# Chevy Cruze Diesel Coming to America, Targeting 50-MPG



## AutoGuide.com (Jul 26, 2010)

Chevrolet will bring a diesel-powered version of the Cruze compact sedan to the U.S. market. The news comes via two sources briefed on GM's future product plans and is not the first indication of an oil-burner Cruze for America. Back in February GMInsideNews was first to break the story and this latest info only adds to that report's credibility.

The Cruze diesel is likely to use the same powerplant found under the hood of the Australian version of the Cruze (which is sold under the Holden brand). That car uses a 2.0-liter diesel engine making 147-hp and 235 lb-ft of torque. Chevrolet is reportedly targeting a 50-mpg highway rating in a bid to meet increasingly strict CAFE requirements.

Set to go on sale in late 2012 as a 2013 model year car, look for a starting price several thousand above the current Cruze model, as diesel engines cost more to produce. Chevrolet may look to follow Volkswagen in offering a high-content level for the diesel models in order to offset the added cost of the engine.

If the reports prove true, this would mark the first time since the 1980s that a diesel-powered passenger car was a part of GM's North American lineup.

More: *Chevy Cruze Diesel Coming to America, Targeting 50-MPG* on AutoGuide.com


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

**** them!


----------



## RS LTZ (Jan 5, 2011)

Might consider a trade if that actually is released


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

I won't trade mine in but still, kind aggravating. Would be nice to get my current gas mileage or better and , hey, maybe accelerate up a hill...


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...*if* it's anything like the *1.4LT with 6-speed automatic*, it'll _never_ achieve that 'advertised' 50 mpg in the hands of *Joe Q. Public*!

...and, most likely it'll only get the *5-speed manual* (like elsewhere gets now), no 6-speed.


----------



## GMMillwright (Mar 5, 2011)

70AARCUDA;32901...and said:


> 5-speed manual[/B] (like elsewhere gets now), no 6-speed.


Wouldn't think a car with 235 lb-ft of torque low in the rev range would need the 6 speed.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...it has _too much_ *torque* for the 6-speed; that's also *why* the european diesel Cruzes have _bigger_ wheel *bolt pattern* than the gasoline models!


----------



## Thommo10 (Feb 8, 2011)

GM Holden Version comes with 6 Speed Auto..........Has always been the case since first release in 2009 (Series 1). 

Only the Manual Version will get 50 MPG though with a fair bit of tweaking ..... 

They claim 5.6 Litres / 100Kms here on the new diesel. But that only equates to US 42 MPG...... UK 52 MPG. 

So they must be doing some works on the engine to get to 50... Unless I have the wrong converter.... ha ha 

I have the 5 Speed Manual Diesel 2010 (Series 1 only 150HP and about 320NM Torque), and has no worries accelerating uphills or getting 5.5L/100Kms on a highway).... :th_coolio:

The figures on the New Series II Diesel here in Australia are not correct, it is now 163 HP and 360 NM (265 lb/ft) of torque. I wish I had that now !!!


----------



## TheStepChild (Jun 26, 2011)

Do IT!!!

Diesel RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## bartonmd (Jun 30, 2011)

Shame they didn't come out with the diesel Cruze in MY2008 or older... Might be worth owning... 

You can thank the EPA for making the MY2010+ diesels basically not worth owning unless you NEED the diesel to tow your load; so you have to put up with the regen cycles that make you drive on the interstate for them (and buying urea for the regen, or dumping raw fuel into the exhaust and white smoking out the tailpipe to regen the DPF), clogged up EGR, injector problems, and a whole list of stuff the diesel trucks have that goes wrong... The new diesels are just plain $$$$$$$$$ to own and maintain (much more expensive to keep up than a gas engine)...

Add to all of that, if the ECO gets 42mpg, the diesel would have to get 46-47mpg for the fuel cost to be the same, as diesel has been around 10% more expensive than gasoline...

So if the ECO gets 42mpg highway, and the diesel gets 50mpg highway, at current fuel prices, you save $571 over 100k miles, and it'll probably be a $2k - $3k option... You'd save more in town, but it wouldn't pay back even the price adder in 100k miles, let alone save you money...

IMO, there was a period of time where diesels were THE way to go in a truck... After they turbo'd all of them, after they got them to reliably start at 0degF, and before the ULSD made diesel more expensive than gasoline, and before all of this DPF crap...

Really, the only reason I own a diesel truck is because I got it used for about the price of a gas truck (and a 3/4 ton diesel has all the 1-ton running gear)...

Mike


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

DPF = urea fluid?


----------



## shawn672 (Oct 31, 2010)

70AARCUDA said:


> DPF = urea fluid?


Diesel particle filter I believe.


----------



## bartonmd (Jun 30, 2011)

shawn672 said:


> Diesel particle filter I believe.


Correct, DPF = Diesel Particulate Filter = "soot trap" after the catalytic converter that adds more back-pressure, weight, money, and maintanence...

Urea = what they dump into the exhaust to "regenerate" (clean) the DPF... The urea also freezes, so that presents a whole other issue... I gather that the bottles under the hood have heaters in them, but that doesn't help your spare gallon in the trunk... Fords dump raw fuel into the exhaust to regen... If you see a new Ford truck pumping out white smoke on the interstate, this is what's happening, and you don't want to get behind them, or your windshield and the front of your car will get a bunch of speckles of diesel fuel on it...

Mike


----------



## LJG (Jun 8, 2011)

Thommo10 said:


> I have the 5 Speed Manual Diesel 2010 (Series 1 only 150HP and about 320NM Torque), and has no worries accelerating uphills or getting 5.5L/100Kms on a highway).... :th_coolio:
> 
> The figures on the New Series II Diesel here in Australia are not correct, it is now 163 HP and 360 NM (265 lb/ft) of torque. I wish I had that now !!!


Yep, I waited for the new series II 163hp version to hit the showroom before I ordered mine. I had to wait 6 weeks for it to arrive, which was not too bad because it was well worth the wait. They go _very_ well.

I filled up this morning at the local BP and drove to work, 57klm and here is my average for that trip. I zero'd it at the servo. That is mainly highway with some suburban including traffic lights etc.










The average for the last tank of fuel was 853.7 kilometers for exactly 49 litres. I used the same pump to fill as the last time and did the same 3 click-offs. So that works out to an average of 5.7 litres per 100klm over the tank. That includes quite a lot of suburban running around, going shopping, visiting friends etc. As you can see I have only done 2,347klm so it is still not fully loosened up yet. The service manager reckons at least 5,000klm before they start to get the best fuel economy.

I think you Americans are going to be quite surprised at just how good these new diesels are. I have certainly never owned anything with 4 wheels that goes this well while getting such great fuel economy! 

How they will get 50mpg U.S. out of them I don't know, because your MPG is different to Imperial MPG, but Imperial MPG figures for my best is 52.4 mpg with an average of 49.2. I'm certainly _not_ complaining!

Mike (above) the Australian diesel does have the Diesel Particulate Filter but we _do not_ have the Urea (what we call AddBlue) additive in ours. I have been told though that eventually we will sometime in the future for new models, as will all diesels cars and trucks to meet Euro6 standards. I'm not sure what your specs will be, but I noticed when I was over there some cars already have what you guys call "Bluetec", which is just another name for Urea additive. The DPF makes them run very cleanly, there is no smoke out the rear except for a very small amount under full throttle.


----------



## bartonmd (Jun 30, 2011)

LJG said:


> Mike (above) the Australian diesel does have the Diesel Particulate Filter but we _do not_ have the Urea (what we call AddBlue) additive in ours. I have been told though that eventually we will sometime in the future for new models, as will all diesels cars and trucks to meet Euro6 standards. I'm not sure what your specs will be, but I noticed when I was over there some cars already have what you guys call "Bluetec", which is just another name for Urea additive. The DPF makes them run very cleanly, there is no smoke out the rear except for a very small amount under full throttle.


If you don't use the urea, how to you regen the DPF? Or are yours like our early ones, that weren't quite as effecient at removing particulate, but just had to be taken apart and cleaned every so often? Or is it the kind that have heater elements in them, to get the EGT high enough to light off the DPF? Or does it just inject some fuel on the exhaust stroke, to heat the EGT up?

The white smoke out the rear that I'm talking about on some trucks is only during the regen cycle on the highway... There should be almost no black smoke, as it sounds like there isn't...

Mike


----------



## LJG (Jun 8, 2011)

Mike, the one in the Holden version is a ceramic core made from silicon carbide and it has alternate closed channels. This forces the gas to pass through the channel walls which trap any particulates. It then burns off the particulate matter accumulated by giving a secondary injection of fuel. This is why the instant readout jumps when it is doing it. It does not burn this secondary injection in the combustion chamber, instead it burns it in the catalytic converters (which there are 2 of). It heats them up from their normal temps of 120-400 degrees C to over 600 degrees C. Once the DPF hits 600 degrees C it burns off the accumulated soot and turns it into Carbon Dioxide (CO2). There are 2 exhaust gas sensors that monitor the temperature to keep it going as long as needed.

One thing owners of diesels fitted with DPF's need to keep in mind is they MUST use a "Low Saps" engine oil (low in Suphated Ash and Phosphorus-Sulpher). The reason is normal engine oils have higher levels of Ash and it lets the Ash, which is denser than soot particulate, deposit on the DPF walls and the Ash cannot be burnt off. It degrades the DPF and severely reduces the DPF's lifespan.


----------



## bartonmd (Jun 30, 2011)

OK, so it's the dump fuel into the exhaust kind... Since diesels run lean most of the time, there is plenty of unused oxygen going into the converter, to light off with the fuel, and raise the EGT, to regen the DPF...

That's not as bad as the "blue_______" urea stuff, but it still uses extra fuel (both to regen, as well as making the engine less effecient due to pumping losses) and is a whole other series of expensive things to maintain...

Thanks for the info!

Mike


----------



## LJG (Jun 8, 2011)

Yeh, I agree, but it is a small price to pay for the extra fun factor you get Mike. OK, it is a diesel and only has 120kw, but it has more torque than most small diesel 4x4 dual cab utes that weigh 2 tonne or more, in fact it has more torque than a WRX, so the fun factor is quite high when driving it. I'm not saying it is as quick as a WRX, nowhere near it, but they are a lot quicker than the average small/medium 4 cylinder sedan and really are quite a fun car to drive, especialy on hilly winding roads where you can use the torque. Add that to the fuel economy they get and they are a tidy little package.


----------



## bartonmd (Jun 30, 2011)

My buddy had a Jetta TDI that I used to drive a bit, and it was fun to drive! My Cummins Dodge pickup is fun to drive, too... I'm just saying not to get the diesel for the highway mileage, as it's not only more expensive to buy than the ECO, but is going to cost more in maintenance than the gasoline engines, as well...

Mike


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...with *diesel* fuel currently costing about 25% more than *gasoline* (ie: $3.999 vs. $3.239 per gallon), that makes its' "break-even FE point" about 25% _higher_, so the *diesel* Cruze would really need to get about *56 mpg* when compared with the *gasosline* Eco Cruze's *42 mpg*!


----------



## LJG (Jun 8, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...with *diesel* fuel currently costing about 25% more than *gasoline* (ie: $3.999 vs. $3.239 per gallon), that makes its' "break-even FE point" about 25% _higher_, so the *diesel* Cruze would really need to get about *56 mpg* when compared with the *gasosline* Eco Cruze's *42 mpg*!


Yeh well, diesel runs from the same price as petrol to only a maximum of 5% dearer over here in Australia, so the extra fun factor is _well_ worth any added cost. You need to drive one before you boohoo them, I think you'd be quite surprised at just how good they are. I drove all 3 types before I made my final decision and I know which one I liked best. As a motoring writer over here said, you reckon the 1.4 turbo is good, wait till you drive the diesel, you're going to love it.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...I wasn't 'boo-hooing' the diesel *car*, just the "break-even" *co$t* differential between the two *fuels*.

...I briefly owned a 1981 Chevette with the Izusu NA diesel engine...but diesel back then was _cheaper_ than gasoline by quite a bit!


----------

