2011)

I agree with you SilverCruzer! I'm get increasingly annoyed by people who don't suffer the problem repeating the same old dialogue, for the simple reason they are not affected by it. 

My last car, an Opel Vectra 2Litre diesel (also GM) complied completely with the EU Urban tests - and was even better long distance. The Cruze is nowhere near the stated EU Urban test results and is very little better long distance. Some of these Car Mags that have tested the Cruze merely quote the EU/US figures and don't do a long term test. They drive a few hundred miles, are given plenty of freebies, a big lunch and are whipped up into a euphoria when they just write stuff that they've been told to. It's all going to end up in tears if Chevrolet don't stop blaming customers for their own shortcomings. There are batches coming off the line in Korea which clearly haven't been set up properly, or critical components maybe out of tolerence. This needs a proper investigation, but it's not going to happen with Chevrolet in a constant state of denial!


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

Tear said:


> I agree with you SilverCruzer! I'm get increasingly annoyed by people who


I get increasingly annoyed by people who are "whiners" , who complain all the time, yet can't come up with a solution. BORING!


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

_"...*play* NICE people..."_ or we'll _"...take away your *scissors*..."_


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> _"...*play* NICE people..."_ or we'll _"...take away your *scissors*..."_


Yes, Dad  You should see me when I am not nice.


----------



## FanDamNCSU (Dec 23, 2010)

Tear said:


> . This needs a proper investigation, but it's not going to happen with Chevrolet in a constant state of denial!


I believe you guys are having efficiency issues and it's not your driving habits. However, your statement may not be true. Nobody but GM knows if they are looking into this issue and the only way they will notice the issue is if the affected users bring their cars into the dealers to get the problem recorded. I know one user had the Transmission reflashed again - yes he had the transmission flashed with the TSB and lost efficency then got it reflashed with the same TSB and I believe his gas mileage improved to EPA rated levels. If I was personally affected by this issue I would bring it into the dealer and mention the fact that getting the transmission reflashed again resolved the issue in that one particular case and see if that resolves the issue.

Additionally, I myself am not experiencing this gas efficiency problem as I'm getting roughly 30MPG with mostly Town/City driving. I would also hold of on claims that GM doesn't care as they seem to be releasing fairly frequent TSB's that cover a wide variety of issues that I've not even seen covered on these forums. Therefore, I think that if users are reporting mileage issues, GM would take it rather seriously and look into addressing the issue.


----------



## j3rdlevel (Jan 27, 2011)

> I believe you guys are having efficiency issues and it's not your driving habits. However, your statement may not be true. Nobody but GM knows if they are looking into this issue and the only way they will notice the issue is if the affected users bring their cars into the dealers to get the problem recorded. I know one user had the Transmission reflashed again - yes he had the transmission flashed with the TSB and lost efficency then got it reflashed with the same TSB and I believe his gas mileage improved to EPA rated levels. If I was personally affected by this issue I would bring it into the dealer and mention the fact that getting the transmission reflashed again resolved the issue in that one particular case and see if that resolves the issue.
> 
> Additionally, I myself am not experiencing this gas efficiency problem as I'm getting roughly 30MPG with mostly Town/City driving. I would also hold of on claims that GM doesn't care as they seem to be releasing fairly frequent TSB's that cover a wide variety of issues that I've not even seen covered on these forums. Therefore, I think that if users are reporting mileage issues, GM would take it rather seriously and look into addressing the issue.


Thank you for your well-thought-out, reasoned, and helpful advice. I will do just that and let you (all) know what they say.

Cheers.


----------



## FanDamNCSU (Dec 23, 2010)

j3rdlevel said:


> Thank you for your well-thought-out, reasoned, and helpful advice. I will do just that and let you (all) know what they say.
> 
> Cheers.


Anytime!


----------



## cruze 2011 (Oct 20, 2010)

its fun to sit back here and read all this about gas mileage ...... it seems most people complaining about their gas mileage are in regions where its winter time ..... where has everybody been this issue with gas mileage decreasing in winter time is nothing new its always been this way there are many factors that contribute to this winter blended gas has more alchol in it to keep gas lines from freezing up. tires have more rolling restance when its cold......the car takes longer to reach normal operating temp this used more gas. and driving agressively can really cause lower mileage results.....it will interesting when summer gets here to see what kind of mileage these cruze owners will post i can get the EPA ratings in my cruze and i have nodoubt that seeing 38-40 miles per gallon in the summer months will be the norm........


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

cruze 2011 said:


> it will interesting when summer gets here to see what kind of mileage these cruze owners will post i can get the EPA ratings in my cruze and i have nodoubt that seeing 38-40 miles per gallon in the summer months will be the norm........


Yes, just wait in 3 months. You are so right.


----------



## SilverCruzer (Nov 30, 2010)

cruze 2011 said:


> it will interesting when summer gets here to see what kind of mileage these cruze owners will post i can get the EPA ratings in my cruze and i have nodoubt that seeing 38-40 miles per gallon in the summer months will be the norm........


Keep in mind some of us have been reporting these results since early October. I am still testing my mileage now in the dead of winter, and the differences are not significant from when I first started reporting in October.


----------



## sturtles (Feb 1, 2011)

montgom626 said:


> And how do you "know" this?


This inverted comma thing smells of sarcasm imo, but I will explain anyway

I am an owner of the cruze for more than a year, and have spoken to plenty of cruze owners face to face

For the same engine model and specs, there are reports of wildly varying figures.

One of the primary reason is the route taken. For a cruze travelling in start-stop traffic for about 90% of its total tank milege, it seems to be so much more thirsty compared to one that does 90% highway miles per tank.

From my own *****-footed driving, doing a full tank in city traffic(eg. lots of traffic lights), can get as low as 15.6mpg. On the counter, I can do 32.9mpgs hyper milling. This tallies with some other cruzes who are consumption crazy.

Fro some another cruzes, when doing the same tests, they get 16.8mpg in full city, and 37.6mpgs on the highway run.

Load wise, they are about the same, no excessive sized drivers or huge toolboxes in the back.

Other than engine tolerances, I don't think there's much else to point a finger at. This is akin to 10% differences in NA output, and that is a wide gulf for a modern powerplant


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...hypermile-ing "skills" typically consist of _"tightening/adjusting the *nut* behind the steering wheel"_ more than _anything_ else...but, it also helps to _start_ with an *economical* vehicle to begin with.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

sturtles said:


> This inverted comma thing smells of sarcasm imo, but I will explain anyway


Sorry you think I was being sarcastic. Sounds like a personal issue.

I asked to determine if your opinion was based upon something other than your opinion (which it is) or on "fact" which it was not.

As they say, opinions are like rear ends, we all have one.


----------



## sturtles (Feb 1, 2011)

montgom626 said:


> Sorry you think I was being sarcastic. Sounds like a personal issue.
> 
> I asked to determine if your opinion was based upon something other than your opinion (which it is) or on "fact" which it was not.
> 
> As they say, opinions are like rear ends, we all have one.


Yea, life's been crap enough recently for me to understand such are not worth a blip on the heartbeat.

I love the cruze's looks inside and out; bought it the moment it was available.

Consumption figures were not championed when I got it, so the only complaints I have actually is the "excellent" service with the sole agent. 

Sharp looking and well equipped car for the compact segment. 

Just a great car in short.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

..._aroma de' comma?_


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

sturtles said:


> Just a great car in short.


Agreed, very well done car. The safety is the best in class. Quiet, smooth ride and overall delightful to drive. And, as 6' 2 " tall with very long legs, it fits unlike many other cars. Now that I have discovered manual shifting when cold, I no longer have it hold gears >2,000 rpm while warming up. GM (Lutz?) should be applauded for a job well done.


----------



## former farmer (Jan 10, 2011)

Is it possible that tires and rims may affect our overall MPG? Just trying to figure out if there is a common denominator for those that are not getting the EPA rated MPG. 

I have a 1LT with steel rims and Firestone FR710 P215/60R16 94S M+S. The tires are inflated to 35 PSI. Highway at 55 MPH = 35 to 37 MPG. Highway at 65 MPH = 29 to 31 MPG. 

I am located by Green Bay, WI. So we have to figure in the cold temperatures as well. The above MPG are after the car is up to operating temperature. 

I have noticed that the winds do play a large factor in my MPG as well.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

former farmer said:


> I am located by Green Bay, WI. So we have to figure in the cold temperatures as well. The above MPG are after the car is up to operating temperature.
> 
> I have noticed that the winds do play a large factor in my MPG as well.



You have answered your questions.

1) Mileage drops in cold weather. Longer warm up. and less energy in each gallon of winter gas, increased resistance by snow and ice on the road. Some say 10-20% poorer mileage.
2) wind makes big difference if you are heading into the wind, lower mileage. With a tailwind, better mileage. That is why land speed records require a run in each direction to eliminate wind as a factor.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

*2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco Test Drive*

I just read Popular Mechanics test drive of the cruze eco, they claim to have exceeded the EPA hwy MPG by quite allot. 

"Although the EPA rates the Cruze Eco—with the manual gearbox—at 42-mpg highway, we saw noticeably better. On a highway route from Los Angeles airport to San Diego, we feather-footed the throttle and cruised at 60 mph for 125 miles. At that speed, the Cruze Eco's 1.4-liter revs at a leisurely 1800 rpm, so we knew the fuel economy would impress, but we didn't expect the Prius-like 48.6 mpg the Cruze's computer said we achieved."

2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco Test Drive - Chevy Cruze Eco Review - Popular Mechanics


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

spacedout said:


> I just read Popular Mechanics test drive of the cruze eco, they claim to have exceeded the EPA hwy MPG by quite allot.
> 
> "Although the EPA rates the Cruze Eco—with the manual gearbox—at 42-mpg highway, we saw noticeably better. On a highway route from Los Angeles airport to San Diego,


Warm weather, no snow, relatively flat route. What did we expect?


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

spacedout said:


> I just read Popular Mechanics test drive of the cruze eco, they claim to have exceeded the EPA hwy MPG by quite allot.
> 
> "Although the EPA rates the Cruze Eco—with the manual gearbox—at 42-mpg highway, we saw noticeably better. On a highway route from Los Angeles airport to San Diego, we feather-footed the throttle and cruised at 60 mph for 125 miles. At that speed, the Cruze Eco's 1.4-liter revs at a leisurely 1800 rpm, so we knew the fuel economy would impress, but we didn't expect the Prius-like 48.6 mpg the Cruze's computer said we achieved."
> 
> 2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco Test Drive - Chevy Cruze Eco Review - Popular Mechanics


...and, I must reiterate the fact that they're probably reporting what the *DIC display* said and NOT what the *gas-tank fillup* numbers really were!

...here's an example of what happens when the DIC display is "off" by _small_ amounts; assuming *11.1* gallons of gasoline was _*actually*_ used over *400* miles:

11.1*_1.05_ = 11.7 gal: 400/11.7 = 34.3 MPG <-- too _low!_
11.1*_1.01_ = 11.2 gal: 400/11.2 = 35.7 MPG
11.1**1.00* = *11.1* gal: 400/11.1 = *36.0 MPG* <-- *correct* 
11.1*_0.99_ = 11.0 gal: 400/11.0 = 36.4 MPG
11.1*_0.95_ = 10.5 gal: 400/10.5 = 37.9 MPG
11.1*_0.90_ = 10.0 gal: 400/10.0 = 40.0 MPG <-- too _high!_

...as you can see, s_light_ errors in the calculated fuel consumption (gal) cause the MPG-values to become incorrect.

...and the DIC display seems to be consistently about _5-10% low_, which means its' MPG numbers are always _5-10% too high!_

...my advice mirrors President Reagans' statement: _"...*trust*, but *VERIFY*!" -- _meaning: if you're gonna *trust* what the DIC tells you, first *verify* what the DIC is showing you *is* correct..._before_ you go blindly "believing" it!


----------



## racer114 (Nov 7, 2010)

As for the winter analogy, I live in Texas. It is a nightmare here right now with the cold and ice/snow. But, it was 75 degrees last Saturday. My mileage calcs. have been since Oct. 2010. It wasn't below 50 until December. Then, the temps. were fluctuating like mad, until this week. 

You know what though? I've driven the Cruze through the worst crap I've ever seen this week, and I have to say, it was superb. The Stabilitrack is fantastic.


----------



## Jzb5121 (Feb 6, 2011)

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but the OP said that he drove from michigan to louisiana at 80 mph. There is a break in period for the first 500 miles and you are not supposed to go one steady speed. The seals and gaskets might not be seated right in the engine now which might account for the mpg.


----------



## cruze 2011 (Oct 20, 2010)

it just amazes me people buy a new car and never read the owners manual it says for the first 500 miles to vary your speed i have had many new cars i have never drove a new car 80 miles an hour steady until it had atleast 500 miles on it they say sometimes the way an engine is broke in can affect the performance of the engine


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

Jzb5121 said:


> I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but the OP said that he drove from Michigan to Louisiana at 80 mph. There is a break in period for the first 500 miles and you are not supposed to go one steady speed.


You are correct. I assumed it had already had it break in period?


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...my thoughts were: _"...ah, it's a little LATE to be worrying about *break-in* period *now*..."_


----------



## SilverCruzer (Nov 30, 2010)

former farmer said:


> I have noticed that the winds do play a large factor in my MPG as well.


 Got that right. In the morning I drive 45 miles east, and evening I drive 45 miles west into the wind. With all other factors removed, My "going into work" miles are always better.


----------



## SilverCruzer (Nov 30, 2010)

montgom626 said:


> Warm weather, no snow, relatively flat route. What did we expect?


I have driven that route 50+ times. Its not at all flat. Warm, yes.
The specs the gave at driving 60 mph helped I am sure as well.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...to get an idea of _"...which way does the wind blow?..."_ look at your nearest *airport*, because the 'longest' runway is always oriented towards the "prevailing wind direction."

...down here in the southwest, the winds are typically out of the NNW or SSE so the runways are typically pointing NNW to SSE, with a shorter "cross" runway for those rare times when the wind is coming from the NNE (or SSW).


----------



## LVCHEVYGUY (Feb 11, 2011)

I'm 50 plus, don't bomb the throttle and cant get better than 22mpg in city, it is pitifull. Plus poor throttle response from a coast. My 6 cyl malibu get 25-26 city and 36 hi way (450 mile trip to Tucson, both ways). I have 1,600 miles on car.


----------



## LVCHEVYGUY (Feb 11, 2011)

I baby the gas pedal and still cant get above 22-23, very dissapointing. My 6cyl Malibu gets 25-26 city, 36 hi way.


----------



## cruze 2011 (Oct 20, 2010)

you know that big sticker that was on the window of you car when you bought it that had the mileage ratings for highway and city did you happen to read it ???????? the 1.8 engine is rated for 22 city so what is the problem its getting what it was rated to get! 
lol


----------



## LVCHEVYGUY (Feb 11, 2011)

montgom626 said:


> 80 mph and 36 MPG???? Can anything to that? Can a motorcycle? NOT


Actually my malibu 2004 6cyl did 36mpg on 450 mile trip both ways, no BS.


----------



## Flag City Cruzer (Feb 12, 2011)

*Mpg*

I agree with your MPG exactly. I feel the same way, disappointed.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Not a Cruze but I thought I would share.

My Winter MPG has alway been pretty poor on my 2004 cavalier(2.2ecotec 4speed auto), I usually get 21mpg average in the winter with 75% city driving. If I drive mostly hwy at 65mph I get 28MPG winter. (summer is 28city/34hwy, Average). 

For the last few weeks we have had some extra cold weather-10 or more at night & I only drove my car twice at hwy speeds for 10 miles or so. That Means 90%+ of my driving was in town, being warmed up or the car being driven cold. I checked my mileage at fill up, I got 13.6MPG. 

Thinking there must be something wrong with my car I proceeded to put a 100mile round trip on on some curvy hilly backroads(Plus 10-15miles of in town driving at 25mph). My speed was between 40-65mph the whole time, averaging 45-55mph. When I filled backup I got 34.4mpg. (in the summer I get 36-38mpg on same route)
MY DRIVING ROUTE - Google Maps

I was glad to see there was nothing wrong with my car but got to thinking about my driving style the last few weeks. Even though I wouldn't say I was flooring my car I was hitting 2500-3000rpm sometimes between shifts. The next fill up I made it a point to try & drive under 2500rpm all the time, get the car to shift around 2100rpm.


----------



## itsbmw (Feb 5, 2011)

I've been 100% city since I got the car home.. Average is 18mpg :\ but my route to school is annoying, we hit every light. No matter what. Slow and quick takeoffs dont seem to be effecting my numbers, this weekend i will be doing freeway driving, will report back then.


----------



## Mahty (Nov 23, 2010)

I baby my 2Lt and I'm careful to check mileage and fuel used etc. and I find the Information DIC and my MPG's match up pretty close mostly city winter driving with many warm ups 24 mpg's i'm a retired trucker so i'm not a novice.


----------



## Jewel Red 5 (Feb 5, 2011)

I have a LTZ 1.4 turbo auto with 1300 miles bought it on 1/27/11 MPG is 25 at best, 95% highway at 70 MPH to 80MPH this car shuold be getting more, dealer said it needs a break in time 3000 to 5000 miles is this true. or is it BS just to get me out the door for now.


----------



## LSglock89 (Feb 5, 2011)

Jewel Red 5 said:


> I have a LTZ 1.4 turbo auto with 1300 miles bought it on 1/27/11 MPG is 25 at best, 95% highway at 70 MPH to 80MPH this car shuold be getting more, dealer said it needs a break in time 3000 to 5000 miles is this true. or is it BS just to get me out the door for now.


Same engine/tranny here..73-80mph on my last highway trip yielded 31.5mpg and I have 5k miles on mine.


----------



## DarylB (Feb 3, 2011)

Jewel Red 5 said:


> I have a LTZ 1.4 turbo auto with 1300 miles bought it on 1/27/11 MPG is 25 at best, 95% highway at 70 MPH to 80MPH this car shuold be getting more, dealer said it needs a break in time 3000 to 5000 miles is this true. or is it BS just to get me out the door for now.


Slow down. I've got an ECO and I lose 4-5mpg going 75-80 vs 65-70.


----------



## trol (Dec 4, 2010)

I hit 5000 on my 2LT and swear I'm getting about 2 mpg more now.

Jewel, have you tried resetting our mpg gauge while at a steady highway speed and see what it is getting?


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

Ouch I'm getting 34mpg highway in my Civic at around 70mph. Sounds like a few people should wait until the break in is finished to judge their mpg.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...no, the factories are not exaggerating their data (it's EPA test requirements), we're just not driving anywhere near what the EPA tests are simulating!
> 
> ...go to this EPA *website* and look at their *Highway* and *High Speed* test cycles, most average only 48 mph, and seldom exceed 60 mph...except for a _very_ short period at _"...up to 80 mph..."_
> 
> ...when almost all of the tests 'average' _only_ 48 mph, that should tell you something.





SilverCruzer said:


> Not quite. Chevy told EPA the numbers (according to standard criteria), its up to EPA to verify which they do only about 20% of the time. The EPA website explains this.





montgom626 said:


> The FEDS design and mandate the test. The manufacturers are required to use the FED test and the FED numbers. The manufacturers are not colluding with anyone. The manufacturers are forced to use the crummy FED test.


Sorry I'm late to this thread since I don't own a Cruze... For people who might be underwhelmed by their mileage vs. EPA numbers, besides the above info (esp. on the EPA website), this might be insightful too.

How Vehicles Are Tested
The Truth About EPA City / Highway MPG Estimates - Feature - Auto Reviews - Car and Driver <-- IMHO, *this was a great article*.

Hint: They don't drive on a real road, but rather a dyno (rollers). They don't measure actual fuel use, but rather tailpipe emissions. The average speed of the fastest portions of the test is ~48 mph and the only portions begun w/a cold engine are 31.2 minutes long. Short drives, cold weather and cold engines yield poor mileage.

Since it's obviously a colder time of the year these might also help:
Why does mileage drop in winter? — Autoblog Green 
Cold Weather Vehicle Fuel Mileage – Why Winter Fuel Economy Drops – Fuel Mileage Drop in Vehicles
Car Talk
Why does gas mileage drop in winter? | StarTribune.com

FWIW, this is what Consumer Reports got w/the Cruze on their tests.
2011 LS sedan, 1.8-liter Four, 6-speed automatic: 17 city/36 highway, 26 overall, 34 for 150-mile trip
2011 1LT sedan, 1.4-liter Four turbo, 6-speed automatic: 17 city/36 highway, 26 overall, 35 for 150-mile trip

You can see how this stacks up vs. other cars on CR's tests at:
Best & worst cars review, fuel-efficient vehicles
Best & worst cars review, best city/highway mpg
Most fuel-efficient cars

For those driving fast, http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/09/tested-speed-vs-fuel-economy.html might interest you too. Unfortunately, there's no Cruze in the list.

If you don't have the EPA mileage figures handy, you can always look them up at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm.


----------



## Zenman (Feb 13, 2011)

"FWIW, this is what Consumer Reports got w/the Cruze on their tests.
2011 LS sedan, 1.8-liter Four, 6-speed automatic: 17 city/36 highway, 26 overall, 34 for 150-mile trip
2011 1LT sedan, 1.4-liter Four turbo, 6-speed automatic: 17 city/36 highway, 26 overall, 35 for 150-mile trip"

Wow, 17 mpg in the city? Ouch. I don't think I've read anywhere that people are getting that low. Those consumer reports drivers must not be holding back with the acceleration. With my luck, if I get a cruze that's what kind of mileage I'll get. But I'm in hilly San Francisco. I'm expecting 19 mpg. (That's 5 mpg under the EPA. That's what happened with my 2008 jeep patriot, the EPA said 21 in the city, I get 16) If I get less than 19, I'll be quite disappointed.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

Zenman said:


> "FWIW, this is what Consumer Reports got w/the Cruze on their tests.
> 2011 LS sedan, 1.8-liter Four, 6-speed automatic: 17 city/36 highway, 26 overall, 34 for 150-mile trip
> 2011 1LT sedan, 1.4-liter Four turbo, 6-speed automatic: 17 city/36 highway, 26 overall, 35 for 150-mile trip"
> 
> Wow, 17 mpg in the city? Ouch. I don't think I've read anywhere that people are getting that low. Those consumer reports drivers must not be holding back with the acceleration.


From the above links, you can see that many other non-hybrid economy cars got relatively poor mileage in CR's city tests. Even a Honda Civic EX auto got only 18 city on their tests.

The last page of http://www.consumersunion.org/Oct_CR_Fuel_Economy.pdf is the most detail I've seen CR publish on their mpg tests. Keep in mind that this was written in 2005 and thus when they talk about the government's tests, it was before the changes that began with model year 2008 which brought down everyone's numbers.

FWIW, you can see the got this on a 3rd gen (2010 or 2011) Prius:
*32 city*/55 highway, 44 overall, 53 for 150-mile trip
vs. 
EPA's *51 city*/48 highway, 50 combined

IMHO, people should educate themselves on the EPA tests, look more at the combined mileage or city numbers (if their driving is mostly city), and look at CR's results too.

If you want good city mileage, you're going to have to go hybrid... (FWIW, I own an 06 Prius.)


----------



## Seabee (Mar 8, 2011)

So should I not be buying a Cruze this weekend then or?!


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

(I don't own a Cruze and my intent is not to be here to troll or pick fights.)


Seabee said:


> So should I not be buying a Cruze this weekend then or?!


I don't know what your criteria are but I saw in one of your earlier threads you stated you could barely afford this car as it is.

If money is tight, consider a 2-3 year old economy car w/decent or better mileage and a good reliability record (you can check Consumer Reports... yes yes, I bet some here will slam them).

You can see my earlier links for other cars w/better gas mileage, if that's important to you. If you have some mileage expectations based on EPA ratings, read my earlier posts.

If you have lots of short city drives, w/lots of idling, stop and go, esp. in cold weather, you _will_ not get "good" mileage in any car and it'll likely be closer to CR's city numbers.

From Car Model Review - Consumer Reports (you'll need a subscription). They gave it:


> Highs: Ride, quietness, agility, solid feel, crash-test results, roomy cockpit.
> Lows: So-so fuel economy, rear-seat room, no power mirrors.
> ...
> CR Model Summary
> New for 2011, the Cruze replaced, and greatly improved on, the Cobalt as Chevrolet's mainstream small car. It feels solid and substantial, handles nicely, and has a firm but steady and controlled ride. Two four-cylinder engines are offered: a base 1.8-liter and an up-level turbocharged 1.4-liter. The latter has the edge in power delivery and quietness. Both posted a rather unimpressive 26 mpg. The well-finished cabin feels spacious up front, even for tall drivers, but it's cramped in the rear. Noise levels are moderate, which is fairly good for this class. Some desirable options, like cruise control and power mirrors, are unavailable with the base 1.8-liter engine. Crash-test results are impressive.


They have no reliability data yet so they don't recommend/disrecommend it, yet. Take the above for what it's worth. There are some who think their car reviews are of no value. 

They did not test Eco versions and only tested the two trims I stated earlier.

Another data point: http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/03/big-list-of-fuel-economy-february-2011.html. Do note that Edmunds doesn't seem to drive their cars very well for economy. Their numbers weren't so great when they had a 2nd gen Insight and 2nd gen Prius in their long term fleet.


----------



## Seabee (Mar 8, 2011)

^ Umm yeah, well I was speaking to people who actually own a Cruze and could give me advice based on *actual* experience. As far as me stating that I can barely afford one, I still *can *afford one and that's why I didn't waste these good peoples time with an empty question. Not trying to slam you but I didn't ask for input on other car alternatives, I was inquiring about this car. Hence the reason I am on this site...


----------



## cruze 2011 (Oct 20, 2010)

there is no explaining why people on this forum are complaing about their mileage LOL they are driving 70-80 miles per hour , its winter time . winter blended gas . as the owner of a cruze 1.4 turbo i can tell you slowing down and warmer weather makes a 5-7 miles per gallong diff. maybe this is the first car they have owned that shows the actual mileage ,but winter time does affect mileage of any auto being driven . my car rolled over 5000 miles and i have noticed the mileage is better too,its also been near 50 degrees here for several days and ive really noticed the mileage has jumped up too .so the cruze is very capable of getting better than the EPA ratings ive done it .


----------



## SilverCruzer (Nov 30, 2010)

cruze 2011 said:


> there is no explaining why people on this forum are complaing about their mileage LOL they are driving 70-80 miles per hour , its winter time . winter blended gas ...


 Cruze 2011 - With the 100+ messages about gas economy, its hard to get to see all that is being brought up on this.
That being said, a good core of us have a legitimate complaint as follows: With other vehicles we own, we can easily _exceed_ the hwy EPA rating with our conservative driving style. However, with our Cruze, _using the same conservative driving style_, we are NOT even _meeting_ the EPA hwy rating. The variable of driving style is taken out, and all that is left is the car's claimed efficiency. Some of us own 4 cyl midsize sedans with 2.4 liter engines that get better milage than our 1.4 ltr Cruze. I have been testing mine since Ocotober when the weather was warm.
Now for some good news: I hit 5,000 miles in the dead of winter, and I am now at 8K+. This morning the temp was 48 degrees, and I was noticing my indicated average mileage after 30 minutes of driving around 68-71 mph was around 40 mpg. That's excellent in my opinion. Hopefully there is something to this break in thing.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

Just because the weather was warm in October in your area doesn't mean that winter gas shipments were not still making it to your local pumps. September 15th is usually the date when RVP values begin to change. Give it till the late spring and see how it goes.


----------



## Targus (Jan 2, 2011)

Read my this message in summer again.
Summer MPG will not be different than winter, maybe more.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

*tires, tire pressure, alignment, break in, weather, more info,*



SilverCruzer said:


> Cruze 2011 - With the 100+ messages about gas economy, its hard to get to see all that is being brought up on this.
> That being said, a good core of us have a legitimate complaint as follows: With other vehicles we own, we can easily _exceed_ the hwy EPA rating with our conservative driving style. However, with our Cruze, _using the same conservative driving style_, we are NOT even _meeting_ the EPA hwy rating. The variable of driving style is taken out, and all that is left is the car's claimed efficiency. Some of us own 4 cyl midsize sedans with 2.4 liter engines that get better milage than our 1.4 ltr Cruze. I have been testing mine since Ocotober when the weather was warm.
> Now for some good news: I hit 5,000 miles in the dead of winter, and I am now at 8K+. This morning the temp was 48 degrees, and I was noticing my indicated average mileage after 30 minutes of driving around 68-71 mph was around 40 mpg. That's excellent in my opinion. Hopefully there is something to this break in thing.


Besides the break in period, speeds, trip length, type of commute, cold weather (which likely has a larger impact that winter blend gas), extra rolling friction from wet or snowy roads, I noticed from searching this thread for words like inflation, pressure, tires and alignment, there seems to be little to no discussion of that.

Some folks w/"poor" mileage may have underinflated tires and those w/"good" mileage might have overinflated tires (my 02 Maxima was given to me w/tires inflated way beyond sidewall max, my guess is that it was to prevent flat spots when sitting on the lot.) Some of the "poor" mileage vehicles might have bad alignment. 

Question: Do Cruzes ship with more than one model and size of tires? If so, one model could have higher rolling friction than others. Larger tires will negatively impact fuel economy as well. The guy at post 90 reports having Firestone FR710 P215/60R16 94S which is also what CR had on their 2 test cars.

I got so tired on Priuschat of people complaining of "poor" mileage (e.g. 35 mpg) w/scant or no details and having to ask the same questions over and over that I created a questionnaire. Usually those "poor" mileage folks have one of the following: cold weather, improper driving habits, very short city drives, unfamiliar w/some of the Prius quirks, underinflated tires (sometimes the tires on used Priuses have been changed to high rolling resistance ones), overfilled oil, are "warming up" their cars after starting, and lack of familiarity w/the EPA test (which set unreasonable expectations compared to the conditions of their commute). 

While I'm not suggesting people hypermile, Beating the EPA - The Why’s and How to Hypermile - CleanMPG Forums is another good primer on the EPA tests and FE saving techniques.

I suspect that many of you will see your mileage improve after break in and once the weather warms up.


----------



## Minibush (Mar 10, 2011)

Just got my Cruze LTZ. Drove to visit Mom, 330 miles round trip. Car has 800 miles on it now. I got 27 mpg on the way to Mom's, but started with some errands around town, and then drove 70 mph on the interstate against a stiff wind. But on the way back, I got 42 mpg!!! Was driving 60 mph on state roads.


----------



## SilverCruzer (Nov 30, 2010)

cwerdna said:


> Some folks w/"poor" mileage may have underinflated tires and those w/"good" mileage might have overinflated tires
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The car is new, so I would assume the tire condition is good. I regularly check the tire pressure monitor and things are correct.

Regarding your paragraph about being tired of complaints and wanting to know all the variables - If you read my post again, I am essentially putting two different cars through the SAME SET OF VARIABLES (conservative driving, same weather, max speed of 70 MPH). However, one car exceeds the EPA, and the other (Cruze) doesn't even meet the EPA. I guess I can't stress this enough.

And yes, as mentioned, the mileage is improving with the warm up.


----------



## Blackbelt Jones (Mar 3, 2011)

Zenman said:


> Wow, 17 mpg in the city? Ouch. I don't think I've read anywhere that people are getting that low. Those consumer reports drivers must not be holding back with the acceleration. With my luck, if I get a cruze that's what kind of mileage I'll get. But I'm in hilly San Francisco. I'm expecting 19 mpg. (That's 5 mpg under the EPA. That's what happened with my 2008 jeep patriot, the EPA said 21 in the city, I get 16) If I get less than 19, I'll be quite disappointed.


Our Cruze LS has 10,500 miles on it (bought it used... it was a GM owned car in perfect condition and we got it for a song); we drive it in the city of Chicago 99% of the time... LOADS of start stop traffic here (seriously, we hit a traffic light every two blocks), but the city is flat as a pancake. We are getting 20 MPG so far; the temps have swung between the high 30s to the low 40s, so it's still being driven in cold weather (though that should change soon). Tire pressure is around 35. We fill up @ a cheapo Citgo station up the block, so just using 87 gas w/ 10% ethonal.


----------



## oolowrideoo (Mar 2, 2011)

For what it's worth... I just did a trip from Grand Rapids to Indianapolis and back in my Eco M6 and was getting 40-60mpg on the highway. My lifetime average for the car is 38mpg.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

^Which one is it 40 or 60? That's a large variance


----------



## oolowrideoo (Mar 2, 2011)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> ^Which one is it 40 or 60? That's a large variance


Like I said... It was between 40 and 60 (instantaneous), mostly dependent on grade.


----------



## kevin1214 (Feb 26, 2011)

1.8L here and i get about 22-25mpg ... but before i used to get 18 mpg... because i had almost 60 pounds of audio equipment and 2 amps for our small batteries... i took it all out... dont complain about gas mileage... i pay almost 80 dollars a fill up ... i'm in korea its not gallons but liters... at least you guys have cheap gas. Trust me i wish i was in california with great weather paying only 20-30 dollars to fill up. but hey... at least i can go as FAST as i can and the only thing stopping me in a camera... which i can just slow down and after i pass it i can just GUN IT again. There aren't any cops here and if u get a ticket its only 50 bucks . ^_^ no court date nothing. Just letting you know ... there is someone out there that pays spends more $$$ commuting than you do. <--- me


----------



## SunnyinHollister (Mar 17, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> Besides the break in period, speeds, trip length, type of commute, cold weather (which likely has a larger impact that winter blend gas), extra rolling friction from wet or snowy roads, I noticed from searching this thread for words like inflation, pressure, tires and alignment, there seems to be little to no discussion of that.
> 
> Some folks w/"poor" mileage may have underinflated tires and those w/"good" mileage might have overinflated tires (my 02 Maxima was given to me w/tires inflated way beyond sidewall max, my guess is that it was to prevent flat spots when sitting on the lot.) Some of the "poor" mileage vehicles might have bad alignment.
> 
> ...


I guess I'm another "complainer" who is not getting near what the EPA sticker is. My tires are inflated to 35 psig using a digital tire pressure gauge. Because of my commute, I can drive slower without the fear of being run off the road, so I go 62 mph. My commute is 54 miles one way with only three miles being city driving. Total elevation change during that commute is 400 feet. I do not have long warm up periods - I start driving in less than a minute of starting the car - conservatively. The temperatures in this part of California are not terribly cold at 50 - 75 degrees. My car has over six thousand miles so there is not a lot of break in left. I do not have alignment issues. My engine is not over filled with oil. And finally I'm not sure if we have winter blended gas in this part of California. The fuel economy that I'm getting with over 90% highway driving is hand calculated at ~30mpg. By the way my Prius with the same commute was ~47 mpg.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...the A6-model Cruzes do not seem to be achieving their EPA numbers to the degree and ease to which the M6-models (_both_ 1.8L and 1.4LT) seem to be able to.

...even with its "dual-clutches" the 6T40 A6 tranny just isn't as efficient as the M6 tranny...not to mention their _totally different_ gear ratio sets.


----------



## jakkaroo (Feb 12, 2011)

kevin1214 said:


> 1.8L here and i get about 22-25mpg ... but before i used to get 18 mpg... because i had almost 60 pounds of audio equipment and 2 amps for our small batteries... i took it all out... dont complain about gas mileage... i pay almost 80 dollars a fill up ... i'm in korea its not gallons but liters... at least you guys have cheap gas. Trust me i wish i was in california with great weather paying only 20-30 dollars to fill up. but hey... at least i can go as FAST as i can and the only thing stopping me in a camera... which i can just slow down and after i pass it i can just GUN IT again. There aren't any cops here and if u get a ticket its only 50 bucks . ^_^ no court date nothing. Just letting you know ... there is someone out there that pays spends more $$$ commuting than you do. <--- me


hahah your funny thinkin itll only cost you 20 bucks to fill up its more like 50 for 87 octane which yea its not bad at all but no wheres near 20 bucks to fill up and really no cops in korea


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...cost of gasoline (petrol) is often vastly different in *foreign* countries--sometimes it's _subsidized_ to the hilt, other times it's _taxed_ to the hilt.


----------



## montgom626 (Jan 16, 2011)

SunnyinHollister said:


> I guess I'm another "complainer" who is not getting near what the EPA sticker is. The fuel economy that I'm getting with over 90% highway driving is hand calculated at ~30mpg. By the way my Prius with the same commute was ~47 mpg.


Cripes! Flat ground or hills?


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

kevin1214 said:


> Trust me i wish i was in california with great weather paying only 20-30 dollars to fill up





jakkaroo said:


> hahah your funny thinkin itll only cost you 20 bucks to fill up its more like 50 for 87 octane which yea its not bad at all but no wheres near 20 bucks to fill up and really no cops in korea


Kevin1214 might be in for a shocker as to what California gas prices are now. See AAA Fuel Gauge Report.


70AARCUDA said:


> ...cost of gasoline (petrol) is often vastly different in *foreign* countries--sometimes it's _subsidized_ to the hilt, other times it's _taxed_ to the hilt.


Yep. If one is curious, http://www.eia.gov/emeu/international/Gas1.xls has prices for some select countries. In the Netherlands, on 3/14, the average price was $8.73/gal.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

SilverCruzer said:


> The car is new, so I would assume the tire condition is good. I regularly check the tire pressure monitor and things are correct.
> 
> Regarding your paragraph about being tired of complaints and wanting to know all the variables - If you read my post again, I am essentially putting two different cars through the SAME SET OF VARIABLES (conservative driving, same weather, max speed of 70 MPH). However, one car exceeds the EPA, and the other (Cruze) doesn't even meet the EPA. I guess I can't stress this enough.


My main point was that I was so tired of asking questions on Priuschat (many times the same), going back and forth w/people, sometimes asking questions in vain because the complainers don't return, etc. that I created a questionnaire.

Some people just had unreasonable expectations and just didn't understand what went into the EPA test. For example, if they had 5 long minute city drives... there's no way in **** a 2nd gen (04-09) Prius will get 48 mpg (what the EPA city # became starting model year 2008, after EPA test changes, let alone _60 mpg_ city prior to that). Or, we'd discovered their tires were way underinflated, their tires were changed to some that had very high rolling resistance, their oil was overfilled, they were driving their car wrong for mileage (e.g. using B mode, trying accelerate only using EV, etc.). 

It might be a good idea to create a similar questionnaire here to point people to, when having mileage complaints, as a starting point. It would reduce the back and forth, time wasted parsing a post (which likely won't have enough details), going back and forth, etc. At least understand the driver's commute, trip lengths, whether they changed their tires and car condition. People w/short city drives will get crappy mileage, period. 

In looking at 2011 Chevy Cruze Photos | Chevrolet, I see there are 16", 17", and 18" wheels choices. Are there multiple tire models standard on a Cruze depending on "luck of the draw" and/or wheel size? If all else is equal, larger wheels _should_ incur a slight mileage penalty. It does on the 2nd gen and 3rd gen Prius.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

*other factors*

(Sorry, passed the timeout to edit my own message.)
Besides different tire models having different amounts of rolling resistance, another factor just occurred to me about why initial mileage can be low and then improves beyond the break in of the rest of the car. New tires will yield lower apparent mileage than worn ones of the same make, model and size. See Tire Tech Information - Tire Rolling Resistance Part 3: Changes to Expect When Switching from Worn-Out to New Tires. 

This can be further magnified when the absolute mileage is relatively high. E.g.: 10% drop from 40 mpg is a drop of 4 mpg. Someone w/a 20 mpg vehicle might not notice a 10% drop of 2 mpg.


----------



## cruze 2011 (Oct 20, 2010)

i have the 1.4 turbo/auto with the 17 inch contiental low rolling resistance tires maybe this is why i have no probelms achieving the EPA ratings. i aslo drive to get the best mileage when possible usully the speed limit i can tell you driving 65-80 you will not get the ratings .gasoline is another issue winter blends tend to lower mileage . i have always used shell gasoline 87 octane .


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

cwerdna said:


> Besides different tire models having different amounts of rolling resistance, another factor just occurred to me about why *initial mileage can be low and then improves beyond the break in of the rest of the car*. New tires will yield lower apparent mileage than worn ones of the same make, model and size.


...exactly, most people aren't aware that a 'brand new' tire has _much_ _more_ *rolling resistance (rr) *than a 'worn' _nearly bald_ tire due to *hystersis*.

...luckily, that 'high' rolling resistance diminishes alot after the tire becomes broken-in, somewhere between 500-1,500 miles depending upon brand.

...any "TIRE" people out there who can jump in here with some more facts & information?


----------



## TGreyCruze (Feb 21, 2011)

after putting a few hundred miles on the cruze, ive noticed i can easily get 24.5-25.2+MPG city if i do the tap shift on the tranny. Funny thing is when my wife drives it, it goes down to 22.5-22.7 and thats because she doesnt use the tap shift. She does drive like a granny so id figure she can at least get 23.5 out of it but thats not the case.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

*tire, wheel sizes, EPA certification, mileage differences*

To add some (unfortunately, non-Cruze) data points about the mileage hit vs. wheel size...

At Most fuel-efficient cars, you can see the results of the 2nd gen (04-09 era) Prius base (which was tested earlier) vs. the touring model (which came later). The touring came only w/16" wheels and different tires (Bridgestone Turanza EL400-02 195/55R16 per Tire Rack) vs. all non-tourings that came w/15" wheels and Goodyear Integrity 185/65R15. The touring gets slightly lower mileage.

For the 3rd gen Prius (2010+), there's only a single EPA rating (51/48, 50 combined). You can see that at Toyota Vehicles : Toyota Announces Prices for 2010 Prius / Toyota, there's no way to get a model V (only model w/17" wheels instead of 15") with solar roof package. We were wondering why and we got an answer at 2010 Prius Option Packages at NAIAS - Page 5 - PriusChat Forums. I suspect the extra weight and fuel economy impact (of the combo not offered) they cite would've meant possibly having to downgrade the EPA rating of all 3rd gen Priuses (and not hitting the magical 50 mpg) or needing 2 different ratings depending on wheel size/equipment level.

17" wheels - effect on mpg ? - Page 2 - PriusChat Forums shows a UK spec sheet where the 17 inch wheel version incurs about a ~1-2 miles per Imperial (larger than US) gallon hit. 17" wheels - effect on mpg ? - PriusChat Forums notes 


> Japanese drivers with 17" wheels are seeing approx 5% worse mileage than with 15".
> We suspect it is caused by wider tire tread size, heavier weight and higher rolling resistance.
> Our 15" is Bridgestone ECOPIA EP25 LRR tire.


The Truth About EPA City / Highway MPG Estimates - Feature - Car and Driver says


> For emissions purposes, cars are certified in groups arranged by similar characteristics (engine, transmission, etc.), and the model or trim level with the highest emissions must be tested by the automaker. There’s no wiggle room. This version is generally the heaviest or has the most aerodynamic drag, and that vehicle is tested in any driver-selectable mode, such as a transmission sport mode, that would worsen emissions. But for fuel-economy purposes, many things are up for discussion; it’s the automaker’s task to convince the EPA how the cars are likely to be driven in consumers’ hands.


If there isn't a definitive list on Cruzetalk of all the tire make, models and sizes they come equipped with, it'd be interesting to start a thread to compile the data. 

It'd be also interesting to see if there's a correlation w/any of these:
- people w/larger tires 
- certain tire models 
- tires identified w/having higher rolling resistance 
- inability to meet EPA highway numbers


----------



## SunnyinHollister (Mar 17, 2011)

montgom626 said:


> Cripes! Flat ground or hills?


I have three hills in a span of four miles not counting over/under passes and the highest hill is 400 feet. I live in Hollister which has an elevation of 350 feet and drive to San Jose by the airport which has an elevation of 62 feet. So yes, it's a pretty flat drive and I should be able to achieve better fuel economy. I've even tried different brands and grades of gas, not using the defrost and floor heat for fear of running the AC compressor, and only running the seat heater when absolutely needed and even then for only a few minutes. 

30 mpg is about as good as it gets with this vehicle and that's a far cry from the window sticker. Our 2008 Prius had an EPA rating of 48 city and 45 highway. On this type of commute it achieved 47 mpg. Our 2005.5 Jetta diesel had an EPA estimate of 36/41 and we were able to get 44 mpg on highway trips in Texas heat with the AC on. Overall average was above 40 mpg. And this was before the EPA test was revised.

I've got to say I'm very disappointed with the car because of this. I bought the car for a commute vehicle and a difference of ~17% on the revised EPA test is simply unacceptable. A difference in tires does not explain the large discrepancy either. It’s not the tires, it’s not the gas, it’s not the driver, it’s not break in, it’s the vehicle design and the gaming of the EPA test to garner sales.

Simply put, if I knew in advance the car would not even come close to the EPA estimates I would have looked elsewhere for a commute vehicle. It’s a nice car with a lot of features, but does not meet my needs as a commute vehicle.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...wife has gotten *32.7* and *32.6* MPG at 65 MPH on our LTZ twice now on her trips from LA back down to Yuma, AZ. Both times with A/C...so, maybe there's hope for better MPG in the future (  )...or, maybe not (  )


----------



## Spyder (Dec 26, 2010)

Our Cruze (2LT) has been getting 27 MPG with everyday driving and the other day I took a long trip and was able to easily achieve a little over 36 MPG. What I do see is that what has been said about driving over 65 MPH is true, mileage will suffer a bit but its not that bad in ours as we still get better than 30 MPG up about 75 MPH.


----------



## booradley (Dec 20, 2010)

Good for you guys and gals who get great MPG, I get 20 MPG and the only happy person with that are the folks at OPEC. I am disappointed


----------



## elwood58 (Feb 2, 2011)

I just returned from a quick trip from Orange County to Las Vegas.

The trip up there was via Interstate most of the way, although there are some serious hill climbs along the route. Trip there was 270 Miles and I averaged 32.9 mpg. I keep my speed between 70-75.

The trip back was via Lake Elsinore California, with the last 35 miles being over the Ortega Highway, which is a 2 lane trip over the mountain to the coast. Total mileage was 307, and I averaged 35.2 mpg.

So far, I am fairly happy.

PS - started the trip with 2104 miles on the Odo.


----------

