# Cruze Eco vs TDI



## StoneCrab (Sep 14, 2011)

Looking for thoughts on comparison of Eco vs VW TDI. Whether a Jetta or Passat, when equipped with TDI get approx the same MPG as a Cruze Eco. I am interested in the Passat because it is a (much) larger and more comfortable vehicle than the Cruze. I owned a 2001 TDI and found the experience mixed - incredible MPG and good handling, but had the usual set of maintenance quibbles. Is VW the same today? Is VW really any worse than GM? Anybody here own both? I don't like the TDI timing belt change interval and routine maintenance seems to be substantially more, but is it really?


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

Six words: high pressure fuel pump. 

If that lets go and VWoA decides they won't cover it, you're stuck submitting a $10,000 claim to your insurance company, as that's roughly how much a fuel system replacement costs when the HPFP gives up the ghost. I looked into a Jetta TDI, and hearing some of the horror stories about VWoA screwing people who did nothing wrong turned me off from the new TDI's quickly. That, and there's still a timing belt. 

I also saw the thread about people who had zero problems with their 2010-current TDI's, and there were many happy owners chiming in. 

FWIW, an acquaintance has a Passat TDI with the DSG they got in March 2012, and they love it. I think they get 38-44 mpg highway, and about 30 around town. They say it's quiet, very comfortable, and gets great fuel mileage considering it's a land yacht. 

Ya pays ya mahney and ya takes ya chances with any cah, ya know...


----------



## Hoon (Mar 18, 2012)

The TDI will hold value better and the passat is a larger, more comfortable car. 

The passat is also a lot more expensive, requires more maintenance (and more expensive maintenance) including the T-belt, and yes, VW is still poor in terms of reliability. 

Personally i'd buy the Eco because of maintenance and reliability concerns. You will take a bigger hit on depreciation (percentage wise) compared to the TDI. 

I think the Cruze is going to prove itself a surprisingly reliable car. Only thing is the A/C sucks, but that can be fixed with a few ounces of refrigerant (they're underfilled from GM). Beyond that i have no gripes about my car, and i usually have a lot of gripes about cars.


----------



## Dale_K (Jul 16, 2011)

I got scared off when I visited the TDI Forum. And the price of diesel makes the economics seem sketchy.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I liked the TDI Golf, but several friends had Jettas/Bugs/Golfs in college. Out of those 7 people, only 1 still has their Jetta (a VR6). All the others died prematurely. Most were transmission issues.


----------



## Cavere (Sep 11, 2011)

I owned a passat for eight years. I loved it until I hit 80k miles and everything started breaking down on it. It was very expensive to repair and I now know how to fix bad wiring in cars because financially I really just had to do it myself. Personally it left a bad taste for me and I wouldn't own a VW again. I love my Eco and get great mpg. 


Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


----------



## Camcruse (Oct 4, 2011)

I'm here because of the potential for the HPFP to implode. I owned a 2009 Jetta TDI and was very happy witn it, until I started reading at the TDIclub.com. It appears that the HPFP made by Bosch and redesigned about 3 times is still having trouble with US Diesel. VW claims that either mis-fueling with gas, contaminated diesel or even water in the system can cause the HPFP to implode. 

Good, bad or indifferent, no single item should cause a $10,000 repair bill. Right now VW is covering them even after the warranty is over as it's cheaper than a recall.

But one day soon, they will say that either the car is to old or the mileage to high. So you'll be SOL and have nothing more than a car that can be parted out.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm still a member at TDIclub.com and just with the members there, it looks like there's 1 HPFP imploding per week. Very sad.


----------



## Hoon (Mar 18, 2012)

Cavere said:


> I owned a passat for eight years. I loved it until I hit 80k miles and everything started breaking down on it. It was very expensive to repair and I now know how to fix bad wiring in cars because financially I really just had to do it myself. Personally it left a bad taste for me and I wouldn't own a VW again. I love my Eco and get great mpg.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


My mother had one also. Around 70K (3 years for her) everything started breaking and the car was spending more time in the shop than on the street. Various electrical issues, failing sensors and other issues that just shouldn't happen to a 3 year old car. 

She dumped it around 80K miles.

She and i are both meticulous about maintenance also. The car was ahead of schedule on all maintenance and she drives like a typical middle aged woman, so no abuse or neglect.

Just awful VW quality.


----------



## StoneCrab (Sep 14, 2011)

sciphi said:


> Six words: high pressure fuel pump.
> 
> If that lets go and VWoA decides they won't cover it, you're stuck submitting a $10,000 claim to your insurance company, as that's roughly how much a fuel system replacement costs when the HPFP gives up the ghost. I looked into a Jetta TDI, and hearing some of the horror stories about VWoA screwing people who did nothing wrong turned me off from the new TDI's quickly. That, and there's still a timing belt.
> 
> ...


Thanks, I didn't realize the fuel pump was that big of an issue. I also read that the DSG needs a $400 maintenance every 50k miles, which combined with the timing belt at 100k miles would put it around $2000 in regular scheduled maintenance (not including oil changes, brakes, etc) in the first 100k miles. I guess the economy really doesn't make sense for the TDI. 

I am trying to find something larger and more comfortable than the Cruze but yet still gets 40+ on the highway. I want my cake and eat it too! The Passat TDI is the only car that comes close to those two criteria. But the maintenace cost and potential failures are scary when racking up the miles. I wonder if the new Passat has the fuel pump issues resolved?


----------



## Spiffster (Jul 18, 2011)

I owned a 2003 BMW 325i and I will never own another German car... ever. Fun as **** to drive but ironically, all the sensors that were supposed to warn me of malfunctions, malfunctioned themselves.. $%&# terrible car. 9k on my 2012 ECO M6 and no issues at all... 42mpg avg on urban commutes is a nice bonus. Too early to tell about quality but it feels like a solid car. If you ever want to learn how to fix a car, get a BMW ;-).

I will add that my BMW got great gas mileage before I got rid of it, mainly because the o2 sensor (Bosch) was crapping out and the car was running lean. 82k miles Traded it in because I felt too guilty about selling it privately.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

StoneCrab said:


> Thanks, I didn't realize the fuel pump was that big of an issue. I also read that the DSG needs a $400 maintenance every 50k miles, which combined with the timing belt at 100k miles would put it around $2000 in regular scheduled maintenance (not including oil changes, brakes, etc) in the first 100k miles. I guess the economy really doesn't make sense for the TDI.
> 
> I am trying to find something larger and more comfortable than the Cruze but yet still gets 40+ on the highway. I want my cake and eat it too! The Passat TDI is the only car that comes close to those two criteria. But the maintenace cost and potential failures are scary when racking up the miles. I wonder if the new Passat has the fuel pump issues resolved?


Hyundai Sonata hybrid or Camry hybrid are both very nice cars. Or there's the 2013 Fusion too. 

But then, you may be like me and refuse to own a hybrid. 


Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


----------



## Hoon (Mar 18, 2012)

'13 Malibu Eco is MUCH more fun to drive than the camry or sonata, and honestly it's better built. 

I drove all 3 back to back on the track when i worked for GM. I'm not a GM loyalist and i was very skeptical of the car, and i can objectively say it's the best midsize Eco car and great value when you look at how much car you get for the $$. 

I no longer work for GM and am not particularly loyal to the company. Just my honest opinion.


----------



## Kinmartin0789 (Feb 18, 2011)

StoneCrab said:


> Thanks, I didn't realize the fuel pump was that big of an issue. I also read that the DSG needs a $400 maintenance every 50k miles, which combined with the timing belt at 100k miles would put it around $2000 in regular scheduled maintenance (not including oil changes, brakes, etc) in the first 100k miles. I guess the economy really doesn't make sense for the TDI.
> 
> I am trying to find something larger and more comfortable than the Cruze but yet still gets 40+ on the highway. I want my cake and eat it too! The Passat TDI is the only car that comes close to those two criteria. But the maintenace cost and potential failures are scary when racking up the miles. I wonder if the new Passat has the fuel pump issues resolved?


i can tell you that the 2011 passat or PieceOfShitAT if you will has not had it fixed my managers a german engineering or nothign car shopper so he bought the passat tdi and his is nothing but issues. and his fuel economy is no where near where the epa and vw say it should be. but still he defends the car that is in the shop more than i see it in his parking spot.


----------



## StoneCrab (Sep 14, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> Hyundai Sonata hybrid or Camry hybrid are both very nice cars. Or there's the 2013 Fusion too.
> 
> But then, you may be like me and refuse to own a hybrid.


Exactly. I should have said non-hybrid car. I have a long 150 mile highway commute at times and I'm not sure the hybrid powertrain would do all that well anyway. 

I saw the Malibu Eco, and do kind of like the way it looks. Maybe I will give it look, but isn't it a 'mild' hybrid? Not that there is anything really wrong with that, I just prefer the simpler solutions.

I'm also really curious about the motor in the Cruze Eco-D. I wonder if it has any success in the Cruze if maybe it will find its way into some other models (Malibu Eco-D??). Diesel can make a lot of sense, but they need to do it right, and today that means more expensive technology. 

Audi only makes the A3 (a little small if I am lookng for something larger than a Cruze) in a TDI and it has the same timing belt and I presume fuel pump issues as the VWs. Merc has the Bluetec E class, but it is big money and doesn't do all that well, and has its own maintenance headaches. I would seriously love a baby Duramax (V6 or small I6?) that could go in a light truck and give me 30MPG on the highway. I'd accept that if I had the full utility of a light truck along with it. 

The new Accord might be interesting. Also maybe the new Impala if it has a high MPG, non-hybrid version.

Why do the TDIs hold their value so well if they have all the big negatives? Maintenace costs, reliability concerns, etc. If the fan base is that rabid they can't be all that bad?


----------



## Hoon (Mar 18, 2012)

The Malibu Eco is absolutely a hybrid.

GM thinks the word "hybrid" is bad for business so they market it a little differently but the bottom line is it's a hybrid. 

The Accord isn't that great. We have an '11 V6 coupe with all options in the family, and no one likes it. It has a lot of engine braking, which is fine, but as the car decelerates it downshifts early, and increases the rate of deceleration...so basically you take your foot off the gas and it falls on its face. Super annoying. 

Also don't let the sporty looks fool you, it handles like a nose heavy land yacht. It has about 30K on it and has already been in for an ignition problem. The power is decent, the MPG is nothing special. 

Overall, we can't wait to get rid of it.

My g/f has an 01 Civic with 175K miles. She drives it hard and it gets basically no maintenance, and never has issues. Ever. 

I completely believe that honda is not the company it used to be.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

Look at a Prius V? That'll get 40+ mpg highway, and has more interior space than a Cruze. I'd say a Sonata, but they have issues with wandering all over on the highway. 

Aside from a hybrid or the Passat TDI, nothing will really get 40 mpg highway that's larger than the Cruze and still decently affordable. For the Malibu, I'd wait until the regular Malibu came out without the mild hybrid stuff. Although the Cruze is the same size on the inside as the Malibu...


----------



## Camcruse (Oct 4, 2011)

StoneCrab said:


> Thanks, I didn't realize the fuel pump was that big of an issue. I also read that the DSG needs a $400 maintenance every 50k miles, which combined with the timing belt at 100k miles would put it around $2000 in regular scheduled maintenance (not including oil changes, brakes, etc) in the first 100k miles. I guess the economy really doesn't make sense for the TDI.
> 
> I am trying to find something larger and more comfortable than the Cruze but yet still gets 40+ on the highway. I want my cake and eat it too! The Passat TDI is the only car that comes close to those two criteria. But the maintenace cost and potential failures are scary when racking up the miles. I wonder if the new Passat has the fuel pump issues resolved?


I don't think the 2012 hasn't had any HPFP failures, but then again it's only been out a handful of months.


----------



## Hoon (Mar 18, 2012)

sciphi said:


> Although the Cruze is the same size on the inside as the Malibu...


Sorry but there's no way that's accurate. It's close to the '12 malibu but the '13 is a good deal larger.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

If you like driving at all, don't buy a Prius. 

The Camry SE and Sonata are decently fun family cars with good punch from the 4 cylinder versions. I didn't much care for the Sonatas extremely vague steering. 

Honda has really lost their edge. I almost bought an 05 Civic a couple years ago - a friend has had one since new and no problems with it, but the new ones from 06-12 are absolutely terrible to drive. Same with the Accord after 07. 

I had a loaner 2012 Malibu 4 cylinder for 5 days while the Cruze was in the shop. Average (90 % highway) MPG? 25. I was definitely not impressed when I drive the Cruze exactly the same and it gets 38-40 easily. 


Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

Spiffster said:


> I owned a 2003 BMW 325i and I will never own another German car... ever. Fun as **** to drive but ironically, all the sensors that were supposed to warn me of malfunctions, malfunctioned themselves.. $%&# terrible car. 9k on my 2012 ECO M6 and no issues at all... 42mpg avg on urban commutes is a nice bonus.


BMW reliability is all over the map, depending on the model and year. Even one of my former coworkers who is a BMW fanboy admits their quality/reliability isn't very good. There are others fanboys who claim that's not true. 


StoneCrab said:


> I am trying to find something larger and more comfortable than the Cruze but yet still gets 40+ on the highway. I want my cake and eat it too! The Passat TDI is the only car that comes close to those two criteria. But the maintenace cost and potential failures are scary when racking up the miles. I wonder if the new Passat has the fuel pump issues resolved?


Fuel Economy

Best vehicles for city & highway mpg
The most fuel-efficient cars
Best & worst fuel economy

FWIW, one of my friends who had (not sure if he still has) an older Passat was a big fan of German cars and "German engineering". While under warranty, he didn't really have any trouble but readily acknowledges VW reliability is not known to be very good and knows of numerous people w/trouble. Eventually, after the warranty expired, things started failing.


sciphi said:


> Look at a Prius V? That'll get 40+ mpg highway, and has more interior space than a Cruze. I'd say a Sonata, but they have issues with wandering all over on the highway.
> 
> Aside from a hybrid or the Passat TDI, nothing will really get 40 mpg highway that's larger than the Cruze and still decently affordable. For the Malibu, I'd wait until the regular Malibu came out without the mild hybrid stuff. .


Yep on the Camry Hybrid that someone else mentioned and Prius v wagon (see specs tab at Compare Side-by-Side for volume comparisons). Personally, if I didn't need the cargo carrying capacity and versatility of the v wagon, I'd go w/the HyCam. The HyCam gets amazing milage for it having 200 hp while only getting 1 mpg combined than the much slower 134 hp Prius v wagon (Consumer Reports - Fuel economy vs. performance).


Hoon said:


> '13 Malibu Eco is MUCH more fun to drive than the camry or sonata, and honestly it's better built.
> 
> I drove all 3 back to back on the track when i worked for GM. I'm not a GM loyalist and i was very skeptical of the car, and i can objectively say it's the best midsize Eco car and great value when you look at how much car you get for the $$.
> 
> I no longer work for GM and am not particularly loyal to the company. Just my honest opinion.


You drove the '12 Camry Hybrid and not a previous gen? (2011 and earlier were a previous gen.) The '12 is a huge improvement.

The '13 Malibu Eco is totally outmatched by '12 HyCam. See http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/17-o...ist-hybrid-bet-doesnt-pay-off.html#post109390. http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...2012-volkswagen-passat-25-se-comparison-tests and http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/12/review-2013-chevrolet-malibu-eco/ didn't like it much.

Heck, even the '13 Altima (non-hybrid) which starts at ~$3800 less than the '13 Malibu Eco gets better EPA FE ratings in city/highway and combined (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32208&id=32611). The Altima also has more passenger volume.


----------



## Hoon (Mar 18, 2012)

cwerdna said:


> You drove the '12 Camry Hybrid and not a previous gen? (2011 and earlier were a previous gen.) The '12 is a huge improvement.
> 
> The '13 Malibu Eco is totally outmatched by '12 HyCam. See http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/17-o...ist-hybrid-bet-doesnt-pay-off.html#post109390. 2013 Chevrolet Malibu Eco vs. 2012 Honda Accord EX-L, 2012 Hyundai Sonata SE, 2012 Kia Optima EX, 2012 Toyota Camry SE, 2012 Volkswagen Passat 2.5 SE - Comparison Tests - Car and Driver and Review: 2013 Chevrolet Malibu Eco | The Truth About Cars didn't like it much.
> 
> Heck, even the '13 Altima (non-hybrid) which starts at ~$3800 less than the '13 Malibu Eco gets better EPA FE ratings in city/highway and combined (Compare Side-by-Side). The Altima also has more passenger volume.


Yes i drove the '12. 

Honestly i didn't like it at all. I'd rather have the Sonata with it's awful steering. The body roll and understeer is AWFUL. It handles like it's built for 55 year old secretaries...because it is. 

It's incredibly boring. I think my toaster oven has more personality than a Camry. I realize that's completely subjective, but i really think Toyota has the most dull, boring lineup of cars on the planet...including the Scion FR-S. 200hp in a sports car? No thanks. 

The '13 Altima was not available at the time, so i didn't have the pleasure of thrashing it.


----------



## StoneCrab (Sep 14, 2011)

Thanks for all the good ideas and info. When I bought the Cruze my priorities were:
#1 highway MPG
#2 comfort/size/capability
#3 value($)

But I find myself with uncomfortable seats and, more often than I thought, a crowded car or inability to comfortably carry the stuff/passengers I want. The Cruze has become delegated to commuter duty only, where it racks up the miles on very little fuel, and hurts my back in the process. That has hurt the value equation since I end up not really using the Cruze for anything other than a long commute. So now my priorities have shifted to:
#1 comfort/size/capability
#2 highway MPG
#3 value($)

That is what led me to look hard at the Passat TDI since it meets those targets pretty well, but then there is the maintenance/reliability problem. I am a certified gear head, I love cars of all kinds, and I have had more vehicles than I care to count, but I've never owned a hybrid.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> Heck, even the '13 Altima (non-hybrid) which starts at ~$3800 less than the '13 Malibu Eco gets better EPA FE ratings in city/highway and combined (Compare Side-by-Side). The Altima also has more passenger volume.


No. The '13 Altima's ratings are bullshit. How does an Altima get the same (or better, in my case) fuel economy than a Cruze with an engine nearly twice the size? I call bullshit of the highest degree. Remember what happened to BMW and their 36 MPG highway *LIE* about the 2.0T?! Automakers are fudging the **** out of EPA now


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

ErikBEggs said:


> No. The '13 Altima's ratings are bullshit. How does an Altima get the same (or better, in my case) fuel economy than a Cruze with an engine nearly twice the size? I call bullshit of the highest degree. Remember what happened to BMW and their 36 MPG highway LIE about the 2.0T. Automakers are fudging the crap out of EPA now


I suspect the EPA will pick it as a car to verify the results on. It'll be interesting to see if anything comes out of that and how it does on CR's tests. Allowing taller gearing on their CVT (vs. the previous gen) helps.

FWIW, from http://www.nissanusa.com/altima/versions-specs/?next=model.top_nav.section.link vs. http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/vehicles/cruze/2012.tab1.html?id=1343094667893, curb weights of non-Eco Cruzes are almost identical to the '13 Altima 2.5. 

Larger engine can help at highway speeds. Toyota made basically that justification for going to the 1.8L engine in the 2010+ Prius (vs. an old 1.5L in the previous gen). Current gen (2010+) Prius gets 5 mpg better in CR's highway test than the previous gen (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/02/the-most-fuel-efficient-cars/index.htm vs. http://web.archive.org/web/20071228...-advice/most-fuelefficient-cars-206/index.htm).

The cheaper, smaller, lighter Prius c uses a redesigned version of the 1.5L and gets worse highway mileage. I'd imagine part of it is it has worse aerodynamics than the regular Prius (aka liftback).


Hoon said:


> Yes i drove the '12.
> 
> Honestly i didn't like it at all. I'd rather have the Sonata with it's awful steering. The body roll and understeer is AWFUL. It handles like it's built for 55 year old secretaries...because it is.
> 
> ...


FWIW, the Sonata Hybrid hasn't didn't do well at all at 2011 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid vs 2012 Toyota Camry Hybrid XLE vs 2012 Volkswagen Passat TDI SE Comparison - Motor Trend. It was way slower and had worse FE, to boot. 2012 Toyota Camry Hybrid Test – Review – Car and Driver mentions the slowness of the HSH too.

I'll admit that most of Toyota's lineup is pretty boring. FR-S has gotten a lot of hype/attention for handling. It's definitely not a car to buy for a ton of power. There a few other interesting cars though like the Lexus IS-F and LFA (well, WAY too expensive). You might get a chortle out of Lexus challenges passengers to control their heart rates... in a hybrid.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> I suspect the EPA will pick it as a car to verify the results on. It'll be interesting to see if anything comes out of that and how it does on CR's tests. Allowing taller gearing on their CVT (vs. the previous gen) helps.
> 
> FWIW, from 2013 Nissan Altima Versions & Specifications | Nissan USA vs. Chevrolet News - United States - Cruze / Cruze Eco, curb weights of non-Eco Cruzes are almost identical to the '13 Altima 2.5.


The problem is look at the competition. The Sonata is in the same weight group yet with a smaller engine is less than the Altima. Camry pretty much same story. The Malibu has a 2.5 as well but you mean to tell me the difference is FIVE MPG on the highway? Nah son. They are liars. Expect a retest or consumer backlash


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

ErikBEggs said:


> The problem is look at the competition. The Sonata is in the same weight group yet with a smaller engine is less than the Altima. Camry pretty much same story. The Malibu has a 2.5 as well but you mean to tell me the difference is FIVE MPG on the highway? Nah son. They are liars. Expect a retest or consumer backlash


Per Compare Side-by-Side and Compare Side-by-Side, '13 Altima has 3-4 mpg higher on the EPA highway test than others you mention, not 5. Altima is using a CVT, while none of the others are.

I'm sure the EPA will want to verify the '13 Altima's results for themselves given The Truth About EPA City / Highway MPG Estimates - Feature - Car and Driver (which I've posted before).


> Two-thirds of the new vehicles the EPA does test are selected randomly, and the remaining third are done for specific reasons. We’re not sure why a Porsche 911 GT3 was at the lab when we were there—other than to get an up-close look at its sexy, single-lug wheels—but candidates for scrutiny usually involve new technologies, new manufacturers, class fuel-economy champs, or cars that barely avoid a gas-guzzler tax.


Again, just because a car gets a certain result on the EPA test does NOT mean that all owners should _expect _to get those numbers. It's impossible to come up with 3 numbers that will accurately reflect what is "normal" driving for everyone.

BTW, the Sonata (non-hybrid) is considered a large car by the EPA. See above.


----------



## Daisy81 (Jun 17, 2012)

StoneCrab said:


> Thanks, I didn't realize the fuel pump was that big of an issue. I also read that the DSG needs a $400 maintenance every 50k miles, which combined with the timing belt at 100k miles would put it around $2000 in regular scheduled maintenance (not including oil changes, brakes, etc) in the first 100k miles. I guess the economy really doesn't make sense for the TDI.
> 
> I am trying to find something larger and more comfortable than the Cruze but yet still gets 40+ on the highway. I want my cake and eat it too! The Passat TDI is the only car that comes close to those two criteria. But the maintenace cost and potential failures are scary when racking up the miles. I wonder if the new Passat has the fuel pump issues resolved?


Have you looked at the 2013 Chevy Malibu Eco? It gets about the same milage as the Chevy Cruze.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> The problem is look at the competition. The Sonata is in the same weight group yet with a smaller engine is less than the Altima. Camry pretty much same story. The Malibu has a 2.5 as well but you mean to tell me the difference is FIVE MPG on the highway? Nah son. They are liars. Expect a retest or consumer backlash


^ This. It's simple physics. It's also the reason I always check Fuelly.com to see what people are *actually *getting. 



cwerdna said:


> Again, just because a car gets a certain result on the EPA test does NOT mean that all owners should _expect _to get those numbers. It's impossible to come up with 3 numbers that will accurately reflect what is "normal" driving for everyone.


Seemed to work out excellently for the Cruze (assuming your spark plugs are consistent and correct). Look all over fuelly.com, and you'll actually see a higher average fuel economy than what the cars are rated for. Take out the top and bottom 5% (those who abuse their cars and those who hypermile to extremes), and you have an amazingly good representation of what people are actually getting. the average for all owners for the 2012 Cruze is 33.3. The EPA combined rating is 29mpg for the LS, 30mpg the LT, 2LT, and LTZ, and 33 for the Eco. I think they did a pretty good job at estimating what people will actually be getting.


----------



## Kinmartin0789 (Feb 18, 2011)

Daisy81 said:


> Have you looked at the 2013 Chevy Malibu Eco? It gets about the same milage as the Chevy Cruze.


depends on how he drives lol! my fiances grandfather bought one and well drives it slow he averages more than i do in my cruze lol. can we say different driving styles?


----------



## yourdoinitwrong (Aug 7, 2011)

Just a few thoughts after reading all of this:

1 - VW reliability sucks and I will never own another one, I don't care how good the mileage is.
2 - If you are interested in driving fun at all avoid hybrids, putting wheels on your refrigerator will result in a better driving experience.
3 - The 2013 Malibu is a very good car (I happen to sell them) but the economics don't work out too well with the $1,800 premium for the ECO model. The regular models with the 2.5 are in production now but haven't been rated by the EPA yet.
4 - Sit down and figure out how much you will spend in fuel on a given model with the miles you drive in a year. The price hike for hybrids and diesels make any savings in fuel disappear very quickly unless you own cars for a very long time. I know you said hybrids are out but where I live right now diesel is 50 cents more per gallon, really killing saving anything at the pump.
5 - Since you are a professed gearhead, don't base everything solely on mpg (though I don't think you are). Buyer's remorse can set in very quickly and I have seen it several times with some of my customers.

So there are my opinionated thoughts..........


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

Hoon said:


> Sorry but there's no way that's accurate. It's close to the '12 malibu but the '13 is a good deal larger.


Ahem: 2013 Chevrolet Malibu Eco (or go to Autoblog and search for malibu eco). 

Scroll halfway down to the table listing the interior dimensions. The Cruze is larger in some dimensions.

And, for a car the same size as the Passat TDI that gets the same real-world fuel economy, it's a hybrid or bust. Specifically, a Toyota Camry Hybrid or Ford Fusion Hybrid. Those are two that have shown to meet/beat EPA fuel economy handily. I'd give Toyota the nod since they have a million Prii running around, most very trouble-free.


----------



## Maxvla (Jul 20, 2012)

It's unfortunate the rear of the Malibu is so disgustingly ugly. Otherwise it's a decent car, though bigger than I'm looking for currently.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

sciphi said:


> Ahem: 2013 Chevrolet Malibu Eco (or go to Autoblog and search for malibu eco).
> Scroll halfway down to the table listing the interior dimensions. The Cruze is larger in some dimensions.


I've driven the 2013 malibu eco, I believe the rear leg room is larger than they indicate. The cruze leaves like 3inches in the foot well of back seat with the drivers seat all the way back, the malibu has much much more room than the cruze. 

However the wheelbase/length of car the malibu is like driving a tank or an old buick in comparison with the cruze.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

sciphi said:


> Ahem: 2013 Chevrolet Malibu Eco (or go to Autoblog and search for malibu eco).
> 
> .





spacedout said:


> I've driven the 2013 malibu eco, I believe the rear leg room is larger than they indicate. The cruze leaves like 3inches in the foot well of back seat with the drivers seat all the way back, the malibu has much much more room than the cruze.
> 
> However the wheelbase/length of car the malibu is like driving a tank or an old buick in comparison with the cruze.


I based my earlier statement on those numbers only. Having never been in a new Malibu, I'm not one to judge how GM used those numbers in executing the 'Bu's interior. 

And, I've had plenty of folks in the backseat with the passenger seat all the way back. Nobody's complained yet.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Never complained?! I'm 5'7" and the back seat of my Cruze is cramped. 


Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> Never complained?! I'm 5'7" and the back seat of my Cruze is cramped.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


Agreed, I am just under 6foot & with my drivers seat in a comfortable position there is 4-8inches of rear footwell. Rear passengers feet have to ride partially under the seat! I can't imagine anyone riding behind someone 6ft 5inches or taller, unless you cut off their legs. 

I think its great they notched the back of front seats for knee room but I don't like feeling wedged into the back seat of any car.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

spacedout said:


> Rear passengers feet have to ride partially under the seat!


That's been the case in every single sedan rear seat I've ever been in. Even my old Buick LeSabre needed feet under the seat on long trips. So did the '02 Town Car my folks had for a few years. Both of those were a bit larger on the inside than a Cruze or Malibu, and still had the same issue? I don't have big feet either.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Our 2002 Camry or my parents 2007 Accord are not a problem for rear leg room AT ALL - but they're also huge cars. Smaller sedans definitely compromise on rear leg room for what seems like trunk space though. My 6'1" brother can't fit in the back of my old Volvo or the Cruze - his knees are in the seat and his head touching the ceiling =D

I remember the road trips in our Saab 900, where even as kids, with stuff in our footwells our knees were practically in our chest. Friends Jettas and Civics were the same way in college for long road trips. Interestingly enough, there's more legroom in a Golf than a Jetta for whatever reason. 


Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


----------



## Maxvla (Jul 20, 2012)

I'm 6'1" and with the driver's seat in my driving position I had no trouble sitting behind myself. I wouldn't recommend it for long trips, but it does what the car was intended to do. The Cruze isn't a full size family hauler, it's a small efficient runabout with enough space to get you where you need to go around town without being uncomfortable. In the back seat I had about an inch between my knees and the driver's seat and several inches above my head until the ceiling. No problems really.


----------



## CruzeEcoBlueTopaz (Jan 5, 2012)

Cruze Eco......enough said


----------



## Maxvla (Jul 20, 2012)

44 mph in 6th gear is about 1400rpm. I can see how you might get that kind of mileage at that rpm.

*see edit below*


----------



## CruzeEcoBlueTopaz (Jan 5, 2012)

If your talking to me it was a steady 55mph and the rpm is somewhere around 1600ish I believe id have to look at the guage. The only reason it shows 44mph avg is because I had to slow down to 25 for 2 or 3 miles going thru a town and that dramatically reduces the speed average.


----------



## Maxvla (Jul 20, 2012)

Ah you beat me to my edit. I found 44mph would be about 1400rpm in 6th. (edit: Eco 6MT 44mph would be more like 1300rpm, even better!)

Using Gear speed calculator

Here is the results: (edit: non-eco 6MT)


RPM 1st Gear 2nd Gear 3rd Gear 4th Gear 5th Gear 6th Gear5002571013151000591420253115007142229384620001018293951612500122336496377300015274359769235001732506889107400020375878101123450022416588114138500025467298127153550027507910713916960002955861171521846500325994127164200

The data does seem a bit suspect with rpms reaching 2500 for 77mph in 6th. My Grand Prix auto doesn't need 2500 for even 80mph.

Ah I was using 6MT data from the non-eco. Will have update chart in a moment.

Here it is: (Eco 6MT)


RPM 1st Gear 2nd Gear 3rd Gear 4th Gear 5th Gear 6th Gear5002581114171000591621283415007142432415020001019314355672500122439536984300014284764831013500173355759711740001938638511013445002243719612415150002447791061381685500265286117152184600029579412816620165003162102138180218

And yes, 55mph looks to be about 1600rpm on the Eco 6MT.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

The first chart is wrong somewhere along the line. 80 mph in 6th yields 3000-3100ish RPM in the non-ECO 1.4. Perhaps that's the automatic?


----------



## Hoon (Mar 18, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> The first chart is wrong somewhere along the line. 80 mph in 6th yields 3000-3100ish RPM in the non-ECO 1.4. Perhaps that's the automatic?


This is correct, that chart is off considerably.Corrected chart is below.


----------

