# ECO 6MT vs LT 6MT



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Once my car broke in a little bit, 38-44 MPG highway (I don't drive slow - usually around 70-75 mph as 70 is the speed limit once you leave the city.); always over 30 around-town. It's not as good as the ECO owners reporting into the 45-50 range, but I don't mind - it means I don't have to shift gears on the highway to change lanes and get moving. I do mostly city driving with short highway sprints, and have never done a straight highway tank in the time I've owned the car, so that brings my averages down on Fuelly (plus I've been too lazy to update it).

I would still take the LT if I had to do it again. I don't like the ECO wheels or gearing.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Hey there, welcome to CruzeTalk!

Sounds like either Cruze will more than pay for itself with the gas savings. I personally have the Eco 6MT, so while my experience may not be of great interest, I hope that it may help you make your decision. 

The Cruze real-world fuel economy is significantly higher than what the EPA rating is. Without using A/C, I regularly average 41-45mpg with a 75% city, 25% highway driving split, at around 30mph average speed for that tank of gas. On 100% highway driving at 60-65mph, I average 50-55mpg. These numbers are all calculated at the pump. The weight reduction and triple overdrive gearing on the Eco will notably improve your fuel economy over the 1LT, and the aerodynamic improvements will also help at higher speeds (above 50mph).

You should determine how long it would take you to start saving money over the price increase with the Eco over the 1LT. 

It is worth noting that the Eco has a few nice cosmetic upgrades, such as forged alloy 17" wheels, a lip spoiler, and a 0.5" lowered ride height, among many other non-cosmetic upgrades.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I've actually found my DIC to be fairly accurate - usually within 1 mpg. 


Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

At 80 miles a day for commuting, I'd definitely go with the ECO MT, especially if your commute is on highways. Be forewarned the ECO MT doesn't have rear cupholders or a spare tire, however.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

I own a 1LT automatic, but if I was buying a manual it would not be the eco, it would be the 1LT or 2LT. Real world seems most of the manual trans cars get pretty much the same MPG, eco package or not. I love the RS package on the cruze, can't get that with the eco. 

The slightly lower gearing with the 1LT & 2LT manual is a huge advantage in most real world driving, the eco 6th gear will require a downshift sooner than the 1LT or 2LT trans. I live in a hilly area & that might mean the difference between needing to down shift to 5th instead of 4th, or not needing to downshift at all to make it up a hill. 

Check out all the cruzes on fully.com, looks like the average for the manual trans cars is 33-42mpg depending on the driver. There are a few closer to 50mpg but that is not realistic number for most drivers. Chevrolet Cruze MPG Reports | Fuelly


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

spacedout said:


> IThe slightly lower gearing with the 1LT & 2LT manual is a huge advantage in most real world driving, the eco 6th gear will require a downshift sooner than the 1LT or 2LT trans. I live in a hilly area & that might mean the difference between needing to down shift to 5th instead of 4th, or not needing to downshift at all to make it up a hill.


Yep, at over 60 mph, I have never needed to downshift even to make it up the huge hills in the mountainous areas of Virginia. I took the car back up to where I used to live, and was very impressed with how well it did on the hills for such a small engine. I've driven V6's on the same route, and both of them had to downshift to make it up the same hill.


----------



## Labrat0116 (Sep 7, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> The ........ triple overdrive gearing on the Eco will notably improve your fuel economy over the 1LT.
> 
> You should determine how long it would take you to start saving money over the price increase with the Eco over the 1LT.


What are the Gear ratios in the (2) manual transmissions ?


----------



## Labrat0116 (Sep 7, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> You should determine how long it would take you to start saving money over the price increase with the Eco over the 1LT.


Here's a Fuel Savings Calculator....

Click on the Save Money URL below to get there.

-----> Save Money

Now, what "real world" highway MPG numbers should we plug in to compare the two models ?



.


----------



## Labrat0116 (Sep 7, 2012)

I want to calculate costs using 
the average MPG 
separate city & highway MPGCar 1Car 2
(optional)Fuel price ($/gallon)$$My average Highway MPG is...4540I drive approximately...15,000 miles each year. I plan to own my car... 5 years.  Annual Fuel Cost$1240 $1395 

Car 1 saves you $155 each year.

Car 1 saves you $775 over 5 years.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Labrat0116 said:


> What are the Gear ratios in the (2) manual transmissions ?


Search. It's your friend.

http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/10-e...ssion/335-cruze-transmission-axle-ratios.html


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Labrat0116 said:


> What are the Gear ratios in the (2) manual transmissions ?


See here. The Eco uses the LUJ RPO code:


OnlyTaurus said:


> I was surfing around Service Information and was looking at the manual transmission specs, and figured I'd post what I found, as many still are unfamiliar with the M32 Manual. Looks like it can handle alittle more than most of us thought. :smile: (Credits to General Motors of course, not me)
> 
> 
> Transmission TypeM32-6 Production LocationGMPT Europe Transmission DriveTransverse mounted– Front Wheel Drive Maximum Engine Torque320 N·m (236.01 lbs.ft) Transmission ContentFully synchronized with final drive gear and differential Transmission RPO CodesMZ0MF3Engine RPO CodesLUW (U18XFR)LUJ (U14NET)1st Gear Ratio3.8184.2732nd Gear Ratio2.1582.1583rd Gear Ratio1.4751.3024th Gear Ratio1.0670.9595th Gear Ratio0.8750.7446th Gear Ratio0.7440.614Reverse Gear Ratio3.5453.818Final Drive RPO CodesFX1FP9Final Drive Ratio3.9413.55Transmission Fluid TypeUS Part Number: 19259104
> ...





Labrat0116 said:


> I want to calculate costs using
> the average MPG
> separate city & highway MPGCar 1Car 2
> (optional)
> ...


80 miles a day comes out to 20,800 miles a year, not including driving unrelated to commute. Adjusted for the 39% increase,

Car 1 saves you $215 each year.
Car 1 saves you $1077 over 5 years.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Even at $1077 over 5 years that doesn't even cover the extra cost of the eco package, so you don't save anything. Plus 5 mpg better is just not the case between the two different models/transmissions at highway speed. 

Window sticker says 38highway 1LT 42highway eco. Thing is the 1LT automatic & manual both get the same 38mpg number, which everyone knows that a manual will/does get better than an automatic. Either way by the window sticker numbers its only 4mpg better between the two.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

spacedout said:


> Even at $1077 over 5 years that doesn't even cover the extra cost of the eco package, so you don't save anything. Plus 5 mpg better is just not the case between the two different models/transmissions at highway speed.
> 
> Window sticker says 38highway 1LT 42highway eco. Thing is the 1LT automatic & manual both get the same 38mpg number, which everyone knows that a manual will/does get better than an automatic. Either way by the window sticker numbers its only 4mpg better between the two.


The Eco package according to the invoice price is an additional $737 over the 1LT. What numbers are you looking at?

I guess it's time for me to search fuelly.com again to get averages between Eco and non-Eco manuals.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

XtremeRevolution said:


> The Eco package according to the invoice price is an additional $737 over the 1LT. What numbers are you looking at?
> 
> I guess it's time for me to search fuelly.com again to get averages between Eco and non-Eco manuals.



Sorry, I was going by window sticker, its like $1800 last I looked.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Even it if is only $737 for the package, $1077(fuel savings) minus $737(eco package cost) only saves you $340 over 5 years. $68 a year, $5.66 a month.

Even at 5MPG better doesn't look like it saves any significant amount of money over 5 years.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

spacedout said:


> Sorry, I was going by window sticker, its like $1800 last I looked.


I've haven't talked to anyone who paid window sticker for their car.



spacedout said:


> Even it if is only $737 for the package, $1077(fuel savings) minus $737(eco package cost) only saves you $340 over 5 years. $68 a year, $5.66 a month.
> 
> Even at 5MPG better doesn't look like it saves any significant amount of money over 5 years.


It's not a lot, but you should also consider that you're paying for more than just fuel economy when you get an Eco over a 1LT. 

The numbers are in btw. 

61 Eco Manuals, and 12 Non-Eco Manuals on Fuelly.com for the 2012 model year, out of the ones that I was able to find that had absolutely no doubt and had no ridiculously inflated numbers. One guy reported a 1,400 mile drive getting 83mpg with a 1LT. Uhh..no. I also left out anyone not in the US and Canada, and anyone who had a 1.8L. 

Eco Manual Average: 39.3mpg
Non-Eco Manual Average: 34.7

Difference: 4.6mpg. 

A few intersting tidbits:
Lowest Eco MT: 30.9mpg
Lowest Non-Eco MT: 29.5

Highest Eco MT: 50.5mpg (we know him here)
Highest Non-Eco MT: 39.4

These are all averages, of course. I don't personally believe that the averages would be consequentially different if the non-Eco MT had a larger sample size. That is just my opinion. 

Assuming the OP will drive 22,000 miles with this car (given that he probably would drive it for more than just work), here would be his annual cost of fuel at an assumed $3.50 per gallon average annually. I'm keeping these numbers as conservative.

Annual cost with Cruze Eco MT: $1959.29
Annual cost with Cruze 1LT MT: $2219.02

Difference: $259.73

Amount of time required to break even between 1LT and Eco invoice pricing: 2.84 years. 

To put this into perspective, once broken even, the difference in fuel costs will pay for a new set of tires every 2.5 years. 

However, since we're on the subject of pricing, here are the prices for the 2013 Chevy Cruze, manual transmissions, per carquotes.com:

MSRP Pricing:
Eco: 20,475
1LT: 19,355
Difference: $1,120

Invoice Pricing:
Eco: $18,893
1LT: $17,818
Difference: $1,075

With the 2013 pricing, it would take 4.14 years to break even, which is still within a typical 5-year loan period. 

What's worth noting is that these numbers are averages. Given that he has an 80 mile commute with primarily rural driving, it might be worth noting that this kind of driving would allow him to really take advantage of the Eco's triple overdrive gearing and aerodynamic effects.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

spacedout said:


> Sorry, I was going by window sticker, its like $1800 last I looked.


I've haven't talked to anyone who paid window sticker for their car.



spacedout said:


> Even it if is only $737 for the package, $1077(fuel savings) minus $737(eco package cost) only saves you $340 over 5 years. $68 a year, $5.66 a month.
> 
> Even at 5MPG better doesn't look like it saves any significant amount of money over 5 years.


It's not a lot, but you should also consider that you're paying for more than just fuel economy when you get an Eco over a 1LT. 
The numbers are in btw. 

61 Eco Manuals, and 12 Non-Eco Manuals on Fuelly.com for the 2012 model year, out of the ones that I was able to find that had absolutely no doubt and had no ridiculously inflated numbers. One guy reported a 1,400 mile drive getting 83mpg with a 1LT. Uhh..no. I also left out anyone not in the US and Canada, and anyone who had a 1.8L. 

Eco Manual Average: 39.3mpg
Non-Eco Manual Average: 34.7mpg

Difference: 4.6mpg. 

A few intersting tidbits:
Lowest Eco MT: 30.9mpg
Lowest Non-Eco MT: 29.5mpg

Highest Eco MT: 50.5mpg (we know him here)
Highest Non-Eco MT: 39.4mpg

These are all averages, of course. I don't personally believe that the averages would be consequentially different if the non-Eco MT had a larger sample size. That is just my opinion. 

Assuming the OP will drive 22,000 miles with this car (given that he probably would drive it for more than just work), here would be his annual cost of fuel at an assumed $3.50 per gallon average annually. I'm keeping these numbers as conservative.

Annual cost with Cruze Eco MT: $1959.29
Annual cost with Cruze 1LT MT: $2219.02

Difference: $259.73

Amount of time required to break even between 1LT and Eco invoice pricing: 2.84 years. 

To put this into perspective, once broken even, the difference in fuel costs will pay for a new set of tires every 2.5 years. 

However, since we're on the subject of pricing, here are the prices for the 2013 Chevy Cruze, manual transmissions, per carquotes.com:

MSRP Pricing:
Eco: 20,475
1LT: 19,355
Difference: $1,120

Invoice Pricing:
Eco: $18,893
1LT: $17,818
Difference: $1,075

With the 2013 pricing, it would take 4.14 years to break even, which is still within a typical 5-year loan period. 

What's worth noting is that these numbers are averages. Given that he has an 80 mile commute with primarily rural driving, it might be worth noting that this kind of driving would allow him to really take advantage of the Eco's triple overdrive gearing and aerodynamic effects. 

While the savings aren't very significant, the fact that they're there and that one can break even on the price difference in 2.8-4.1 years should make one question what value the 1LT has over the Eco for someone who does his kind of driving. The availability of the RS package and comforts like a sunroof perhaps? I can't really think of much else.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

I'd get the Eco myself.


----------



## jakkaroo (Feb 12, 2011)

Go for the lt the handleing is better and it has shorter gears

Sent from my MB886 using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

jakkaroo said:


> Go for the lt the handleing is better
> 
> Sent from my MB886 using AutoGuide.Com Free App




Isn't the Eco lighter and lower?

Sent from my Bulletproof_Doubleshot using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Z link!


Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> Z link!
> 
> 
> Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


Last I remembered, the handling benefits of that could only be felt on a track. On the street, the benefits appear to be limited to vibration reduction and ride comfort. Perhaps also some stability going over bumps. 

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=307859 

Sent from my Bulletproof_Doubleshot using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

You don't have enough fun with driving then. I can feel it in fast corners...my old car had a form of passive rear steering as well. It definitely helps the car lean into corners more. 

And then there's these fantastic things called back roads to let you have some fun on the weekends with a car. Mmm. 

The Cruze aint fast, but it is nimble. I drove the LS on a twisty road on a solo test drive and loved it - at high RPM, that 1.8 motor is just fine. The Eco just seemed more clumsy and I could never find the freaking right gear. 

Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> You don't have enough fun with driving then. I can feel it in fast corners...my old car had a form of passive rear steering as well. It really helps the car lean into corners more.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


I can't say I've personally experienced the difference.

When I want something that handles, I pull out the Regal. That will go around an autocross track faster than a C5 Z06. I've pushed the Cruze on a few occasions, but I'd have to test drive a 1LT immediately afterward to see a difference.

Sent from my Bulletproof_Doubleshot using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I'll take an ECO with 45 PSI tires any day. The car doesn't have much body roll and sticks reasonably well.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> You don't have enough fun with driving then. I can feel it in fast corners...my old car had a form of passive rear steering as well. It definitely helps the car lean into corners more.
> 
> And then there's these fantastic things called back roads to let you have some fun on the weekends with a car. Mmm.
> 
> ...


The ECO MT definitely takes time to figure out the gearing. It took me 5,000 miles.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Isn't the Eco lighter and lower? Sent from my Bulletproof_Doubleshot using AutoGuide.Com Free App


 Most of the problem with the Eco's handling is actually the tires. Statistically, it handles the worst. I'd go with which ever one you like best. If it is a toss up, be economical and get the Eco. The RS package is pretty sexy though...


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

obermd said:


> The ECO MT definitely takes time to figure out the gearing. It took me 5,000 miles.


I can't comment much on figuring out the gearing, lol. It was my first manual ever, so it was all new to me. 



ErikBEggs said:


> Most of the problem with the Eco's handling is actually the tires. Statistically, it handles the worst. I'd go with which ever one you like best. If it is a toss up, be economical and get the Eco. The RS package is pretty sexy though...


I'd agree on the tires. Certainly not the best for handling purposes. Extra air helps that cause though, but tires will make a whole world of difference. I agree on the RS package. The Cruze as a whole is, IMO, a better looking car than anything else in this segment.


----------



## Hoon (Mar 18, 2012)

I average 34.8MPG over 9500 miles or so in a 1LT M6. 

Now, i do a decent amount of city driving, never drive below 70mph on the highway, and 1000 of those miles are towing a utility trailer and a sport bike or two. 

On the rare occasion that i try to get decent economy i average 39mpg in mixed driving...and that's still 65+mph on the highway with a decent amount of city mixed in. 

I find the 1LT gearing MUCH more enjoyable to drive. It's just a lot more fun around town, pulls better on the highway without downshifting, etc. An Eco for the extra $5 a month in fuel? No thanks.


----------



## BerettaZ (Jul 1, 2012)

Had the same exact diilemma....went with the 2LT.

I'm averaging 36.0 MPG (DIC) over 5500 miles, driving about 70% highway, while lugging around up to 3 kids in the back at times. 

Biggest thing for me was the factory moonroof, and I prefer the leather as well. I'm willing to give up a few MPG for these things, but it was a tough call.

Personally, my ideal Cruze would be a 2LT with the Eco's ride height and gear set.....


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

BerettaZ said:


> Had the same exact diilemma....went with the 2LT.
> 
> I'm averaging 36.0 MPG (DIC) over 5500 miles, driving about 70% highway, while lugging around up to 3 kids in the back at times.
> 
> ...


Add the RS package body panels and I'd be sorely tempted to trade my ECO MT for it.


----------



## ozarkkawi (Sep 10, 2012)

Wow!extemerevolution. Thanks for taking the time to put that together.You answered all my questions and more. It boils down to about $20 a month difference.
I did some driving today and ruled out the elantra. It was a sharp car and had some cool features but the engine was "buzzy" and I could not get the MPG above 27 on the DIC. I have read that the Hyundai ratings are optimistic and its a crap shoot to get one that will do 40 MPG.Seems to be the case.
I did drive the new Altima,had the same EPA ratings as the Cruze LT 27/38. Was a nice car lots of room and nice features CVT was not as bad as i thought it would be. But a few grand more that a comparable cruze.The search continues but the Cruze is still a contender. Thanks again to all that responded


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

ozarkkawi said:


> Wow!extemerevolution. Thanks for taking the time to put that together.You answered all my questions and more. It boils down to about $20 a month difference.
> I did some driving today and ruled out the elantra. It was a sharp car and had some cool features but the engine was "buzzy" and I could not get the MPG above 27 on the DIC. I have read that the Hyundai ratings are optimistic and its a crap shoot to get one that will do 40 MPG.Seems to be the case.
> I did drive the new Altima,had the same EPA ratings as the Cruze LT 27/38. Was a nice car lots of room and nice features CVT was not as bad as i thought it would be. But a few grand more that a comparable cruze.The search continues but the Cruze is still a contender. Thanks again to all that responded


Let us know what you decide on and why. Good hunting.


----------



## 01sleeperZ (Oct 19, 2011)

I have a 2012 Eco MT from Oct 2011, and I think it's great. My car states 41.3 mpg over 14,300 miles, with a high of 61.6 over a single trip of 250 miles while trying to keep it at 58 mph. But I think it is very important to note that any high milage car needs to be driven the way it prefers if you want to maximize milage (such as shifting often in the cruze, and trying to avoid loading the turbo for acceleration). I find that I do not need to shift very often at all on the highway, as the turbo spools up just enough to maintain speed while the cruise is set. The Eco also comes with the sport suspension to lower the car for better milage, which helps it to handle fairly well.

But if you want a car with other options and nicer interior, do you really want to delete options to get the extra 5 mpg? You should probably decide what you want with your time in the car, and pick the one you want. Do you have fun trying to see what milage you can get, or do you prefer to look out the sunroof while you are settled into a nicer power seat?

Good luck!


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Just to note, if it comes down to a matter of features like leather, you can have them installed on the Cruze. On my Eco, I ended up paying an additional $1500 to have heated leather and fog lights installed. I wanted the leather for its ability to be easily cleaned.


----------



## Labrat0116 (Sep 7, 2012)

ozarkkawi said:


> I am agoninzing or the decision and hate to see my truck go but can't do the 18MPG anymore.Thanks again


I'm in the same boat as you my friend. The 20MPG highway on my old Beamer is getting hard to take.

The thing I'm wrestling with (as I bet you are as well) that our vehicles are PAID OFF. NO car payment, no depreciation, just repairs and fuel costs.

I would like to know what the different Cruze models are getting in Highway only MPGs. Anyone ??


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Labrat0116 said:


> I would like to know what the different Cruze models are getting in Highway only MPGs. Anyone ??


That question is a bit hard to answer, every driver is different. I will just chime in on the 2012 & 2013 1LT, 2LT & LTZ automatics since they all use the same motor/trans. Window sticker is 26city 38highway, combined 30mpg. 

From what I have seen on fuelly.com most automatic drivers are averaging in the 26-34mpg range. There are a few listed that are getting 35-41MPG average with the automatic.

With Cruise set at 55-65mph I get between 36-45mpg with my 1LT automatic(hand calculated fill up). If I can eliminate hills for my route its always above 40mpg.


----------



## Labrat0116 (Sep 7, 2012)

ozarkkawi said:


> I did some driving today and ruled out the elantra. It was a sharp car and had some cool features but the engine was "buzzy" and I could not get the MPG above 27 on the DIC. I have read that the Hyundai ratings are optimistic and its a crap shoot to get one that will do 40 MPG.Seems to be the case.
> 
> The search continues but the Cruze is still a contender. Thanks again to all that responded


Here's list of my impressions of cars I recently test drove. Hope it helps you.

I too drove the Elantra (Limited), very nice car. Weak engine and boring interiors.

Drove the Civic EX-L. I was very impressed overall. NOT as cheap looking as the magazines portray. Drove the Civic Si as well. 31 MPG. Both a couple grand higher than the Cruzes.

Drove the Sonic. Very cool car, just a tad smaller overall and a bit cheaper. 

Drove a Focus SE. Cramped interior, lazy 2.0 engine and over priced IMHO. 

Drove 2 versions of the new Dodge Dart. The 1.4L Turbo w/manual was a complete dog and sloppy shifting. The Cruze's 1.4L kicks it's ass totally! Very odd since the Dart's is rated higher HP/TQ!! I don't have the #s handy, but the Cruze's is definitely much stronger! The other had a 2.0L w/auto trans, very fun car to drive, but both currently overpriced.

Drove V6 versions of both the Mustang and Camaro. Again, both rated around 30 MPG and 4-5 grand above the Cruze. Both fun as **** with very powerful V6s! Mustang as 305HP. Camaro at 323HP ! No joke! 

Also, drove a base Jetta w/2.0L auto. Absolutely a complete dog. Drove a VW Golf with 5 cyl 2.5L auto. VERY nice car overall, but only gets around 30MPG highway. They didn't have any of the 2012 Beetles. Basically the same undercarriage and drivetrain as the Golf and currently have a $2000 Rebate! It sits near the top of my short list! 

Oh! Drove a GTI at the VW dealership too! Seriously fun (and expensive) little car !!

Gonna check out the KIA Forte, Hyundai Veloster soon. as well. Mazda dealers too far away. Toyotas are much to boring! Subaru only offers AWD (which I don't need. Have a better S10 Blazer 4WD for winter driving).

I really like these Cruzes, but honestly some of the quality control issues I've been reading about have me real worried....

Again, hope this helps.


----------



## Labrat0116 (Sep 7, 2012)

spacedout said:


> That question is a bit hard to answer, every driver is different. I will just chime in on the 2012 & 2013 1LT, 2LT & LTZ automatics since they all use the same motor/trans. Window sticker is 26city 38highway, combined 30mpg.
> 
> From what I have seen on fuelly.com most automatic drivers are averaging in the 26-34mpg range. There are a few listed that are getting 35-41MPG average with the automatic.
> 
> With Cruise set at 55-65mph I get between 36-45mpg with my 1LT automatic(hand calculated fill up). If I can eliminate hills for my route its always above 40mpg.


Highway mileage appears to vary greatly amongst the different versions and drivers. 

Fuelly does not offer enough filters to really narrow done specific searches. I emailed the site owner awhile back and he's not willing to change the format just yet. Shame since Fuelly is only showing averages for all versions (different engines, trannys etc...) Maybe someday the site will mature to a higher level. But for now it is what it is...

I do 95% driving on flat open highway. About 50 miles/day.


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

I may not be an expert on the ECO yet as i was getting to with my old LS but i will throw in some food fir thought. Uf you live in a very hilly/mountainous area, i would not bother with the eco. I live in VA Beach, very flat land. But am currently on vacatiin back home in pittsburgh pa. In va, i love my ECO, here in PA, I yearn for my LS. even on the highways here in PA, 6th gear is useless and many times so is 5 th gear. The car just cant pull a hill in those gears and 70% of the time you drive here your going up a hill lol. Comparably in va beach where everything is flat, i am usually in 6 th gear by 35mph and sipping gas all the way to work and back. 

Like i said, just food fir thought, but if you live in a hilly/mountainous area, the ECO gearbox may not be the best for you. 

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

Labrat0116 said:


> I do 95% driving on flat open highway. About 50 miles/day.


Honestly i see no reason why you would not end up with a 50-55 mpg average like many others here driving ecos with a commute like yours. (What's a prius lol)

As far as the issues go:
Honestly a new car is a new car. They all have issues. If you have been looking closely you have noticed that the 2011's had the most problems. Then the 2012s came in and yea, still a few bugs, but a drastic decline in complaints. I would expect to see those complaint numbers drop drastically again as the 2013s roll off the lots as well. 

If you talk yo me, I can tell you that I drove a 2012 LS for 9 months and 10,5xx miles without a hiccup.(except proving that cruzes with a CAI cannot go through 18 inches of water) No money in the car but a single oil change and tire rotation. 1300 miles into my ECO i am still issue free as are many people here. 

"As long as manufacturers continue to attach Service departments to their dealerships I will never claim that one is better than the other."
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## Hoon (Mar 18, 2012)

I drove quite a few miles in Ecos when i worked for GM. With the same driving style they get about 3mpg more than the LT, both manuals. 

A difference of 7% or so in fuel cost just isn't enough to make me want the Eco. I did the math and it comes out to $125/year and i drive around 20K miles. 

It would take 5 years to break even on the cost of the Eco package, and i'd have a lethargic car by comparison. There's no upside IMO.


----------



## Beaker (Mar 21, 2012)

I'll never understand why they made the 1st gear taller in the Eco than the LT packages while still giving them the same 2nd gear ratio. It sucks to have to shift at 8 mph when driving for mileage.


----------



## Labrat0116 (Sep 7, 2012)

silverls said:


> Honestly i see no reason why you would not end up with a *50-55 mpg average* like many others here driving ecos with a commute like yours.


Seriously ???


----------



## Labrat0116 (Sep 7, 2012)

silverls said:


> I may not be an expert on the ECO yet as i was getting to with my old LS but i will throw in some food fir thought. Uf you live in a very hilly/mountainous area, i would not bother with the eco. I live in VA Beach, very flat land.
> 
> But am currently on vacatiin back home in pittsburgh pa. In va, i love my ECO, here in PA, I yearn for my LS. even on the highways here in PA, 6th gear is useless and many times so is 5 th gear. The car just cant pull a hill in those gears and 70% of the time you drive here your going up a hill lol. Comparably in va beach where everything is flat, i am usually in 6 th gear by 35mph and sipping gas all the way to work and back.
> 
> ...


Very excellent point! 

BTW, I'm a Yinzer also. Grew up in Greensburg, Pa.


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

Labrat0116 said:


> Seriously ???


Yes seriously. if 99% of your driving is flat highway, then you pop it into 6th gear at 55-65mph turn on the cruise control and let it sip gas all the way to work and back. It will all depend on your driving habits of course, but if your a patient driver you should easily see these well past EPA estimates. If your going down the highway at 70-80, drop that number into the mid to high 40s, but even still. I surely cannot make you any promises, There is no way i can tell you that yes you will get amazing gas mileage and blah blah blah. But if your driving conditions are as Ideal as you say, and your driving habits match that of our patients hypermilers, then i see no reason why you would not get the same results.


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

Labrat0116 said:


> Very excellent point!
> 
> BTW, I'm a Yinzer also. Grew up in Greensburg, Pa.
> View attachment 7437


Always good to meet a fellow Pittsburgher. and the smiley is very fitting.


----------



## Beachernaut (Mar 27, 2012)

In your situation, IMO the choice between Eco and LT is yours. With as many miles as you drive, either car is going to save enough $ in fuel to more than make your car payment. Pick whichever one you like. Just as a reference, I see 44 to 46mpg on the interstate with the cruise set at 80mph.

Not sure why people are complaining about the Eco gearing. I'm at 7000' elevation and rarely have to downshift on hills. Granted it's not really hilly here, but the hills we have are long and steep.


----------



## danimal (Oct 4, 2011)

silverls said:


> Always good to meet a fellow Pittsburgher. and the smiley is very fitting.





Labrat0116 said:


> Very excellent point!
> 
> BTW, I'm a Yinzer also. Grew up in Greensburg, Pa.
> View attachment 7437


Hahaha, Off topic....Maybe your smiley face should look more like this? :sad010:GO BRONCOS!!


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Hoon said:


> I drove quite a few miles in Ecos when i worked for GM. With the same driving style they get about 3mpg more than the LT, both manuals.
> 
> A difference of 7% or so in fuel cost just isn't enough to make me want the Eco. I did the math and it comes out to $125/year and i drive around 20K miles.
> 
> It would take 5 years to break even on the cost of the Eco package, and i'd have a lethargic car by comparison. There's no upside IMO.


Were those numbers just for you, or were they based on his driving averages? Unless I divided by zero somewhere, I thought I was quite thorough, and my Fuelly searches showed that the real-world difference is closer to 4.7mpg. 

<scratches head>

What's so lethargic about the Eco? I would hardly call it lethargic unless you're trying to accelerate in 6th gear. In fact, I think I compared the gear ratios for the 1LT and Eco manuals at one point, and the last few gears were practically identical once you've multiplied the gear ratio by the final drive. 

Eco 3rd = 1LT 4th
Eco 4th = 1LT 5th
Eco 5th = 1LT 6th

I can do the calculations again if you need to see the exact ratios, but they were extremely close. 

The gear ratios are quite similar for highway passing purposes. You're making the Eco sound downright slow, despite the weight reductions having a significant effect in overcoming some of the differences in gear ratio. Like I said, if you're trying to go up hills in 6th, you're defeating the purpose of a *3rd *overdrive gear. One could drive an Eco and keep it in 5th all day long and it would act exactly like a 1LT in 6th and get the same fuel economy. I just don't see it being consequentially slower than a 1LT, if at all. 



Labrat0116 said:


> Seriously ???


Yep. 










This was with ~62-65mph highway driving. The average speed is lower, because I did a bit of city driving in Detroit during that trip. I hand-calculated 49.2mpg at the pump for that tank of gas, which is not bad considering it was a 15% city, 85% highway driving split. Good luck getting a 1LT to do that...


----------



## Labrat0116 (Sep 7, 2012)

silverls said:


> Yes seriously. if 99% of your driving is flat highway, then you pop it into 6th gear at 55-65mph turn on the cruise control and let it sip gas all the way to work and back. It will all depend on your driving habits of course, but if your a patient driver you should easily see these well past EPA estimates.
> 
> If your going down the highway at 70-80, drop that number into the mid to high 40s, but even still. I surely cannot make you any promises, There is no way i can tell you that yes you will get amazing gas mileage and blah blah blah. But if your driving conditions are as Ideal as you say, and your driving habits match that of our patients hypermilers, then i see no reason why you would not get the same results.


Amazing! 

I can't seem to harness in my Bimmer under 80MPH. :uhh:

Those MPG numbers are what I used to get with the 1.0L 3 cyclinder Geo Metro I used to own. That car did get mid-50s MPG Highway @60 MPH. However, It was a death trap in heavy commuter traffic. NO power to escape dangerous situations. I get the feeling the Cruze is much safer with a bit more power. Definitely safer with all the air bags and construction.

BTW, I deduct that you are AD Military ? Retired USAF here.


----------



## Labrat0116 (Sep 7, 2012)

danimal said:


> Hahaha, Off topic....Maybe your smiley face should look more like this? :sad010:GO PEYTON!!


 That's more like it! Peyton is a football GOD! The Steeler's definitely handicapped minus FOUR starters. Gonna be a looong season.


----------



## Labrat0116 (Sep 7, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Were those numbers just for you, or were they based on his driving averages? Unless I divided by zero somewhere, I thought I was quite thorough, and my Fuelly searches showed that the real-world difference is closer to 4.7mpg.
> 
> <scratches head>


Fuelly doesn't have enough filters to make truly good research possible.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Labrat0116 said:


> Fuelly doesn't have enough filters to make truly good research possible.


Who said I searched? I went through and looked at each individual car out of the 220 or so that are listed for 2012 and entered them into a spreadsheet. Took a while, but at least I got a reasonably valid number for the comparison between the 1LT Manual and Eco Manual.


----------



## Hoon (Mar 18, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Were those numbers just for you, or were they based on his driving averages? Unless I divided by zero somewhere, I thought I was quite thorough, and my Fuelly searches showed that the real-world difference is closer to 4.7mpg.
> 
> <scratches head>
> 
> ...


Those numbers were for my driving, not the OPs. 

I drove Ecos and 1LTs on the same 30 mile trip (about 70% highway) and switched back and fourth between them. In my driving, which was very average, i'd see about 3mpg on the computer. I never calculated them at the pump. 

I question the validity of the fuelly results because i'd be willing to bet that your average Eco driver is more fuel conscious than your average LT driver. 

I don't know the EPA numbers for city driving and i'm not going to bother looking, but i'm sure the majority of the gap is at highway speeds. I doubt there's very much difference in city driving, but the taller 6th gear, better aero and low resistance tires add up at 55+mph. 

It's not that the Eco is slow, it's that the lower gears of the 1LT make it feel snappier both around town and on the highway, because like you pointed out, it's like being a gear lower all the time. 

I've always wondered how a race between the two would play out. If anyone in RI or CT has an Eco 6MT and would be willing to do a quick run please PM me, i'll grab the GoPro and we'll see what the difference is real world.

And no, an LT will not do 49mpg real world. Mids 40s are possible, but i don't see upper 40s happening.


----------



## danimal (Oct 4, 2011)

Labrat0116 said:


> That's more like it! Peyton is a football GOD! The Steeler's definitely handicapped minus FOUR starters. Gonna be a looong season.


Yeah I must say its nice to have him on the team, although its controversial, I still think we should have kept Tebow and had Peyton teach him a thing or two  I'm just excited football season is back!!


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Hoon said:


> Those numbers were for my driving, not the OPs.
> 
> I drove Ecos and 1LTs on the same 30 mile trip (about 70% highway) and switched back and fourth between them. In my driving, which was very average, i'd see about 3mpg on the computer. I never calculated them at the pump.
> 
> ...


All valid points. You are always a gear off on the highway, and in-town, the first 3 are taller so it takes some getting used to. 

I would say that my comparison of the highest recorded numbers might be of some use. Calculated at the pump, how high can one expect to get on a full tank of highway driving?

If it's of any use, I beat Ryan's tuned 1LT RS on the track in my non-tuned Eco with my sub and luggage in the trunk. 

Of course, he spun the tires a bit too much and short shifted into 2nd, but I like to tell the story anyway. 

I would love to see such a video btw.


----------



## Hoon (Mar 18, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> All valid points. You are always a gear off on the highway, and in-town, the first 3 are taller so it takes some getting used to.
> 
> I would say that my comparison of the highest recorded numbers might be of some use. Calculated at the pump, how high can one expect to get on a full tank of highway driving?
> 
> ...


I've never done a full tank of highway. I live in the city, work in the city, and have never done a road trip of 500+ miles that did not have city driving or towing mixed in. 

What's crazy to me is towing one sport bike on a utility trailer @ 65mph yeilds 33mpg calculated at the pump. Riding the same bike yeilds 35mpg. The car gets 89 octane and the bike 93, so it's actually cheaper to tow the bike to the track than it is to ride it. Modern cars are amazing. 

My best tank is 39mpg calculated at the pump, about 42 shown on the computer, but again, that has city driving and traffic mixed in. Strictly highway with appropriate driving habits i'm sure i could get mid 40s @ the pump. I've gotten the computer to read mid 50s but that involves very careful driving on very slow (35-45mph) roads. Not a sustainable number.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Hoon said:


> What's crazy to me is towing one sport bike on a utility trailer @ 65mph yeilds 33mpg calculated at the pump. Riding the same bike yeilds 35mpg. The car gets 89 octane and the bike 93, so it's actually cheaper to tow the bike to the track than it is to ride it. Modern cars are amazing.


That is absolutely ridiculous. Towing the bike with a Cruze is cheaper than riding it, lol. Still, towing a bike at 33mpg is very impressive in its own right. 

This reminds me, the Eco doesn't appear to be rated for any towing load at all, while the other trims are. If the OP ever intends to tow anything with his vehicle, he should look at the 1LT to avoid any warranty complications should any issues arise.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I feel like the Eco buyers buy them for longer drives/highway driving. That's what everyone here that owns one seems to talk about, so those Fuelly numbers may or may not be skewed a little bit towards the drivers that try their darndest to get those high MPG numbers. The Eco is geared well for _*economical *_driving...babying the car, but once you start revving it more, the gear progression just feels out of whack. 

For city/country-road driving under 55 mph, are you going to see a significant difference in mileage? Probably not.

I bought my car because I was tired of getting 16 mpg in the city. 31's a heck of a lot better, and I honestly don't drive very much like I care about mileage I get - yet the little Cruze wants to impress no matter what. I don't drive like a young kid anymore, but I don't shift at 2000 RPM every time either. It occasionally does road trips down to visit my parents or friends, but most of the time it's just an around-town car for when I want to do things outside of work.

Racing slow cars is a hoot - in college, my '88 Accord and my friend's '04 Jetta were pretty much a dead match for each other, but we'd still thrash them every time from a stoplight on a highway. Both took probably 10+ seconds to hit 60, but it's still just good fun. If anyone around the DC area has an Eco, let's head out to a drag strip.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> I feel like the Eco buyers buy them for longer drives/highway driving. That's what everyone here that owns one seems to talk about, so those Fuelly numbers may or may not be skewed a little bit towards the drivers that try their darndest to get those high MPG numbers. The Eco is geared well for _*economical *_driving...babying the car, but once you start revving it more, the gear progression just feels out of whack.
> 
> For city/country-road driving under 55 mph, are you going to see a significant difference in mileage? Probably not.
> 
> ...


There is some truth to the point that Eco drivers are more conscious. I believe I still have all of the numbers saved on my work computer so I can post them. It was actually a pretty good split between highway and city drivers. 

My driving is a bit different, as I have a specific commute, and I drive in such a way as to maximize my fuel economy in that commute. My wife says it's almost a science for me; when to let off the gas, when to expect a light to change, etc. With that, a higher pressure in my tires, larger gap plugs, I consistently average (when A/C is not used) 41-45mpg with a 75% city driving split. Much of this is due to my ability to drive in a very low RPM range for the entire time, which is where the 5th and 6th gears really help. When I don't have to climb hills, I'm in 6th gear by 35mph. The higher load allows the throttle to stay cracked wider open, where the engine isn't losing efficiency due to pumping losses, and that helps boost fuel economy as well. The 93 octane fuel I use also helps prevent detonation at those higher loads and lower RPMs, as does the cold air intake. 

The biggest difference in fuel economy under 55mph comes in the gearing and the reduction of pumping losses. Running a hotter intake air temperature follows the same concept to improve fuel economy. Your ability to cruise at a lower RPM will help you from 40mph on up, but the aerodynamic improvements will only be significant once you get past 50mph. 

A reviewer did a few tests on a 2011 sample model, and here's what he came up with:



> *2011 Chevrolet Cruze ECO – Calibrated Steady State FE Results*
> 
> 
> *SS Speed**Cruze ECO FE result* *50 mph51.7 mpgUS55 mph46.7 mpgUS60 mph44.2 mpgUS65 mph39.4 mpgUS
> ...


Given his conditions, I'd say those were very good numbers, but it does point out that the difference in cruising at lower speed is beneficial not only for aerodynamic reasons, but also for lower RPM cruising reasons (he gained 5mpg by slowing down from 55 to 50), and that's where the taller gearing comes in. 

Here's the article in case anyone is interested:
CleanMPG Forums - GM’s Most Fuel Efficient Car Coming to Chicago

My ability to be in 6th at 35-45mph at a very low RPM is what allows me to often match or exceed the EPA rated *highway *numbers with a 75% *city *split, and my commute is fairly hilly.

Just adding more food for conversation here.


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

In 2011 the only MT available with the 1.4T was in the ECO. I think it is was very smart for GM to expand availablilty to all Cruze versions starting in 2012. So I have a 6MT 2011 ECO. My ECO is also tuned. This pretty much eliminates the need to drop a gear on the highway for holding speed on long steep hills. If I want to pass very quickly on a hill on the highway, yes I do drop a few gears. The tune also makes the ECOs very wide gear box more enjoyable/useable. Since most of the time my tune is in ECO mode my mileage has exceeded the EPA numbers.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

blk88verde said:


> In 2011 the only MT available with the 1.4T was in the ECO. I think it is was very smart for GM to expand availablilty to all Cruze versions starting in 2012. So I have a 6MT 2011 ECO. My ECO is also tuned. This pretty much eliminates the need to drop a gear on the highway for holding speed on long steep hills. If I want to pass very quickly on a hill on the highway, yes I do drop a few gears. The tune also makes the ECOs very wide gear box more enjoyable/useable. Since most of the time my tune is in ECO mode my mileage has exceeded the EPA numbers.


Out of curiosity, how is your power in 6th at around 40mph compared to before the tune? I have one hill during my commute in a 35 zone that I drive at 40mph that requires me to downshift into 5th gear to go up without dropping more than 5mph. I'm wondering if a tune would give me any additional power at those RPMs.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Out of curiosity, how is your power in 6th at around 40mph compared to before the tune? I have one hill during my commute in a 35 zone that I drive at 40mph that requires me to downshift into 5th gear to go up without dropping more than 5mph. I'm wondering if a tune would give me any additional power at those RPMs.


It depends on the hill. A fairly gradual hill will have no problem in 6th at 40 mph. A steeper hill will need an upshift. 

The eco/normal mode of a Trifecta tune is excellent. It's frankly the calibration the car should have left the factory with. It makes 1000-1500 RPM not useless any more, even with a slight uphill. Yes, the car will make 0.5 PSI at 1000 RPM in 3rd gear going up a slight incline. 

Eco+tune is a great combination. If not wanting to pony up for a tune, it's merely very good.


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

> Out of curiosity, how is your power in 6th at around 40mph compared to before the tune? I have one hill during my commute in a 35 zone that I drive at 40mph that requires me to downshift into 5th gear to go up without dropping more than 5mph. I'm wondering if a tune would give me any additional power at those RPMs.


It has been a while since my car has been on the stock tune, however at 40 mph in top gear you would probably not see much increase in power. The engine starts to pull harder than stock around 1800 rpms and above.


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

If I did it again I would get the LT


----------



## Labrat0116 (Sep 7, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> There is some truth to the point that Eco drivers are more conscious. I believe I still have all of the numbers saved on my work computer so I can post them.
> 
> It was actually a pretty good split between highway and city drivers. .


Post them up. That's good info to review.


----------



## Labrat0116 (Sep 7, 2012)

blk88verde said:


> My ECO is also tuned.


With what program ? How much ? Where did you get it ?


----------



## Labrat0116 (Sep 7, 2012)

NBrehm said:


> If I did it again I would get the LT


Why's that ?


----------



## twin1987 (Mar 28, 2011)

Just to throw this in I did a trip this last weekend to pick up a car (07 Z06). Trip was from Osseo WI (just south of Eau Claire) to Chicago, and back. It was 596 miles there and back. Cruise set on 73mph on way down (had very slight tail wind, maybe 3-5 mph?) Looked at 3 cars in Chicago so of corse traffic was not the greatest, and then did 70 mph on way back home. 4 people in the car on way down, 2 on way back, and 2 in the new car. When we got to the hotel friday night the DIC said 55.8 mph. When we got back home on sat. (bad head wind of about 15mph) the dic said 50.3 hand calculated was 49.7. I was very pleased with it. 

For comparison the Z06 got 26.9 mph on the return tripccasion14:.


----------



## mikemc422 (May 24, 2016)

I'm currently looking at a 2012 1LT and a 2013 ECO, both right under 80k miles, similar options (both have the same power options and the steering wheel controls for the radio, ECO doesn't have cruise though) and they're both red with black cloth interior. I drove the LT from mid Florida to north Georgia, averaging 43 mpg staying around 95 mph with hard acceleration the few times i slowed down. I was wondering what type of fuel mileage difference I'd see with the ECO being that I drive 120+ miles a day in similar conditions.


----------



## chevrasaki (May 1, 2015)

mikemc422 said:


> I'm currently looking at a 2012 1LT and a 2013 ECO, both right under 80k miles, similar options (both have the same power options and the steering wheel controls for the radio, ECO doesn't have cruise though) and they're both red with black cloth interior. I drove the LT from mid Florida to north Georgia, averaging 43 mpg staying around 95 mph with hard acceleration the few times i slowed down. I was wondering what type of fuel mileage difference I'd see with the ECO being that I drive 120+ miles a day in similar conditions.


Welcome to the forum! The eco has a few tricks in it's bag to help it gain extra MPGs. It's lighter due to the lack of a spare tire, lighter eco rims, and smaller gas tank. It has a better coefficient of drag because of the active aero shutters in the lower part of the grill and a smaller opening in the top part of the grill. The manual gearbox ratios are different too allowing it to run less RPM in 6th. 

The drawbacks to the eco I've noticed are that it does not have a tow rating if you planned on adding a tow bar. It has no spare tire which has come back to haunt my brother with his eco when he managed to put a gash in the sidewall, so he had to have it towed. And the smaller gas tank. However if you get better efficiency that should should offset the range so that shouldn't really matter. The other drawback is if you plan on driving it fairly hard, the gap between 1st gear and 2nd gear is bigger which accentuates the 2nd gear grind issue under hard acceleration. The 2nd gear grind can be masked by upgrading the transmission fluid to a more viscous Amsoil synchromesh or 75w-90 fluid.


----------



## mikemc422 (May 24, 2016)

chevrasaki said:


> Welcome to the forum! The eco has a few tricks in it's bag to help it gain extra MPGs. It's lighter due to the lack of a spare tire, lighter eco rims, and smaller gas tank. It has a better coefficient of drag because of the active aero shutters in the lower part of the grill and a smaller opening in the top part of the grill. The manual gearbox ratios are different too allowing it to run less RPM in 6th.
> 
> The drawbacks to the eco I've noticed are that it does not have a tow rating if you planned on adding a tow bar. It has no spare tire which has come back to haunt my brother with his eco when he managed to put a gash in the sidewall, so he had to have it towed. And the smaller gas tank. However if you get better efficiency that should should offset the range so that shouldn't really matter. The other drawback is if you plan on driving it fairly hard, the gap between 1st gear and 2nd gear is bigger which accentuates the 2nd gear grind issue under hard acceleration. The 2nd gear grind can be masked by upgrading the transmission fluid to a more viscous Amsoil synchromesh or 75w-90 fluid.


So if I drove the ECO how I drove the LT, it would grind going into second? The LT has 75w90 in it already, and I know its been driven how I drive for most of it's life (I'm close with the owner, she makes sure the car is used to high rpm's lol) so the car wouldn't have issues transitioning from conservative to performance driving. I'm not sure how the ECO has been driven, which is a big concern for me, I know that with my Honda it was hard on it going from the old lady to me, I had to replace quite a few gaskets in the first month. I'm also not sure which trans fluid the ECO has, it might be stock, it might not. If I got 43 mpg with the LT, what do you think I'd get with the ECO? around 45? 50? do you think it'd be enough to make up for the $4k price difference in about 3 years, driving 55k miles a year?


----------



## chevrasaki (May 1, 2015)

mikemc422 said:


> So if I drove the ECO how I drove the LT, it would grind going into second? The LT has 75w90 in it already, and I know its been driven how I drive for most of it's life (I'm close with the owner, she makes sure the car is used to high rpm's lol) so the car wouldn't have issues transitioning from conservative to performance driving. I'm not sure how the ECO has been driven, which is a big concern for me, I know that with my Honda it was hard on it going from the old lady to me, I had to replace quite a few gaskets in the first month. I'm also not sure which trans fluid the ECO has, it might be stock, it might not. If I got 43 mpg with the LT, what do you think I'd get with the ECO? around 45? 50? do you think it'd be enough to make up for the $4k price difference in about 3 years, driving 55k miles a year?


All of those questions are very difficult to answer. Many folks here haven't even experienced the 2nd gear grind with either the Eco or the LT. It pretty much only happens when speed shifting from first to second at high RPM. I believe it may be due to a lazy disengaging clutch or lazy synchros. I've had the grind a handful of times but I drive my car pretty hard.

As for the efficiency, the Eco on average seems to get about 3-5MPG more than the LT mainly due to the higher ratio in 6th gear. If you do a lot of highway driving it would likely benefit you to get the Eco. If you spend most of your time in the city, you may not really notice too much of a difference. It's really up to you weather or not to spring the extra cash or not. I decided to go with the 1LT and I'm pretty happy with my decision. But I'm sure many here will tell you the same thing about their Eco. I know that probably doesn't help your decision. If you really are driving 55,000 miles per year then the Eco would likely be quite beneficial for you. You can always add a spare tire and cruise control later if you want.


----------



## mikemc422 (May 24, 2016)

chevrasaki said:


> All of those questions are very difficult to answer. Many folks here haven't even experienced the 2nd gear grind with either the Eco or the LT. It pretty much only happens when speed shifting from first to second at high RPM. I believe it may be due to a lazy disengaging clutch or lazy synchros. I've had the grind a handful of times but I drive my car pretty hard.
> 
> As for the efficiency, the Eco on average seems to get about 3-5MPG more than the LT mainly due to the higher ratio in 6th gear. If you do a lot of highway driving it would likely benefit you to get the Eco. If you spend most of your time in the city, you may not really notice too much of a difference. It's really up to you weather or not to spring the extra cash or not. I decided to go with the 1LT and I'm pretty happy with my decision. But I'm sure many here will tell you the same thing about their Eco. I know that probably doesn't help your decision. If you really are driving 55,000 miles per year then the Eco would likely be quite beneficial for you. You can always add a spare tire and cruise control later if you want.


I think I'll probably end up with the LT, just because I know its always been meticulously maintained and a lot of it's miles are highway. Most of my driving is to and from work (right about 60 miles each way, 6 days a week), and driving from FL up to GA, NJ, and BC, so its pretty much just highway, but I don't really think 3-5 mpg is enough to make a difference, even 18 in my crown vic to 23 in my Honda didn't change much. I know that shifting fast screws with the synchros (I blew out the synchros for 2nd, 3rd, and 5th on both Hondas I've had) but if that's the case and the trans starts grinding at high rpm's I'll just double pump the clutch when I'm heavy on 1st gear.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I'm surprised the ECO doesn't have a cruise control. Double check that one to verify. My understanding is the 1LT and higher are equipped with Cruise Control from the factory. The 1->2 gear grind is not there in every car, and in those it is in you can eliminate it by using either the AMSOil Synchromesh or heavier AMSOil gear oil. I use the AMSOil synchromesh and don't have this issue any more. I had it on the GM OEM fluid. If you're driving majority highway the ECO will be the better car - it's geared towards highway driving and even at 80 MPH will return 38-40 MPG. The 42 MPG mark in my 2012 ECO MT is 77 MPH and at 55 MPH I get 55 MPG. As Chevrasaki pointed out you can add the spare tire. Trust me, the spare tire doesn't impact your real world fuel economy and I guarantee you'll need one if you go without.

One of the interesting things about the way the Cruze (1LT or ECO) is geared is that revving to really high RPMs before shifting doesn't get you going any faster than shifting around 3,000 RPM. This is because the car has a flat torque curve from 2500 to 4500 RPM. Double pumping the clutch doesn't do anything for this car - the engine speed is controlled electronically and there is a major rev hang that other folks coming over from other brands have complained about. It's part of the car's driving experience and no one has figured out how to eliminate it.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

mikemc422 said:


> do you think it'd be enough to make up for the $4k price difference in about 3 years, driving 55k miles a year?


Yes, especially if oil prices go back to the $4 to $5 per gallon range again.


----------



## Papa Rad17 (May 19, 2015)

I have a 2014 2LT 6MT. When purchased at 15,000miles I averaged 38-39 highway. Over the past 15K miles it has broke in and drive-ability has increased a ton. With amsoil lubes, Ingin CAI, and new properly gaped iridium plugs I now see 41.5-42.7 highway mpgs. -1 too -2 mpgs during winter. For my purposes that's sufficient, but I prefer my factory options over the MPGs.


----------



## spaycace (Feb 9, 2012)

mikemc422 said:


> I'm currently looking at a 2012 1LT and a 2013 ECO, both right under 80k miles, similar options (both have the same power options and the steering wheel controls for the radio, ECO doesn't have cruise though) and they're both red with black cloth interior. I drove the LT from mid Florida to north Georgia, averaging 43 mpg staying around 95 mph with hard acceleration the few times i slowed down. I was wondering what type of fuel mileage difference I'd see with the ECO being that I drive 120+ miles a day in similar conditions.


I certainly wouldn't be complaining if I was getting 43 mpg at 95 mph because I know I didn't see those numbers even going 85 to 90 mph! I don't know if anyone has gotten that kind of mileage at those speeds, but if so, I certainly wouldn't be worried about getting an Eco! Are you sure you didn't have an Eco on that trip? Because that mpg number at that speed seems a bit high for an LT, but I could be wrong.


----------



## chevrasaki (May 1, 2015)

spaycace said:


> I certainly wouldn't be complaining if I was getting 43 mpg at 95 mph because I know I didn't see those numbers even going 85 to 90 mph! I don't know if anyone has gotten that kind of mileage at those speeds, but if so, I certainly wouldn't be worried about getting an Eco! Are you sure you didn't have an Eco on that trip? Because that mpg number at that speed seems a bit high for an LT, but I could be wrong.



I get between 28 and 31 MPG when I set my cruise at 81 mph, but I do have hills to deal with around here. Even so, that does sound a bit unlikely. If I set my cruise at 70MPH I can get between 39 and 43MPG


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

Verify the vin of the eco. Should read 1G1PJ5S9......... 


1G1PB5S9 is gonna be a LS with eco wheels and spoiler. I seen like 2 of those on facebook. 


Since you mentioned BC......... 1G1PM5S9 is possible LS with eco parts swap as well. You have any pics or for sale ad for said vehicle?


If I had to pick again from my Eco 6MT and a LT, it would have been a 2LT RS 6MT


----------



## mikemc422 (May 24, 2016)

It was definitely an LT that I drove up to GA, but I was drafting behind my aunt a large part of the trip and there were almost no hills until we hit Atlanta, which probably boosted the mpg a bit. I did check the vin on the ECO, and it's an ECO, but I'm not sure why it doesn't have cruise control, could that be because it's a Canadian car? I thought the owner had it imported from the states but I could be wrong, they may have just swapped out the speedometer for the US one.


----------



## mikemc422 (May 24, 2016)

At this point I'm considering getting both, because my boyfriend has a BMW with 261k miles on it and it started leaking trans fluid last night on the way home, and I don't think the repairs are worth it for such a high mileage German car.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

If that ECO is a Canadian import you may have problems getting it registered. When you did the VIN check did it show where it was originally delivered?


----------



## mikemc422 (May 24, 2016)

obermd said:


> If that ECO is a Canadian import you may have problems getting it registered. When you did the VIN check did it show where it was originally delivered?



I had my uncle run it for me at work (works at a chevy dealer) so I'm not sure where it was delivered, but I'll have him check tomorrow.


----------



## mikemc422 (May 24, 2016)

So the car was originally delivered to a dealer in Washington, but originally registered in British Columbia. I also found out that the car was originally black, but was painted red at the dealership before it was sold, and was ordered without cruise control.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

That was a very special order. The standard ordering wouldn't have allowed the no cruise control option.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

I'd personally look for another eco. With thar commute, you'll save a lot of money with the eco. On the highway, at sane speeds, that car is worth at least 5mpg. With some discipline, you can push 50-55mpg out of it. The LT won't go past 45mpg on a full tank easily. The Eco MT6 is definitely worth taking a hard look at with a 120 mile daily commute.


----------



## mikemc422 (May 24, 2016)

So I've narrowed it down to the LT I was looking at, a black 2012 ECO 6MT, and a dark purple 2013 Navigator L. I really like the ECO for the fuel economy, but this one doesn't have the steering wheel controls or tinted windows (and the other one was wrecked last night). The only other two however already have these, and they have lower miles (the ECO is at 95k). With my commute the ECO would benefit me financially, but it doesn't feel as sporty as the LT, and at this point anything above 25 on the highway will save me money. From what I understand, at high speeds the LT and ECO don't have too much difference anyway, correct? My commute keeps me above 80 most of the time, anything under 65 and I'd get hit in the traffic


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Top line is the ECO MT's fuel economy vs. MPH. This chart is from a Motor Trend article on 40 MPG cars back in 2012.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

At 80 on a 1LT you're doing mid 30s because you're buzzing away at 3000+ RPM. That is right in the peak of the torque band - not efficient. 

For lower speeds (65-70), figure a 3 mpg difference. For higher speeds (80), figure a 5 mpg difference.


----------



## chevrasaki (May 1, 2015)

mikemc422 said:


> So I've narrowed it down to the LT I was looking at, a black 2012 ECO 6MT, and a dark purple 2013 Navigator L. I really like the ECO for the fuel economy, but this one doesn't have the steering wheel controls or tinted windows (and the other one was wrecked last night). The only other two however already have these, and they have lower miles (the ECO is at 95k). With my commute the ECO would benefit me financially, but it doesn't feel as sporty as the LT, and at this point anything above 25 on the highway will save me money. From what I understand, at high speeds the LT and ECO don't have too much difference anyway, correct? My commute keeps me above 80 most of the time, anything under 65 and I'd get hit in the traffic


The highway is where you'll see the biggest difference. The reason is that the Eco 5th gear has exactly the same ratio as the LT 6th gear. Driving a manual 1LT in 6th gear, is like leaving the Eco in 5th gear, which is why the interstate is where you'll notice it the most. Around town, you can just short shift and keep the RPMs low. On the interstate, you can not make the RPMs drop down any further than putting it into 6th gear. 

This chart shows the differences between the Eco and the 1LT manual ratios.

Cruze Eco (Getrag M32 MF3):
1st: 4.27
2nd: 2.16
3rd: 1.30
4th: 0.96
5th: 0.74
6th: 0.61


Cruze 1LT (Getrag M32 MR5):
1st: 4.27
2nd: 2.35
3rd: 1.48
4th: 1.07
5th: 0.88
6th: 0.74


----------



## mikemc422 (May 24, 2016)

Oh, then I'll probably end up with an ECO. However, I'll have to put that off until November-December because I now need a truck (boyfriend bought a boat today without asking) and am going to look at a 2013 escalade esv platinum and a 2013 navigator L tomorrow, and I can't afford a truck and a car and a boat right now.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Maybe your boyfriend should buy the truck.


----------



## mikemc422 (May 24, 2016)

obermd said:


> Maybe your boyfriend should buy the truck.


I would, but then I'd be the one stuck with the BMW  We've been together for 9 years, so of course we share a bank account, and between the two of us we can only afford the boat and truck, so the car will have to wait until November/December while we save up because neither of us have the credit for a loan. I'd also rather drive the black 2013 escalade esv and get 19 mpg (bought yesterday, and I drove it to work today. expected at least 20 but got 19, but its better than my expedition was so no complaints) than drive the 2001 750il and get 12 mpg (i drove it to work once and told my boyfriend he's lucky he works so close to home because I couldn't afford 10+ gallons of premium gas every day )


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

That graph is worthless without Motor Trend specifying the conditions of the test. Looks like to me running these test on a windless, loadless dynamometer using the kind of high octane fuels we could buy in the 50's and mid 60's. Fuel economy dropped significantly in the 70's with low octane lead free gas, even more so by pouring ethanol in it.

Fuel is rated in the heating value of fuel per gallon, like 120,000 BTU's, can be as low as 90,000 today.

With older engines, could be tuned for maximum economy, using a higher octane fuel, could adjust the spark advance curve, for gearing, based strictly on hitting the peak of the torque curve of the engine. When brainless Nixon by executive order dropped the interstate speed limit, we all paid the price for poorer fuel economy, truckers were screaming, so I was I, economy dropped 15%. Ahole never checked that 90% of the driving was done in congested cities. 

Another factor was camshaft grinding, either for fuel economy or power, Cruze has variable valve timing as well as anti-knock sensors making a huge difference for what kind of fuel you were pouring in. Torque curve for the Cruze is nearly flat. These are welcomed improvements, well at least until you start having more problems.

Have an EPA far more interested in emissions than fuel economy, even reported the average CAFE fuel economy is worse today than with was 20 years ago. Lower numeric gear ratios are not the solution, driving on hilly roads, do far better in fifth gear than sixth. In town, maximum speed limits of 25 mph, only go as high as 2nd gear, ignore that shift light. With higher gears, a heck of a lot more gas is poured into the engine, loading the hail out of it, just to attempt to maintain your speed. 

Best I could do was 57 mpg driving on a flat county road at 30 mph in fifth gear. 2012 2LT with a manual gear box, I am the brains, not an 89 cent microcontroller programmed by some nerd sitting behind a computer. 

Ha, buying things, wife and I talk this over first, with some mistakes, buying a boat for our grandkids, having a lot more fun when we take them in our kayak, get bored in the boat. Motorhome with only 50K on it, but sat outside for the last 34 years, said maybe time to get a newer one. She said lets get a truck and a camper, just replied, you never towed a camper before, particularly bad on narrow roads when a semi goes by and bumps on the road are ten times as bad. Can't ride back there anyway, against the law.

Should really move back into the country where we can have a shed, we talk for it for awhile, then drop it. Ha, suggested I sale my Supra, been with me for 28 years now, you only been here 14 years, LOL. 

Had a bad weekend, was planning on kayaking in Lake Superior, weather guy lied, was raining all day, daughter got real sick, so packed up and came home at 1:00 AM in the morning last Friday. Roads were terrible, narrow, fog, and rain, plus being dead tired. But did make it home in one piece. I can shoot guys using HID's, only thing I could see was that faded white line on the right side of the road.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

NickD said:


> That graph is worthless without Motor Trend specifying the conditions of the test. Looks like to me running these test on a windless, loadless dynamometer using the kind of high octane fuels we could buy in the 50's and mid 60's.


The original article described the test conditions. This was actual on-track testing. In addition the fuel consumed was measured and not estimated. Finally, my 2012 ECO MT follows that top line almost exactly for speed vs. MPG, so we know the test conditions were realistic.


----------



## mikemc422 (May 24, 2016)

So my friend said she'll trade the BMW for the Cruze LT because she'll save money (she's going to lease a BMW and with a BMW trade she'll get a loyalty discount that she wouldn't get with cash) so I'm going to end up with that (if I knew my boyfriend would end up with the truck so soon I would've saved $5k and gotten an older suburban LTZ instead lol)... So now I only have to wait until mid-fall :disappointed:... If only she were ready to trade now instead of later...


----------



## spaycace (Feb 9, 2012)

mikemc422 said:


> I would, but then I'd be the one stuck with the BMW  We've been together for 9 years, so of course we share a bank account, and between the two of us we can only afford the boat and truck, so the car will have to wait until November/December while we save up because neither of us have the credit for a loan. I'd also rather drive the black 2013 escalade esv and get 19 mpg (bought yesterday, and I drove it to work today. expected at least 20 but got 19, but its better than my expedition was so no complaints) than drive the 2001 750il and get 12 mpg (i drove it to work once and told my boyfriend he's lucky he works so close to home because I couldn't afford 10+ gallons of premium gas every day )


You should be glad that your Escalade got 19 mpg ... especially if it's the AWD version, as it's only rated at 18 on the highway. I'm curious as to how far you drive to work every day since you said the Bimmer was 12 mpg and you didn't want to burn through 10+ gallons of fuel every day. I can definitely see why you want the Cruze, too bad you have to wait so long for it. I miss my Eco from time to time, simply for the fun it was to drive and the manual transmission.


----------



## fxsx24 (Aug 26, 2016)

jblackburn said:


> I've actually found my DIC to be fairly accurate - usually within 1 mpg.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


im sure the quote wont copy the picture you posted (page 1) 

but I have a 2011 eco mt, I do not have the screen on my DIC that you posted, any idea what year or model changed that?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

fxsx24 said:


> im sure the quote wont copy the picture you posted (page 1)
> 
> but I have a 2011 eco mt, I do not have the screen on my DIC that you posted, any idea what year or model changed that?


2012 (all models)


----------



## fxsx24 (Aug 26, 2016)

booooo

I imagine there is no way to get the newer menu via some update


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

fxsx24 said:


> booooo
> 
> I imagine there is no way to get the newer menu via some update


Not that I know of


----------

