# Why the Cruze Eco is awesome.



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Here's why I think the Cruze Eco (M/T) is awesome. Its rated for 28mpg city, 42mpg highway, but everyone I know who has one is getting better than that. 

However, the opposite is true of the Honda Hybrid.

Woman wins small-claims suit over Honda Civic Hybrid - Yahoo! Autos

This lady took Honda to court and won, claiming she didn't get the advertised fuel economy. In fact, she got 30mpg when she was promised 50mpg. 



> Peters claimed her he car never came close to the promised 50 mpg (21.26 kpl) and that it got no more than 30 miles per gallon (12.75 kilometers per liter) when the battery began deteriorating.




Wait, the batteries deteriorate? Who would have thought? :banghead:

Maybe we can sue GM for falsely advertising the fuel economy of the Cruze, since people are getting higher than the rated fuel economy (kidding). 

I'm not sure why anyone would want to buy a hybrid now when the Cruze Eco gets the same highway fuel economy. Ever tried to drive a Prius in such a way that it gets its advertised fuel economy in the city? You can't without getting honked at and becoming a road hazard. Ever try to drive a Cruze that way? I did the past couple of weeks, keeping RPMs below 1500 the whole time, and I ended up with a 38mpg average in city-only driving. 

Take that, hybrids.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

Not everybody can drive a stick-shift. For those who do, the fuel economy rewards are nice. Some close family have a 2005 Civic Hybrid. They get 40 mpg out of it in suburban driving and are happy as clams with it. 

Agreed, the Eco MT makes high MPG's quite possible as routine.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

What a joke. Just because she doesn't know how to drive and isn't maintaining her vehicle properly she decides to blame the automakers. shame shame shame. It's embarrassing that this suit was even entertained. EPA claims aren't promises and they tell you that up front. On what basis does she even have a case????



XtremeRevolution said:


> I'm not sure why anyone would want to buy a hybrid now when the Cruze Eco gets the same highway fuel economy.


Well, the Eco is efficient enough for those who can drive stick. But most American's prefer Autos and the Auto Eco isn't any better than any of the other high mileage compacts out there. As efficient as the Eco is, it still loses big to the Prius in fuel economy. 50 MPG combined is nothing to sneeze at and based of fuelly, most Prius users get 45+ which is close enough to the EPA. But the main reason that hybrid's are still more efficient is not just the gasoline consumption.. but the Prius is a lot more environmentally friendly from an emissions standpoint.

But most people will either A) buy a hybrid because they really want the MPG or B) refuse to buy a hybrid and look at the Cruze Eco / Elantra / Focus / Mazda 3 / Veloster / Insert 40 MPG compact.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Wow, you guys seriously didn't even read the whole article? Let me quote it for you, again.

Peters claimed her he car never came close to the promised 50 mpg (21.26 kpl) and that it got no more than 30 miles per gallon (12.75 kilometers per liter) *when the battery began deteriorating.*


----------



## Patman (May 7, 2011)

I can and do drive a stick. 2011 LS. Everything I have heard and read about the ECO makes me want to trade in my LS for an ECO. I have not taken the car on a long trip esp since the tune but in my mainly city driving I am looking at just below 30 MPG. Could be caused by the winter blend gas in Cincinnati ? I did not tune before December so I do not know how it will react in the summer + my wife would probably kill me if I "traded up" to an eco. 




sciphi said:


> Not everybody can drive a stick-shift. For those who do, the fuel economy rewards are nice. Some close family have a 2005 Civic Hybrid. They get 40 mpg out of it in suburban driving and are happy as clams with it.
> 
> Agreed, the Eco MT makes high MPG's quite possible as routine.


----------



## Calintz (Jul 21, 2011)

Everything i heard about the eco is really good but I wouldn't trade my LS for the Eco. I just like my LS for the way it is Z-link, handles the same as the eco, and it looks the same except for the rims. I dunno I guess I just grew attach to my LS lol. Either way both cars are just plain awesome at least for me they are.


----------



## chrisholland03 (Oct 13, 2011)

Former '08 Civic Hybrid owner here. When I bought the car in late '07, I was averaging 45 mpg. I could easily do 42 mpg city and 56 mpg highway. About 9 months in, Honda did a software update and my mpg dropped to 38 mpg. Around 12000 miles my battery pack died and was replaced under warranty. More software updates, and I still was struggling to average 40 mpg or more than 46 mpg highway.

My theory is the original software that was allowing the car to achieve the EPA numbers was killing the batteries prematurely. Rather than facing continual $3000 warranty claims, they changed the software (without telling the owners) and our MPG took a hit.

The hybrid issue was not my only one -- I also went through a hybrid brake booster ($1200), two broken sunvisors ($165), two window regulators ($650), and a defective rear control arm that ate the rear tires. All under warranty in the first 18 months. I was also treated like a leper by all 3 Honda dealerships for having a car with that many warranty issues. Once the car was squared away, I sold it (with full disclosure).

My Eco is averaging 32 mpg city and 46 mpg highway, is more comfortable, less complicated to drive and has been dead reliable so far.


----------



## elegant (Jan 6, 2011)

Thanks XtremeRevolution for finding and posting the follow up court action on that woman's claims. I'd seen the original NBC Nightly news story on it and was curious as to the court outcome. Thanks chrisholland03 for your sharing your experience as an actual Civic hybrid owner.

I was drawn to the Cruze Eco because it was the only 40+ mpg vehicle with a six speed manual transmission, regular gas fueled vehicle that actually gets and exceeds that amount in real world driving. Very happy with my decision, especially when comparing to the real world experience of so many other brands, most notably the Hyundai Elantra drivers and cars news reports about the Elantra consistently getting much less than advertised mileage on their cars. 

Before my purchase of the Eco I had thought of the VW diesels which consistently get 40+ highway, aren't hybrids, also offer a six speed manual transmission, but where I live the price of diesel is currently $ .38 cents per gallon more than regular gas (and has been over the past two years as much as $ 1.08 more per gallon than regular gas).

VERY happy with the Cruze ECO!


----------



## eagleco (May 3, 2011)

Patman said:


> I can and do drive a stick. 2011 LS. Everything I have heard and read about the ECO makes me want to trade in my LS for an ECO.


If I were in your shoes, I would keep the LS. What you saved in the initial purchase price, plus what it would cost you to trade now will buy you more than enough gasoline to come out ahead. And the LS does have at least a few advantages over the ECO like no turbo to worry about going bad. Also, the LS has the full acoustical treatment, and a softer suspension for a quieter and more comfortable ride. Although I am glad I purchased my Eco, the two days I drove a 6MT LS loaner left me very impressed. From a value standpoint I think the LS is the best Cruze.


----------



## Gritts (Jan 23, 2011)

Personally I can't see the additional investment in a hybrid versus a car like the Cruze Eco. I'm also not convinced about a hybrid being all that much greener because of the need to reclaim batteries as well as the cost of added electronics/wiring/weight in hybrids.

An ideal hybrid for me would be the Volt which can be driven without using gas at all. Only by cutting the gas umbilicle cord does this kind of car make any kind of sense to me. But you can almost buy two Cruze Eco's for the price of one Volt. Common sense tells me to keep things simple--can you imagine the number of things that can go wrong in a Volt? More importantly can you imagine having this car repaired after the warrently expires?


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Wow, you guys seriously didn't even read the whole article? Let me quote it for you, again.
> 
> Peters claimed her he car never came close to the promised 50 mpg (21.26 kpl) and that it got no more than 30 miles per gallon (12.75 kilometers per liter) *when the battery began deteriorating.*


I'm saying this is an isolated case. I read the article. The facts are.. the most popular hybrid, the Toyota Prius does not have this issue of deteriorating batteries. Yes it can happen, but it's just as rare as any other major problem on a car like transmission failure. Your arguing that the Eco makes hybrid's not a good investment is a wrong assessment. If MPG is all you are concerned about, the Eco is still not a better deal than a Toyota Prius from a strictly financial standpoint . The reason the Eco appeals to more people is the poor public perception regarding actually buying hybrids. But facts are facts. The Eco is the more attractive deal because it gets near hybrid MPG but also has better driving dynamics and is the more solidly built car because of refinement, comfort, and safety. It is not the attractive deal because it "beats hybrids at their own game" because it does not.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

Honda's serial hybrid system is pretty poor. It's pretty easy to make a car that beats a Honda hybrid for fuel economy and reliability. 

The Eco makes more sense than a Honda hybrid. It can break even against a Prius when the lower purchase price of the Eco MT is weighed against the reduced fuel economy. In terms of absolute fuel economy, a Prius wins. For which makes more sense over 5 years, it's a wash. The Prius's 50 mpg is balanced by the trim level closest to an Eco MT costing $4k more than the Eco MT. Maintenance-wise, the Prius likely wins. They're almost legend in their unflappable reliability, while the jury is out on how reliable an Eco will be over 100-150k miles. 

Most folks who bought an Eco wanted good fuel mileage in a domestic car that has some driving character. Before the Cruze Eco, there were notably few domestic cars that combined high MPG, okay performance, and an affordable price tag.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> I'm saying this is an isolated case. I read the article. The facts are.. the most popular hybrid, the Toyota Prius does not have this issue of deteriorating batteries. Yes it can happen, but it's just as rare as any other major problem on a car like transmission failure. Your arguing that the Eco makes hybrid's not a good investment is a wrong assessment. If MPG is all you are concerned about, the Eco is still not a better deal than a Toyota Prius from a strictly financial standpoint . The reason the Eco appeals to more people is the poor public perception regarding actually buying hybrids. But facts are facts. The Eco is the more attractive deal because it gets near hybrid MPG but also has better driving dynamics and is the more solidly built car because of refinement, comfort, and safety. It is not the attractive deal because it "beats hybrids at their own game" because it does not.


Have you ever had to drive a Prius in such a way so as to get that fuel economy? I'm arguing that if you drove a Cruze the same way you'd drive a prius to get its rated fuel economy, the numbers would be surprisingly close, and for all intent's purposes, they are. 

The Eco does indeed make hybrids a poor investment even if you're looking at it from a strictly fuel economy standpoint. I'll use numbers from the fueleconomy.gov site to make a valid comparison since Toyota requires you to drive in a flat out unsafe fashion to get their numbers.

Toyota Prius: 42mpg combined
Fuel Economy of the 2012 Toyota Prius v

Chevy Cruze Eco: 33mpg combined
Fuel Economy of the 2012 Chevrolet Cruze Eco

We're looking at a 9mpg difference. At a cost of $3.50/gallon of fuel, and a $4,675 price difference between base models, assuming an average of 12,000 miles per year, you're looking at a difference of $273 annually in fuel savings by driving the prius. 

In other words, you would have to drive the Prius for *17 years* or approximately 200k miles in order to *break even.* All the while, you'll have driven a car that looks like a wedge of cheese. :eusa_clap:

All things considered, considering only fueleconomy.gov ratings, they are practically equal in value, but the Cruze is, IMO, a significantly better car for other reasons mentioned above including the ability to merge into traffic confidently.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> The Eco does indeed make hybrids a poor investment even if you're looking at it from a strictly fuel economy standpoint. I'll use numbers from the fueleconomy.gov site to make a valid comparison since Toyota requires you to drive in a flat out unsafe fashion to get their numbers.
> 
> Toyota Prius: 42mpg combined
> Fuel Economy of the 2012 Toyota Prius v
> ...


Your comparing the Eco to the Prius V, which is the mini-SUV version of the Prius. That model's competition is the Ford Escape Hybrid. The standard, high volume mid-size car Prius gets 51 / 48 / 50 combined ratings and starts at $23-24. That is a _*17 MPG *_difference over the Cruze Eco. And like Eco owners, many Prius owners regularly beat the EPA ratings (hypermiller hybrid users swear by 60+). So your 17 year figure using your own calculations is now down to 8-9 years at 12K miles per year. But most people shopping these vehicles are driving double that per year (the whole point of buying a econobox). So when you start looking at 4 years to get your money back.. the Prius is still the better value if we are talking strictly MPG. And when the Prius-C comes out for $20K it will be a flat out wash. I'm not for a second saying the Prius is a better car because its not. I'm just saying you cannot say the Eco is making hybrids unnecessary value because it does not have the financial benefits to displace them at what they do. If I don't care about driveability and acceleration and strictly want to save gas on my in-town errands, the Prius is the better choice. (the Volt in this scenario trumps both). Most Eco owners beating the EPA have nice highway commutes to take advantage of the tall gearing. So in mixed or city driving, the Eco's "hybrid" comparisons are pretty futile.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> Your comparing the Eco to the Prius V, which is the mini-SUV version of the Prius. The standard, high volume Prius gets 51 / 48 / 50 combined ratings and starts at $23-24. That is a _*17 MPG *_difference over the Cruze Eco. And like Eco owners, many Prius owners regularly beat the EPA ratings (hypermiller hybrid users swear by 60+). So your 17 year figure using your own calculations is now down to 8-9 years at 12K miles per year. But most people shopping these vehicles are driving double that per year (the whole point of buying a econobox). So when you start looking at 4 years to get your money back.. the Prius is still the better value if we are talking strictly MPG. And when the Prius-C comes out for $20K it will be a flat out wash. I'm not for a second saying the Prius is a better car because its not. I'm just saying you cannot say the Eco is making hybrids unnecessary value because it does not have the financial benefits to displace them at what they do. If I don't care about driveability and acceleration and strictly want to save gas on my in-town errands, the Prius is the better choice. (the Volt in this scenario trumps both). Most Eco owners beating the EPA have nice highway commutes to take advantage of the tall gearing.


Alright, so lets take a step back then. I used the wrong car. Why not use what people are *actually* getting?

Toyota Prius MPG Reports | Fuelly

Chevrolet Cruze MPG Reports | Fuelly

Down to a 14mpg difference, and not all of those Cruzes are Eco models.

As a side note, I take advantage of the high gearing around town as well. Once I've accelerated to the speed limit, I'll be in 5th gear above 35mph and 6th gear above 40mph. On my daily commute to work, I don't exceed 1500rpm once I hit 3rd gear.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

It's too bad Fuelly doesn't allow for fuel mileage by model and transmission. 

I'm still glad to be driving a nice-looking car that gets good fuel economy and was made here in the States.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> As a side note, I take advantage of the high gearing around town as well. Once I've accelerated to the speed limit, I'll be in 5th gear above 35mph and 6th gear above 40mph. On my daily commute to work, I don't exceed 1500rpm once I hit 3rd gear.


That's all fine. I just don't think you will see as many people cross-shopping the Cruze Eco with the Prius. It's more still Cruze vs. Elantra vs. Focus and Prius vs. Insight vs. Camry / Fusion / Sonata Hybrid. And that is for a reason. The people purchasing a Cruze Eco aren't interested in a hybrid to begin with.


----------



## EcoCruze (Oct 25, 2011)

ErikBEggs said:


> That's all fine. I just don't think you will see as many people cross-shopping the Cruze Eco with the Prius. It's more still Cruze vs. Elantra vs. Focus and Prius vs. Insight vs. Camry / Fusion / Sonata Hybrid. And that is for a reason. The people purchasing a Cruze Eco aren't interested in a hybrid to begin with.


Yet another valid point. As time passes we can hope those in the market for a Hybrid will open their eyes a bit more...
Also I must applaud all of you on this page for making fair, valid statements, all while maintaining a mature conversation. It always irks me when discussions like this turn into arguments you would normally see between children.
Just thought I'd share.


----------



## feh (May 29, 2011)

ErikBEggs said:


> That's all fine. I just don't think you will see as many people cross-shopping the Cruze Eco with the Prius. It's more still Cruze vs. Elantra vs. Focus and Prius vs. Insight vs. Camry / Fusion / Sonata Hybrid. And that is for a reason. The people purchasing a Cruze Eco aren't interested in a hybrid to begin with.


The Prius was one of the cars we looked at (and drove) last summer before we bought our Eco. We also checked out the Focus and Elantra.

Would've loved to have a hybrid, but given the (relatively) small difference in mileage, especially since we don't do much city driving, the price premium for the Prius didn't make sense.


----------



## CRUISE-CRUZE (Nov 8, 2010)

I drove a Prius for over 1200 miles back in 2009. Visiting some friends in Montreal. Overall, the average for this trip was 49.6 MPG. I’d say 70% HWY and 30% city. Not pushing the pedal hard when you start moving and the car is using just the electric engine. I observed that in this way the gas engine starts just after 20MPH. It was funny, driving in the parking lots people even couldn’t hear me coming from behind. But I didn’t like the car on highway. Very unstable after 70MPH. In the owner manual it was a recommendation that they recommend it not to drive it over 75MPH. I’m not kidding!
Maybe the latest models are much better, this was 3 years ago…


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

I never considered a Prius, when buying my ECO. I first took a look at the Prius at the 2002 NY Auto Show. I was not impressed. Under the hood was a complicated wiring and plumbing nightmare. It is likely the newer Prius models are much better under the hood now. Regardless, I like the performance of my ECO manual and certainly would be disappointed with Prius(no manual trans available). I Agree the ECO is an awesome car that does a nice job balancing performance and economy.


----------



## 70x7 (Apr 24, 2011)

too bad the Cruze doesnt get a tax break like the hybrids do.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

70x7 said:


> too bad the Cruze doesnt get a tax break like the hybrids do.


You said that right! With that kind of fuel economy, it should get a tax break.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

EcoCruze said:


> Yet another valid point. As time passes we can hope those in the market for a Hybrid will open their eyes a bit more...
> Also I must applaud all of you on this page for making fair, valid statements, all while maintaining a mature conversation. It always irks me when discussions like this turn into arguments you would normally see between children.
> Just thought I'd share.


Thanks for the comment. Just healthy conversation. The Cruze Eco is a phenomenal car. The only problem I have with it is that GM didn't approach ALL Cruze's the same way . Why do we need an "Eco" edition to beat the EPA? Look at the Automatic Eco and the LT. Same car just one has aero mods and different tires / rims. This isn't standard on all because....?

I really think GM should have just went with the base LS, then use the Eco's modifications on all trims with the 1.4T. Would look something like this:

1LT - The current Eco set-up (rear spoiler as an option because not everyone will want it). 17'' rims added as an option. LRR tires also an option (do they really do much?)

2LT - 1LT + Leather and 17'' rims standard.

LTZ - 2LT + all the other missing goodies. Manual transmission please?

I must say the thing I *do* appreciate is that GM has taken our complaints with the 2011 model into consideration and made solid improvements to the transmission and the way packages are ordered. By 2014 who knows we could have a 2.0T direct injected Cruze with performance mods AND Aero tweaks!


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

ErikBEggs said:


> EPA claims aren't promises and they tell you that up front.


Yep. They aren't promises. If the OP really thinks they're promises, he should read http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/27-f...uth-about-epa-city-highway-mpg-estimates.html and Your Mileage Will Still Vary. 

The EPA method also changed starting w/model year 08 and reduced thus the mileage ratings on all cars. 06 HCH went from a lofty 49 city/51 highway/50 combined to 40 city/45 highway/42 combined after adjustment.


blk88verde said:


> I never considered a Prius, when buying my ECO. I first took a look at the Prius at the 2002 NY Auto Show. I was not impressed. Under the hood was a complicated wiring and plumbing nightmare. It is likely the newer Prius models are much better under the hood now.


Although there certainly are extra components and some extra complexity, there's a bunch of stuff that's simpler on a Prius or doesn't exist. On Priuses, there are two coolant loops and on the 3rd gen, at least two water pumps.

The power split device (transaxle) is mechanically a lot simpler than an automatic transmission. It has no torque converter, internal clutches, bands, shift solenoids, tiny fluid passages, etc. and only a single planetary gearset. Take a look at https://picasaweb.google.com/105684...anFrancisco2009?authkey=Gv1sRgCILH8tvp-8_pjQE and Toyota Prius - Power Split Device.

Prius has no starter motor nor an alternator. The 3rd gen has no drive belts either. The power steering and AC compressor were already electric on the 2nd gen but the belt driven water pump on 1st and 2nd gens was made electric on the 3rd gen. Brakes last forever on Priuses due to regen (100K+ miles on the original brakes isn't unusual).

Some more info about the hybrid systems in Toyota's at AUTOMOTIVE TECHNICAL ARTICLES. All that stuff was written before the 3rd gen (2010+ model year) Prius.

Since some folks don't put any faith in CR's reliability reports, one can take a look at these (with an admittedly very small sample size):
http://priuschat.com/forums/prius-h...ery-reliable-vancouver-yellow-cab-update.html
Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity - Hybrid Electric Vehicles (look at records of the 2010 and 2004 Priuses in their fleet)


70x7 said:


> too bad the Cruze doesnt get a tax break like the hybrids do.


Tax "breaks" on non-plugin hybrids went away after 12/31/10. See Federal Tax Credits for Hybrids. Also, depending on the automaker, some of them reached their phaseout period before the above date. Toyota hit phaseout earliest: 9/30/07. All Toyota/Lexus non-PHEVs were ineligible for any tax credit after that date. Other automakers like GM and Nissan had it up until the last day (12/31/10).

BTW, prior to the firmware changes that allegedly cause a FE reduction in the HCH, Wayne Gerdes along w/2 hypermiers achieved http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17869 (68.54 mpg in the winter, going thru 48 states, traveling almost 7560 miles) in the SAME generation of HCH as the person who won the small claims court suit. (I'm not a fan of the Honda IMA system as it's definitely inferior to HSD and systems closely related to it.)


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

List price on a Prius battery is around $9,000 bucks, a whole bunch of nicads in series, if just one goes bad, you are dead meat. But have heard of cases where Toyota was generous and only charged their customers 3,000 bucks. Could have modulated that battery so you wouldn't have to replace the whole **** thing. Some odd 240 cells in series.

Only way to drive a hybrid is if you see a traffic or stop sign ten miles ahead is to take your foot off the gas so the alternator can recharge the battery for the next take off. And that take off has got to be just as slow as the stopping distance. Try that in congested city traffic, 50 zillion people will be either blowing their horns at you or giving you the finger.

Eco claims to fame is dropping 65 pounds over the LS, Prius is dragging around 150 pounds of battery weight, in my opinion, would have been further ahead by winding up a clock spring coming to a stop, then wouldn't need that high voltage warning.

Eco saved that weight by eliminating the spare tire, using a smaller fuel tank and thinner sheet metal in some areas. Man do we have fat people living in Wisconsin that would be a lot further ahead health wise if they lost 65 pounds. EPA doesn't consider that.

Wind resistance plays an important role, if a pilot flying in a plane with a 150 mph cruise with a 50 mph wind, can make the difference in ground speed from 100 to 200 miles per hour depending on the wind direction. With a tail wind, get there twice as fast and use half the fuel than the other way around. Do have a choice with altitude to find favorable winds, can't do that in a land vehicle.

Another factor is hills, for best fuel economy, keep your foot stead on the gas pedal when going up a hill, vehicle will slow down, but keep it steady going down that hill. But can't do that either, vehicle speed will increase from 55 to maybe even 68 mph building up speed for the next hill, so you don't lose time and get the best fuel economy while maintaining a good average speed.

Reason why I say you can't do that, a cop is at the bottom of that hill, already got a speeding ticket for doing 58 in a 55 and was told the law is like a plate of glass, once broken, its broken. Cruise controls that keep a constant speed do not get the best fuel economy, and on really steep hills, expect you to brake going down them.

In playing around with my 2LT with MT, found can average 53 mpg by driving it at 30 mph in fifth gear, but that all ended waiting at a traffic light with a red light with not another **** car coming from either way. There my average mpg was zero.

If we carry five people, even with 40 mpg, that's 200 mpg passenger miles, no form of public transportation can claim that, but now the government is talking about boosting public transportation. That is the key reason they went broke in the first place. But have idiots running this country. Wife and I found the best way to go into Chicago was to take the train, 17 bucks per hour for parking, and forever to get there on that so-called expressway. But on the last three stops, we were the only ones left in the car, rest of the train was empty as well. So using a crew and a 4,500 HP engine just to haul us two. That is not efficient. Our roads have not kept up with the traffic.

Oh, with a plane could safety land on an icy runway, using prop blast, had perfect control, but that three mile drive to my home was miserable. Really can't fly much anymore, with liability and other costs, rose by a factor of 50 since the 60's when this country was great.

And do believe in Al Gore, only way to save the planet is to drive a hybrid.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

NickD said:


> List price on a Prius battery is around $9,000 bucks, a whole bunch of nicads in series, if just one goes bad, you are dead meat. But have heard of cases where Toyota was generous and only charged their customers 3,000 bucks. Could have modulated that battery so you wouldn't have to replace the whole **** thing. Some odd 240 cells in series.
> ...
> Eco claims to fame is dropping 65 pounds over the LS, Prius is dragging around 150 pounds of battery weight, in my opinion, would have been further ahead by winding up a clock spring coming to a stop, then wouldn't need that high voltage warning.


Sigh.... you're just FULL of misinformation about hybrids. Please see Failed traction (HV) battery, what to do? - Prius Wiki about the correct replacement cost and alternatives. HV batteries are warranted for 8 years/100K miles in most states and 10 years/150K miles in CA and CARB states.

http://priuschat.com/forums/generat...attery-failure-replacement-2.html#post1447860 has a case of a guy w/an 01 Prius w/113K miles (his generation only had an 8 year/100K mile HV battery warranty) and Toyota was willing to foot most of the bill. He was out only $100. I realize this is probably an exception, but that was a BARGAIN. One can't even buy an HV battery pack from a wrecked Prius for $100.

No hybrids from any mass market automaker have EVER used NiCads. They're mostly using NiMH and a few using li-ion now.

Individual modules can be replaced. The NiMH pack on the Gen 3 Prius weighs 90 lbs. not 150.

Prius has no alternator, BTW.

Per Chevrolet News - United States - Cruze / Cruze Eco, an automatic Cruze Eco weighs 3102 lbs. which is more than the 3042 lbs. a '12 Prius weighs.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

The Prius is an awesome piece of engineering. It's reliable as the day is long and then some. Traction battery failures are exceedingly rare. Even taxi companies who beat the snot out of cars couldn't kill the traction batteries by the time the hybrid taxis were forced to retire. Toyota spent a lot of time/money getting the Prius traction battery right, and they did for 99.7% of users. 

I did cross-shop the Cruze and Prius. I liked the Cruze's interior better, so that's what I ended up with. Both cars would have met my needs just fine.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> Per Chevrolet News - United States - Cruze / Cruze Eco, an automatic Cruze Eco weighs 3102 lbs. which is more than the 3042 lbs. a '12 Prius weighs.


That figure is wrong. My 2011 LTZ tipped the scales at 3167 lbs and its the heaviest Cruze out there. I'm packing a spare tire, larger rims, regular tires, and extra body moldings / fascias / foggers from the RS package. The Eco is ~3,000 lbs give or take a few lbs.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

sciphi said:


> The Prius is an awesome piece of engineering. It's reliable as the day is long and then some. Traction battery failures are exceedingly rare. Even taxi companies who beat the snot out of cars couldn't kill the traction batteries by the time the hybrid taxis were forced to retire. Toyota spent a lot of time/money getting the Prius traction battery right, and they did for 99.7% of users.


The record holder that we know of on the original HV battery was this 2 fas 4 u (his odometer is pictured at http://priuschat.com/forums/gen-ii-prius-main-forum/79235-299-999-mile-club-60.html#post1457329), with 465K miles on his 09 Prius, before he traded it recently for a Prius v wagon. At 429K miles, he mentioned he was still on the original HV battery (299,999+ Mile Club - Page 43 - PriusChat Forums) and since I follow that thread, I'm 99% sure that's still the case at the time of trade.

Actually, his car had a few thousand more miles than registered on the odometer because his combination meter (aka speedometer/odometer assembly) developed a known problem and he had to remove it, get it send to be repaired by pEEf (so he was driving w/o it for at least a week, and thus registering no miles when the odometer's removed) and then reinstall it. Also, when it goes out (which it did intermittently for him (starting around 400K miles?)), it apparently doesn't register any miles.

Surprisingly, the dealer gave him $5K for it. I'd have figured it'd be worth closer to $1K or $2K.

Hybrids prove very reliable | CTV British Columbia mentions HV battery replacement at 700K km (~434K K miles).

500,000 km 2008 Prius Taxi - Page 3 - PriusChat Forums, in a hot climate (Cairns, Australia) mentions "Hv batteries fail from 350-400,000 km" (~217K to 248K miles).


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

I saw a brand new Prius V the other day up close. It was actually very attractive. Clean looking.. peeped the interior a bit. And had some nice looking 17s on it.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

sciphi said:


> The Prius is an awesome piece of engineering. It's reliable as the day is long and then some. Traction battery failures are exceedingly rare. Even taxi companies who beat the snot out of cars couldn't kill the traction batteries by the time the hybrid taxis were forced to retire. Toyota spent a lot of time/money getting the Prius traction battery right, and they did for 99.7% of users.
> 
> I did cross-shop the Cruze and Prius. I liked the Cruze's interior better, so that's what I ended up with. Both cars would have met my needs just fine.





cwerdna said:


> The record holder that we know of on the original HV battery was this 2 fas 4 u (his odometer is pictured at 299,999+ Mile Club - Page 60 - PriusChat Forums), with 465K miles on his 09 Prius, before he traded it recently for a Prius v wagon. At 429K miles, he mentioned he was still on the original HV battery (299,999+ Mile Club - Page 43 - PriusChat Forums) and since I follow that thread, I'm 99% sure that's still the case at the time of trade.
> 
> Actually, his car had a few thousand more miles than registered on the odometer because his combination meter (aka speedometer/odometer assembly) developed a known problem and he had to remove it, get it send to be repaired by pEEf (so he was driving w/o it for at least a week, and thus registering no miles when the odometer's removed) and then reinstall it. Also, when it goes out (which it did intermittently for him (starting around 400K miles?)), it apparently doesn't register any miles.
> 
> ...


Thanks for reinforcing my point that the Prius, and especially the traction battery, are exceedingly reliable! Even the lowest figure at ~217k miles (miles driven in the worst-case scenario of taxi duty in a very hot climate) is still longer than many folks keep their cars. 

I'd love to get 217k miles out of the turbo on my Cruze. Or have the dealer give me $5k trade-in when it hits 200k miles. 

If/when I need a family truckster, the Prius V is on the short list of vehicles to look at. Getting 40 mpg while hauling all the kid "necessities" to daycare/doctor/trips sounds great to me.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

cwerdna said:


> Sigh.... you're just FULL of misinformation about hybrids....an automatic Cruze Eco weighs 3102 lbs. which is more than the 3042 lbs. a '12 Prius weighs.


LOL!

Sorry, I had to. Don't tell anyone they're full of misinformation when you don't even have your own information down. 



sciphi said:


> Thanks for reinforcing my point that the Prius, and especially the traction battery, are exceedingly reliable! Even the lowest figure at ~217k miles (miles driven in the worst-case scenario of taxi duty in a very hot climate) is still longer than many folks keep their cars.
> 
> I'd love to get 217k miles out of the turbo on my Cruze. Or have the dealer give me $5k trade-in when it hits 200k miles.
> 
> If/when I need a family truckster, the Prius V is on the short list of vehicles to look at. Getting 40 mpg while hauling all the kid "necessities" to daycare/doctor/trips sounds great to me.


It has been proven that at batteries degrade over time, not miles. Sure, the Prius is good at keeping the battery's life extended, but nonetheless, 465k is a useless number. You could hook up a Prius to an infinite supply fuel pump and put it on a dyno for a couple of years and clock in over a million miles and I can bet you the battery would still be just as good as the day it left the lot. The same is true of laptop batteries. 

But back to the number, even if it did manage that much, lets assume he had a 2001 (first year available in the USA?) and drove it 11 years. In 11 years, that's 46,500 miles a year. Averaged 365 days per year, that's 127 miles per day, if you drive every single day, assuming he did drive it every day including holidays. Its more likely that he didn't drive it every day, and that he instead drove it 5 days a week with short trips on the weekends. At 260 days of driving per year, that comes out to 178 miles per day. 

I can almost guarantee you those were mostly highway miles with very little use of the battery, not city miles. 178 miles per day of city miles would make you a cab driver or a postal worker. BUT, even if those weren't primarily highway miles, I'd present you with a question: what causes a Prius battery to degrade? Time, or miles? 

What happens at the 15 year mark for those who keep their cars that long? No one knows. Chances are, they will still run, but will the batteries have degraded significantly by then? I have no idea. 

Another question, which has been answered before, is which presents a better value and experience for the typical owners that don't go past 100k miles on their vehicles? A Base Prius at $24,000k, or a Cruze Eco at $19,350?


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> Per Chevrolet News - United States - Cruze / Cruze Eco, an automatic Cruze Eco weighs 3102 lbs. which is more than the 3042 lbs. a '12 Prius weighs.





XtremeRevolution said:


> LOL!
> 
> Sorry, I had to. Don't tell anyone they're full of misinformation when you don't even have your own information down.


Don't know what you're referring to. 

I saw no curb weight figures at 2012 Chevy Cruze Compact Car Features and Specs | Chevrolet when I looked originally. 3102 lbs. for the '12 Cruze Eco automatic comes straight from Chevrolet News - United States - Cruze / Cruze Eco (which is GM's own web site). 


> Curb weight (lb. / kg): ... 3102 / 1407 (1.4L with automatic – ECO)


3042 lbs. comes straight from Toyota Prius - 2012 Performance & Specifications. My 06 Prius weighs 2890 lbs.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

I'll ask the GM rep I've been in contact with what the exact curb weights of these cars are when he calls me back within 24 hours. I'm not quite imagining how the automatic transmission weighs more than 90 pounds more than the manual.

According to that same site, the Cruze LS Automatic weighs less than the Cruze LS Manual, and other sources say the Eco weighs 214lbs less than the LTZ, which also isn't reflected there.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> LOL!
> 
> Another question, which has been answered before, is which presents a better value and experience for the typical owners that don't go past 100k miles on their vehicles? A Base Prius at $24,000k, or a Cruze Eco at $19,350?


The biggest factor in that price discrepancy is the transmission. It's a great value if you can and enjoy driving a stick. But for 90% of American's that either cannot drive stick or would rather not buy one... the difference is now $24,000 vs. $21,250 (price of 2012 Automatic Eco with no special features per Chevy website). So now it's down to a $3K price difference and worse gas mileage.

Most Americans just can't do manual. I can't drive one. And some people just opt not to drive one if they live in a highly congested area.

If you can drive a manual, the Eco is certainly a better value. Manuals usually beat EPA anyway and are more fun to drive. If you can't, the financial value depends more on what your shopping for. If it is pure gas mileage, Prius / hybrids win. If it is other (most of the time it is) things like comfort, safety, refinement all come into play. More people will still opt for the non-hybrid regardless of what is the better financial value.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Another question, which has been answered before, is which presents a better value and experience for the typical owners that don't go past 100k miles on their vehicles? A Base Prius at $24,000k, or a Cruze Eco at $19,350?


FWIW, when comparing TCO at Intellichoice and Edmunds, the Prius comes out ahead.
2012 Toyota Prius Two 4Dr Hatchback | New Toyota Prius Two 4Dr Hatchback 2012 Research at IntelliChoice.com - 5 year total is $29,097
2012 Chevrolet Cruze Eco 4Dr Sedan | New Chevy Cruze Eco 4Dr Sedan 2012 Research at IntelliChoice.com - 5 year total is $30,341

2011 Toyota Prius 1.8L 4-cyl. Hybrid CVT Automatic True Cost to Own - (can't pick '12 Prius for some reason, although they hit showrooms only within the last 1-3 weeks) - 5 year total $38,867
2012 Chevrolet Cruze 1.4L 4-cyl. Turbo 6-speed Manual True Cost to Own - 5 year total $39,602


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

They're both still good cars! They appeal to different types of drivers for different reasons. And, for their missions, they work equally well. I'm still considering one in a few years when I need more cargo capacity than the Cruze can provide. 

Experience is subjective. I wanted a particular driving experience while getting 40+ mpg, so I got a Cruze Eco MT. For what I got it for and what I expected, I'm happy. Likewise, if somebody wants a truly effortless 40 mpg and a very comfy ride, they get a Prius. And they're happy. I knew I wouldn't get Prius MPG. I was okay with that, and giving up MPG for a quicker, "sportier-feeling" car. 

Also, Consumer Reports tested a 2004 Prius against a 2010, and found that over 200k miles and 6 years the car lost 0.3 mpg or something statistically insignificant. Even the 1st-gen Prii are still getting their rated MPG much later on down the road. Their batteries are lasting just fine, and I'd expect them to easily last 15 years. If Prius batteries were failing in any quantity, we would have heard about it by now. We haven't, so one can surmise that they aren't. 

We can go back and forth about Cruze Eco vs. Prius. It's a battle nobody's going to win. They're both good cars for their drivers. 

It's obvious which one I chose. That still doesn't stop me for having a lot of respect for a car that single-handedly engineered a culture shift toward greener cars, and wanting to help set the record straight about that car.


----------



## cruzin2012 (Jan 12, 2012)

I paid $16,800 for my 2012 ECO 6mt. When I went to Toyota and Honda dealers they would not negotiate on price at all. The cruze was offered in the paper at the price I paid. That price difference is a lot of fuel, 1800 gallons @ $4.00/gallon. At the 41 mpg that I am currently getting that is 73,800 miles. Good luck with your prius cost of ownership beating my cruze.....


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

sciphi said:


> They're both still good cars! They appeal to different types of drivers for different reasons. And, for their missions, they work equally well. I'm still considering one in a few years when I need more cargo capacity than the Cruze can provide.
> 
> Experience is subjective. I wanted a particular driving experience while getting 40+ mpg, so I got a Cruze Eco MT. For what I got it for and what I expected, I'm happy. Likewise, if somebody wants a truly effortless 40 mpg and a very comfy ride, they get a Prius. And they're happy. I knew I wouldn't get Prius MPG. I was okay with that, and giving up MPG for a quicker, "sportier-feeling" car.
> 
> ...


I nor anyone else said the batteries had to fail in order to be bad. They can still lose capacity and still be of some consequence to the car. I did read that test long before you posted your post here, and I have the same thing to say to you that I did earlier. 6 years is not a lot of time for a well designed battery. I believe time will be the biggest deciding factor on how well a battery lasts, not mileage. My understanding is that recharge cycles are not what wear out these batteries. 

Another thing to consider is that Toyota intentionally designed these batteries to be used at a partial charge in order to extend life. What happens then if, after 6 years, that battery is reduced to a lower capacity and is now utilized 100%. You'll get the same fuel economy as you did the day you bought it, but the battery will have degraded; you just wouldn't see it. However, the degradation after the 100% utilization point will start to make a difference. 

Also, over 200k miles in 6 years would point to a car that had been driven more on the highway than in the city, at which point the battery will not have been used very much anyway. That comes out to over 33k miles a year, which is almost 3x what I drive as a daily 55 mile round trip commute to work and back.

The Prius didn't single-handedly engineer a culture shift for greener cars. Do you know what engineered that culture shift? High gas prices. The Prius would be dead if gas prices hadn't shot up as high as they did, when they did, as would the Volt and every other hybrid or interest in hybrid or electric technology that ever existed. Its why EV1 was killed, and why people had zero issues buying Suburbans to pick up groceries before gas prices rose from $1.50 to $4.50.

Do you seriously think anyone but tree-hugging hippies would be driving hybrids if gas prices were $2.00 a gallon or less?


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

The Prius will never use its battery at 100% capacity. It just won't. That's the reason that the batteries keep going for so long. There's some very strict software ensuring the battery stays at around 40-60% charge IIRC. The point being that the computer will blow up before the battery gets used at 100%. 

And, if you don't recall, Toyota made hay with the Prius for years advertising their green credentials. Many automakers glommed onto the hybrid craze sparked by the Prius. The car did get us interested in more fuel-efficient cars, just as gas prices were on the upswing. 

And, there's no return to $2/gallon gas in sight, so your final point is a straw man.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

sciphi said:


> The Prius will never use its battery at 100% capacity. It just won't. That's the reason that the batteries keep going for so long. There's some very strict software ensuring the battery stays at around 40-60% charge IIRC. The point being that the computer will blow up before the battery gets used at 100%.
> 
> And, if you don't recall, Toyota made hay with the Prius for years advertising their green credentials. Many automakers glommed onto the hybrid craze sparked by the Prius. The car did get us interested in more fuel-efficient cars, just as gas prices were on the upswing.
> 
> And, there's no return to $2/gallon gas in sight, so your final point is a straw man.


My final point is perfectly valid. If gas prices wouldn't have shot up like they did, the Prius would be dead. The Prius was released in what, 2001? Gas prices started to climb around 2004. I do recall Toyota's advertising, but I wasn't enough of an environmentalist to pay much attention to a car looks like a wedge of cheese. 

As for the batteries, isn't that what I just said?


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

I read your statement as the battery would get used for all of its capacity if/when it degrades. It won't be. It'll still be used for the narrow range that it's designed to be used in. From what I understand of Toyota's programming, if it degrades too much, the car will simply stop using the battery for self-preservation. The EPA and the CARB would have a field day with Toyota if the Prius batteries failed dramatically. They're considered emissions equipment since they help reach the stated fuel economy. Honda is being dragged through the wringer right now due to their hybrid batteries failing. I'd guess that Toyota wouldn't want to hurt its flagship green brand by having owners say the battery failed right out of emissions warranty, so they designed the battery to last a very long time. 

And, the Prius would have found a niche among folks with lots of driving to do, much like VW's TDI models have. There always is a market for high-efficiency vehicles among road warriors. It's just that Toyota had the right product with the right marketing at the right time when gas prices did spike. Honda sold lots of Insights with cheap gas prices, and a fair number of other hybrids before folks realized that Honda's hybrid tech was junk.


----------



## Arcticat (Feb 16, 2012)

You will pay substantially more for a Hybrid without getting a lot more gas mileage.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

ErikBEggs said:


> So when you start looking at 4 years to get your money back.. the Prius is still the better value if we are talking strictly MPG. And when the Prius-C comes out for $20K it will be a flat out wash.


Since you mentioned the Prius c, I stumbled across this pretty decent overview of the car, interior, technology and various models/trim levels. If you're already familiar w/regular Prius aka liftback, it's great for spotting all the differences.
2012 Prius c: Overview - YouTube

I also liked this review from TTAC:
TTAC Quick Clips: 2012 Toyota Prius c review - YouTube


----------



## Beaker (Mar 21, 2012)

Anyone can drive a stick shift (ok fine not one armed or one legged people). Most of the country is just too lazy to.


----------



## CruzeTech (Mar 23, 2012)

My trip coming home from Reno this weekend. Didnt overfill the tank. I had 1/8th of a tank at fill up and it took 10.6 gallons. And as you can see by the speedo needle, I definitely wasnt hypermiling. I also drove 170 miles home and the DIC showed 398 miles left till empty.


----------



## cruzin2012 (Jan 12, 2012)

Beaker said:


> Anyone can drive a stick shift (ok fine not one armed or one legged people). Most of the country is just too lazy to.


I had a one armed running coach that drove a stick shift. He still had his right arm. He drove a stick while drinking a can of coke and eating a candybar.....true story


----------

