# Cruze Eco versus TD death match



## BowtieGuy (Jan 4, 2013)

Big mistake to buy an Eco with the automatic. The manual gets much better MPG. Would have been better off with just a 1LT automatic.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

BowtieGuy said:


> Big mistake to buy an Eco with the automatic. The manual gets much better MPG. Would have been better off with just a 1LT automatic.


Sure the 1LT will save more money but depends on the speeds driven on the hwy if the ECO aerodynamic mods will have any effect. Since the EPA average highway speed is only 48mph, I doubt the true benefit of those mods is shown in its 1MPG improvement over the 1LT. 

At 65mph or more that ECO auto probably would best the 1LT by a much larger number than that 1MPG EPA claim.


----------



## Garandman (Dec 31, 2013)

BowtieGuy said:


> Big mistake to buy an Eco with the automatic. The manual gets much better MPG. Would have been better off with just a 1LT automatic.


Eco automatic is most direct comparison. 

These are company cars. Although I drive a WRX, we wouldn't ordinarily buy manual shift company cars as they are much more difficult to sell used. 

We might purchase a Cruze TD manual if they existed but that would be a special purpose vehicle.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

Will these cars be carrying any weight with tools, parts etc, as this would give the diesel models a clear advantage.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

It all depends on how you drive em. Mpg ratings are only as good as the person behind the wheel. Going from the ECO diesel to ECO gas may have you flooring the ECO gas more. Are we 87 octane in the ECO auto? In theory the diesel will hold value more due to the amount sold. 


Sent from my iFail 5s


----------



## Diesel Dan (May 18, 2013)

Garandman said:


> with a Cruze Eco that is equipped almost identically to the TD's. It has an automatic (though different), and cloth seat inserts, but the same GPS, backup camera options, etc.





> The Cruze Eco is thousands of dollars cheaper (trim is not the same), and a few hundred pounds lighter.


TD has Z-link rear suspension, rear disc brakes and much more sound deadener than the eco as well.

I have no doubt that both engines will make the 200k mark.
What will be interesting is how the emission components hold up on the TD and which engine has the longer lasting water pump. :grin:


----------



## Su8pack1 (Apr 17, 2014)

Looking forward to seeing the results.


----------



## cmsdock (Feb 16, 2014)

Diesel Dan said:


> TD has Z-link rear suspension, rear disc brakes and much more sound deadener than the eco as well.
> 
> I have no doubt that both engines will make the 200k mark.
> What will be interesting is how the emission components hold up on the TD and which engine has the longer lasting water pump. :grin:


Water pump in the diesel is supposed to be replaced at 90k miles along with timing chain. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> At 65mph or more that ECO auto probably would best the 1LT by a much larger number than that 1MPG EPA claim.


Probably 75-80. The 1LT MT isn't trailing the Eco by a whole lot at 65 MPH, but the gap definitely widens as the 1LT gets near 3000 RPM at 80.



> Water pump in the diesel is supposed to be replaced at 90k miles along with timing chain.


Timing belt.

And the 1.4 will destroy the water pump well before 90K .


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

jblackburn said:


> Probably 75-80. The 1LT MT isn't trailing the Eco by a whole lot at 65 MPH, but the gap definitely widens as the 1LT gets near 3000 RPM at 80.


80 mph in ECO 6mt in 6th









Sent from my iFail 5s


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Merc6 said:


> 80 mph in ECO 6mt in 6th
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, seems like gas mileage really goes downhill after 2500 (peak torque for the 1.4 MT). From 72-75 mph is a 3 MPG drop for me. 


Sent from Bill the WonderPhone


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> Probably 75-80. The 1LT MT isn't trailing the Eco by a whole lot at 65 MPH, but the gap definitely widens as the 1LT gets near 3000 RPM at 80.


I was talking about the aerodynamic parts on the ECO, which really only comes into play at speeds above 50mph. Comparing an auto ECO to a auto 1LT any speed above that point would see some MPG improvement, I suspect at 65mph or more though you it may be significant enough to be measurable. RPM wise the Diesel or ECO manual are the clear winners. 

I was also pointing out EPA test only averages 48mph for the highway portion, so those ECO aerodynamic mods probably aren't reflected that well in the EPA MPG differences when you compare a 1LT auto to a ECO auto(the ECO gets 1MPG better on the EPA test cylce). Compare Side-by-Side


----------



## Garandman (Dec 31, 2013)

FWIW Edmunds.com gives a five year true cost of ownership based on 15,000 miles per year over five years. The Cruze Eco we bought has a total cost of $37,146. That includes $9,148 for fuel. The CTD costs $41,559 and fuel $9,711. The VW Jetta deluxe is $42,821. Our numbers are better in that we paid about $2,000 less than their "cash price." 

We expect that a Cruze Diesel with 200,000 miles on it will have better resale or longer remaining life than a 1.4 turbo car. I'll let you know in 2020!


----------



## Diesel Dan (May 18, 2013)

Garandman said:


> I'll let you know in 2020!


C'mon, everybody knows the internet will be full by then.


----------



## Vetterin (Mar 27, 2011)

How much value do you think you might get on a 6-7 year old car with 200,000+ miles? I would doubt that the difference between the two (if still running) will be more than a few hundred bucks.
I will more interested in knowing how much was spent replacing wear and tear items during that period.


----------



## Ger8mm (Mar 13, 2014)

If your keeping a car for 200,000 + miles then you shouldn't care about resale value, you should start picking what dump is willing to get it lol......Im driving mine straight in the ground.


----------



## Diesel Dan (May 18, 2013)

The VW TDI still commands a decent price, even with 200K miles.


----------



## cdb09007 (Aug 7, 2013)

I'll subscribe and check back on this thread in 3 years for the results.....hahha


----------



## ParisTNDude (Oct 7, 2013)

I can't imagine a company car with a manual since many women and men can't drive a stick. Automatics are more reliable when many different people drive them. It took the Air Force about 10 years to realize that but now there are no standard shift cars in the AF inventory.

Sounds like a very good long term comparison. I would bet your employees will prefer driving the CTD.

I'm going to suggest that it's probably time we change the term "standard shift" to apply to automatic transmissioned cars since they represent the "standard" for today...lol.


----------



## oldreliable (Dec 9, 2013)

A good friend of mine has a Cruze Eco MT, which is actually what got me interested in the Cruze in the first place. I was astounded to learn that there was a diesel version, and it's hands down a better powertrain - there is power EVERYWHERE in the rev range. I think maybe if I had driven one without the Eco's ratios, I might have liked the 1.4T a little more.

That said, the diesel's shift patterns are a little wonky at times (I just find myself wondering "now, why did it go and do THAT?"), and the lag when flooring it from a stop, as if to dart out into traffic, with the automatic is a bit annoying.

Fuel economy is a wash - the diesel gets about 4 MPG better on the highway, but 2-3 MPG less in town based on my time with his car.

Both are excellent products for a Chevrolet small car - WORLDS ahead of the Grand Am I once owned, and my wife's old Buick.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

oldreliable said:


> That said, the diesel's shift patterns are a little wonky at times (I just find myself wondering "now, why did it go and do THAT?"), *and the lag when flooring it from a stop, as if to dart out into traffic, with the automatic is a bit annoying.
> *
> Fuel economy is a wash - the diesel gets about 4 MPG better on the highway, but 2-3 MPG less in town based on my time with his car.
> 
> Both are excellent products for a Chevrolet small car - WORLDS ahead of the Grand Am I once owned, and my wife's old Buick.


There is your problem, just ease on the gas until the turbo spools up and you will get a clean start. Flooring it off the line is the slowest way to get a brisk start, I know I have owned one for 2 years.


----------



## oldreliable (Dec 9, 2013)

Aussie said:


> There is your problem, just ease on the gas until the turbo spools up and you will get a clean start. Flooring it off the line is the slowest way to get a brisk start, I know I have owned one for 2 years.


Yes, I have come to realize that, but it's about the last thing on my mind when I see an opening in traffic and want to seize that moment. 

My other car is a V8 Mustang, squeeze the pedal and it INSTANTLY does what you want, and the wife's V6 Highlander and former Pilot were much the same way. My Camry just didn't really go anywhere quickly, but it didn't have that deceptive surge of torque that the CTD does once the turbo spools up either.

This is my first turbocharged (and diesel!) engine, so does take a bit of getting used to.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

You need about 6 - 10K on the clock before it gives it's best and by then you have learned how to drive it as well. Believe me it will grow on you and you will find yorself driving with a smile on your face.


----------



## oldreliable (Dec 9, 2013)

Aussie said:


> You need about 6 - 10K on the clock before it gives it's best and by then you have learned how to drive it as well. Believe me it will grow on you and you will find yorself driving with a smile on your face.


Yep, already 9000 miles under my Cruze's belt! The shifting has definitely improved as the car learned my habits.


----------



## Handles (Oct 8, 2012)

I looked at the edmunds link from the last page. Interesting to note that in their estimate even as the car decreased in value, a person pays more each year in insurance. Edmunds obviously knows the score and who is making bank on car ownership.


----------



## Garandman (Dec 31, 2013)

Just put the Eco on the road this week. Diesel #1 has 18,000 miles, diesel #2 has 12,000.


Vetterin said:


> How much value do you think you might get on a 6-7 year old car with 200,000+ miles? I would doubt that the difference between the two (if still running) will be more than a few hundred bucks.
> I will more interested in knowing how much was spent replacing wear and tear items during that period.


Obviously I don't agree or we wouldn't bother.

Edmunds private sale value of our 2005 Honda Accord V6 with 208,000 miles is $3,443. 

We haven't found four cylinder cars to hold up to those kind of miles: that's why we bought the diesels. A 4 cyl Outback is pretty beat at 150,000 miles. My H6 Outback runs like a turbine and uses zero oil with 166,000 on it. We have two Honda Accord V6's that both run perfectly and the "new" one has 178,000.

Anyone else getting private messages from Amsoil dealers?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Garandman said:


> Just put the Eco on the road this week. Diesel #1 has 18,000 miles, diesel #2 has 12,000.
> Obviously I don't agree or we wouldn't bother.
> 
> Edmunds private sale value of our 2005 Honda Accord V6 with 208,000 miles is $3,443.
> ...


Can't comment on Subarus, but you're actually lucky to have gotten that far with the Honda V6. Their V6s are notorious for transmission and oil consumption problems; the 2.4 is pretty much bulletproof.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Garandman said:


> Anyone else getting private messages from Amsoil dealers?


Considering I'm the only registered vendor that sells AMSOIL products on this site, I would sure hope not as I certainly didn't message anyone else.


----------



## ParisTNDude (Oct 7, 2013)

Aussie said:


> There is your problem, just ease on the gas until the turbo spools up and you will get a clean start. Flooring it off the line is the slowest way to get a brisk start, I know I have owned one for 2 years.


I wonder why it would perform better at lesser throttle???


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

ParisTNDude said:


> I wonder why it would perform better at lesser throttle???


All engines work better using this method, but with a turbo you are giving it a lot of fuel without boost and this causes the engine to bog down until the turbo spools up and then you get full power suddenly. In the case of petrol engines, without turbo as well, a light throttle opening gives a smaller opening for air to get into the engine and thus more low down torque. As speed builds up opening up the throttle gives you top end power. I don't know if fly by wire compensates for this in petrol engines, but it doesn't seem to in a diesel.


----------



## Garandman (Dec 31, 2013)

jblackburn said:


> Can't comment on Subarus, but you're actually lucky to have gotten that far with the Honda V6. Their V6s are notorious for transmission and oil consumption problems; the 2.4 is pretty much bulletproof.


Lol. We have _two_ of them. And we had to replace a drive axle recently! That $350 repair in more than 380,000 miles in the two cars is _brutal._ :sad010: Those problems are a clear demonstration of how certain issues get amplified by internet postings. Those cars sold in huge numbers for many years so the percentage of problem children is pretty low. 

Yesterday we set up a "time trial" that was a short hill climb from a start. The Eco emerged victorious with a time of 21.2 seconds compared to the diesel's 21.5. Just a test to see if their performance was really as similar as it seemed. The Eco seems to be geared a little bit higher than the TD: IIRC it was showing 2,200rpms at 65mph.

We are going to try and fit the Cruze Eco's spare on the Diesel (despite mismatched bolt circle) as that would solve the spare problem. 

The mobile app worked great when we only had one. Once we got two I couldn't get it to work and was told to call OnStar. Now that we have three I will give them a call to get it working with all three, but I'm really not interested in another sales pitch. I've told the driver to ignore the in-car messages, apparently I have to designate the do-not-contact for each vin rather than the phone # or email address.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

Garandman said:


> We are going to try and fit the Cruze Eco's spare on the Diesel (despite mismatched bolt circle) as that would solve the spare problem.


Not a good idea as even if you manage to get the wheel on the taper for the wheel nuts won't fit properly and damage the wheel. Also it will most likely work loose and the wheel could fall off.


----------



## Danny5 (Dec 22, 2011)

Oh trust me, you can't fit a 5x105 on a 5x115 hub. I've tried


----------



## Garandman (Dec 31, 2013)

Danny5 said:


> Oh trust me, you can't fit a 5x105 on a 5x115 hub. I've tried


I thought the regular Cruze was 114.3 (4.5") not 105, disregard.

Still trying to find a donut spare for the TD's.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Garandman said:


> Still trying to find a donut spare for the TD's.


The gas cruze compact spare weights 28lbs, you could buy a full size rim as a spare and only be around 10-15lbs more weight. Sure it might take up a bit more space but you also have no limits on speed or range you would with a crappy donut.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

If your set on a donut I'm pretty sure the buick verano also uses a 5 X 115 bolt pattern and has an available compact spare.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

Garandman, what % of the cars time is spent city vs. hwy? Are these primarily used for in town service work, or travelling long distances?


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

A question for those anti carrying a spare, would you rather wait for assistance and get towed (I have had a car damaged by a tow truck) or be on your way again in 5 minutes?


----------



## KpaxFAQ (Sep 1, 2013)

In my area where's it's freezing half the year and full of dangerous highways and people texting on their phones, I'd rather sit in my warm car and wait till the tow-truck arrives rather then stand next to traffic for any amount of time.

Then again I've never had a fully flat tire in 15 years of driving hundreds of thousands of *Miles*. Plenty of slow leaks from running over a nail or something but a mini air compressor in the trunk fills her up to limp it over to the tire place or home to put the patch on myself.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Aussie said:


> A question for those anti carrying a spare, would you rather wait for assistance and get towed (I have had a car damaged by a tow truck) or be on your way again in 5 minutes?


Thus my spare in my ECO MT. I recently had to use it - first time I've ever needed a spare tire.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

For the cost of a spare tire one could just drive slowly(under 10mph) on the damaged tire. Even if you ended up damaging the rim you could just use that money you saved not buying a spare to get a new rim & tire. 

I know someone who drive 30 miles on a flat like that and it did not damage the tire or rim!


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

spacedout said:


> For the cost of a spare tire one could just drive slowly(under 10mph) on the damaged tire. Even if you ended up damaging the rim you could just use that money you saved not buying a spare to get a new rim & tire.
> 
> I know someone who drive 30 miles on a flat like that and it did not damage the tire or rim!


Sorry - that's horrible advice. You'd be a rolling roadblock on just about any road and potentially be hit by a driver not paying attention. 

The inflator kit and slime can at least get you to safety if you don't have a spare. A real spare is worlds better. 

Alloy rims and a ruined tire that may have been able to be patched in the first place aren't super cheap either.


----------



## Garandman (Dec 31, 2013)

Blue Angel said:


> Garandman, what % of the cars time is spent city vs. hwy? Are these primarily used for in town service work, or travelling long distances?


Both, and it is highly variable since we have customers in metro Boston and all over New England.


----------



## Garandman (Dec 31, 2013)

spacedout said:


> If your set on a donut I'm pretty sure the buick verano also uses a 5 X 115 bolt pattern and has an available compact spare.


Thanks, specs seem to be the same so we'll give it a try. On eBay they're about $105 for the 16x4 Verano spare. They give a PN of 319813, is that the industry code?


----------

