# A hybrid Cruze? Why?



## newcruzer17 (Feb 8, 2012)

Most of the hybrids on the market do not touch the fuel economy of the Cruze Eco. It seems to make very little sense to me to even build one.
The weight would go up a bunch for batteries, and the cost would also. And it is arguable that an electric car pollutes the environment as much or even more than a highly efficient gas engine. Coal burning electric sources. Battery construction. Etc.

Is there really a hybrid Cruze being planned? Anyone?


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

I have no idea why this forum section even exists. 

Driven identically, the Prius will get better fuel economy than the Cruze Eco. There's no doubt about that.


----------



## newcruzer17 (Feb 8, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I have no idea why this forum section even exists.
> 
> Driven identically, the Prius will get better fuel economy than the Cruze Eco. There's no doubt about that.


For only $12,000 more! What a bargain.


----------



## GoldenCruze (Dec 18, 2011)

The way gas prices are going up it may be a bargin if you keep the car long enough.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

newcruzer17 said:


> For only $12,000 more! What a bargain.


Not $12,000. You can get a base Prius for $25k. A base Cruze is $19,325. I got mine for $18,500. 

The fuel economy is fairly close though. According to Fuelly, I went and calculated the average fuel economy for the 2012 Cruze Eco (manual and auto) and got 37.8mpg. The Prius averages about 47, so figure a 10mpg difference.

There's more to it than that, such as the fact that most of those Ecos were manual transmissions and the Prius is an auto, and that the Cruze is a much better handling and riding car than the Prius and doesn't look like a wedge of cheese. Still, a gain of 10mpg will take you a while to counterbalance a $4,675 price increase.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

GoldenCruze said:


> The way gas prices are going up it may be a bargin if you keep the car long enough.


Say we stay at $5 a gallon. At 37mpg for the Cruze Eco and 47mpg for the Prius, assuming one drives 12,000 miles a year, you're looking at a difference of $344 annually in fuel savings by driving the Prius. It would take you 13.5 years of driving to break even. 

Not exactly a huge bargain if you don't mind driving a manual.


----------



## TSURacing (Jan 1, 2011)

Where did the $12K figure come from???? A $12K battery option to the loaded Cruze is a Volt. A more modest system similar to the Malibu ECO, or E-Assist Buicks would add only $2000ish. That may get you close to Prius territory.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

This is just a piss-poor attempt to comply with CAFE and not to sell cars. Chevy has the Spark coming out and already has the Volt. Between the Cruze Eco and Cruze Eco-diesel I don't anticipate anyone actually shopping for a Cruze plug in unless GM discontinues the Volt. They basically would be the same car.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

newcruzer17 said:


> Most of the hybrids on the market do not touch the fuel economy of the Cruze Eco. It seems to make very little sense to me to even build one.
> The weight would go up a bunch for batteries, and the cost would also. And it is arguable that an electric car pollutes the environment as much or even more than a highly efficient gas engine. Coal burning electric sources. Battery construction. Etc.


Define "Most of the hybrids on the market". If it's models, ok. If it's by quantity sold, by far the most sold are Priuses (January 2012 Dashboard | Hybrid Cars) which exceed the Cruze Eco's mileage.

As for the last statement, see Myth vs. Reality - Electric Vehicles - Sierra Club.


newcruzer17 said:


> For only $12,000 more! What a bargain.





XtremeRevolution said:


> Not $12,000. You can get a base Prius for $25k. A base Cruze is $19,325. I got mine for $18,500.


Toyota Sunnyvale is currently (and has been openly advertising) leftover 2011 Priuses model Twos for $21,888 (Specials on new and used cars, trucks, vans, SUVs, parts and service specials.). I bought my 06 Prius from them and they seem honest. '12 Priuses didn't hit showrooms until late January 2012.

As I've posted elsewhere (and here?), I helped a friend of mine car shop end of last year and she ended up getting the more expensive '11 Prius model Three (has JBL stereo and Bluetooth phone support). She got it for just a tad above $22K. A dealer in Santa Rosa was advertising a three for $22,267 and she got another dealer to beat it, by a bit. We had spent quite a bit of time at Toyota Sunnyvale.

These prices already included the destination charge.

The upcoming smaller Prius c (Toyota | Toyota Announces Pricing for 2012 Prius c, some people in Hawaii already have them) starts at MSRP of $18,950 + $760 destination charge and is also EPA rated at 50 mpg combined.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

We're not comparing used or special deals at special dealerships for old inventory cars here. We're comparing MSRP, because anyone can go into a dealer and haggle below the listed price. 

$25k for a Prius and $19,325 for a Cruze Eco. That's the comparison, and that's all that's valid for these purposes.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> We're not comparing used or special deals at special dealerships for old inventory cars here. We're comparing MSRP, because anyone can go into a dealer and haggle below the listed price.
> 
> $25k for a Prius and $19,325 for a Cruze Eco. That's the comparison, and that's all that's valid for these purposes.


FWIW, Toyota Sunnyvale on 12/30/11 had 11 Prius Two for $21,688, openly advertised on their web site. No need to haggle and they weren't willing to budge below that. They had plenty of Priuses on the lot and it wasn't a one-off deal w/limited availability.

That was the day my friend bought her '11 Prius Three from another dealer. 

Invoice on the '11 Prius Two w/carpet floor/cargo mat set (usually forced on you) including destination charge was $22,995. Minus the $750 incentive takes it down to $22,245.

At that time, '12 Priuses hadn't arrived anywhere in the US yet due to the '12s coming out late.

However, now that '12 Priuses are at dealers, they're likely harder to bargain for given the now leftover '11s still exist and gas prices are averaging $4.30/gal in CA (per http://fuelgaugereport.aaa.com/?redirectto=http://fuelgaugereport.opisnet.com/index.asp).

While I generally agree about comparing MSRP to MSRP, for almost all vehicles, unless it was just introduced, rare and/or in very short supply, one would be nuts to pay MSRP. 

(Prius was in that situation in the early second gen days [started w/model year 04], w/no supply, waiting lists that were months long. I had to wait (IIRC) >1.5 months for mine and got it a bit below MSRP, but MSRP was considered an "ok deal". $3150 tax credit, at the time, helped make the car more attractive. Back then, Toyota never offered any incentives on Priuses. No need to w/those waiting lists and tax credits.)


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

It might be a more accurate comparison by using overall average fuel economy, based on a mix of driving (60/40), and to compare automatics. I think the Prius is around 44 mpg average, according to Consumer Reports tests. What would a legitimate estimate of the Cruze Eco automatic get? If you took Consumer Reports overall average mileage of the regular Cruze turbo (26 mpg) and tack on 1-2 mpg for the ECO version, 27-28 mpg would be where it falls at. Fueleconomy.gov has a combined score of 30 mpg (28 for regular 1.4 turbo). Fueleconomy.gov has the Prius combined fuel economy as 50 mpg. 
Just food for thought.
Edit:
2012 Cruze Eco: Fueleconomy.gov has the automatic combined as 31 mpg, and the manual as 33 mpg. The automatic gained 1 mpg in 2012, while the manual stayed the same.
After comparing the Fueleconomy.gov numbers for the Eco auto vs. the regular version, there is only a 1 mpg increase in highway mileage, so only adding 1 mpg to the Consumer Reports combined average would probably be the most accurate. For 2011, 27 mpg and 2012 would be 28 mpg for the Consumer Reports tests.
28 mpg for the Cruze Eco versus 44 mpg for the Prius would start to make a bigger difference at 12000 miles per year as gas prices rise.
If Consumer Reports ever tests the Eco manual, I bet they would be real close to Epa estimates. If they tested in the summer and used 92 octane without ethanol, they might even beat it.


----------



## weimerrj (Dec 4, 2011)

TSURacing said:


> Where did the $12K figure come from???? A $12K battery option to the loaded Cruze is a Volt. A more modest system similar to the Malibu ECO, or E-Assist Buicks would add only $2000ish. That may get you close to Prius territory.


An e-assist Eco with start/stop would be delightful, especially for city driving. Alas, it would eat into Volt sales, not that there's very much of that to begin with.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

weimerrj said:


> An e-assist Eco with start/stop would be delightful, especially for city driving. Alas, it would eat into Volt sales, not that there's very much of that to begin with.


I don't trust start-stop at all. You mean at a light my engine is shutting off completely and restarting? I don't trust that in the winter down the line especially for how small the fuel savings are. Idle-neutral is fine enough.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Again, we're talking about one specific dealer's deal, and a deal on a 2011 Prius on 12/30/11 is pretty much old stock. You're a day away from being in the year 2012. 

It seems the Cruze is selling a lot better than the Prius anyway if they have drop the price that far to get them off the lots.

This topic has been discussed before. The difference in fuel economy for EPA or Consumer Reports is not what I'd go by, but rather Fuelly.com, where real people drive these cars and post their real results in the real world, not on a test track or by a professional driver. No chance for bias there, and on Fuelly.com, the difference between the Cruze Eco and Prius is ~10mpg.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

I do appreciate sites like fuelly.com, ecomodder, mpgtune, truedelta and others. Bias and driving technique do slant some of the results on these sites. Consumer Reports is geared for the majority of the people that are not doing hypermiling techniques or that drive 45 in a 55 or 55-62 on a 65-75 mph Interstate. Consumer Reports tests are more apples to apples tests, formulated to take out bias and variation, and trying to do the same method for each car. The biggest fault I see with Consumer Reports mileage tests is that they have not figured a way to take out all weather and temperature conditions and variations in the equation. One way they can do it is by retesting in the summer, which I think they did when testing the Chevrolet Volt. All this costs money, and the only way they cover the costs is with donations and subscription's to their magazines, website, and services.
Also, when comparing prices, I think the base 2012 Cruze Eco with automatic is $21,115-21,215 with destination charge. The site kept adding $100 for color and other options. This is still not apples to apples with a Prius. You would have to compare standard features and start adding to the Cruze and it's price.
EDIT: they could move their testing facility to California, and that might help some with weather variations. That would probably be costly.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Again, we're talking about one specific dealer's deal, and a deal on a 2011 Prius on 12/30/11 is pretty much old stock. You're a day away from being in the year 2012.
> 
> It seems the Cruze is selling a lot better than the Prius anyway if they have drop the price that far to get them off the lots.
> 
> This topic has been discussed before. The difference in fuel economy for EPA or Consumer Reports is not what I'd go by, but rather Fuelly.com, where real people drive these cars and post their real results in the real world, not on a test track or by a professional driver. No chance for bias there, and on Fuelly.com, the difference between the Cruze Eco and Prius is ~10mpg.


Despite 12/30/11 being a day away from being in the year 2012, '12 Priuses didn't hit _any _showrooms until weeks after that. 

As for, "no chance for bias" on fuelly.com, I call BS on that. Some people lie about their figures, usually inflating them. The conditions are nowhere near controlled and who knows if people are using trip computer figures or manual calculations or miscalculating? Some people can't even select the right engine. There are really "flex H4", diesel W8 or diesel H4 Cruzes?

Some trip computers read too high, including the 3rd gen Prius. We've already established the DIC reads too high on the Cruze. My former 02 Maxima was always 2-4 mpg too high, which is a pretty big margin of error when I'd see ~23-25 mpg actual on a mostly highway commute. My former 04 350Z, on the other hand, had a fairly accurate trip computer (usually no more than 0.5 mpg off, always within 0-1 mpg).

I've seen people make bizarro calculations and thus have figures too low (e.g. they take miles driven divided by total tank capacity instead of how much they put in to refuel to "full").


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

zr1000a1 said:


> I do appreciate sites like fuelly.com, ecomodder, mpgtune, truedelta and others. Bias and driving technique do slant some of the results on these sites. Consumer Reports is geared for the majority of the people that are not doing hypermiling techniques or that drive 45 in a 55 or 55-62 on a 65-75 mph Interstate. Consumer Reports tests are more apples to apples tests, formulated to take out bias and variation, and trying to do the same method for each car. The biggest fault I see with Consumer Reports mileage tests is that they have not figured a way to take out all weather and temperature conditions and variations in the equation. One way they can do it is by retesting in the summer, which I think they did when testing the Chevrolet Volt. All this costs money, and the only way they cover the costs is with donations and subscription's to their magazines, website, and services.
> Also, when comparing prices, I think the base 2012 Cruze Eco with automatic is $21,115-21,215 with destination charge. The site kept adding $100 for color and other options. This is still not apples to apples with a Prius. You would have to compare standard features and start adding to the Cruze and it's price.
> EDIT: they could move their testing facility to California, and that might help some with weather variations. That would probably be costly.


Consumer reports has been repeatedly accused of bias toward imports. With regard to sites like Fuelly, sure there are some people on there who try to get the most out of their cars, but there are also plenty who just drive them. Have a look at the numbers for yourself. The Cruze Non-Eco trims are dead on (as an average) to what the EPA rates them. 

Not much hypermiling you can do with the Eco aside from just driving it like a sane person. A lot of these are common sense ways to drive. Not much special about it.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

cwerdna said:


> Despite 12/30/11 being a day away from being in the year 2012, '12 Priuses didn't hit _any _showrooms until weeks after that.
> 
> As for, "no chance for bias" on fuelly.com, I call BS on that. Some people lie about their figures, usually inflating them. The conditions are nowhere near controlled and who knows if people are using trip computer figures or manual calculations or miscalculating? Some people can't even select the right engine. There are really "flex H4", diesel W8 or diesel H4 Cruzes?
> 
> ...


What does the DIC have anything to do with Fuelly.com? You ignore the DIC entirely. What you enter when you fill up on Fuelly.com is how many miles you've gone and how many gallons you've pumped. If people inflate the numbers, you can be damned sure they won't do it just for the Cruze. In fact, it would be more likely that someone's Prius fuel economy numbers would be inflated. 

All of the Prius owners I've met are like all of the Mac product owners I've met; they just can't stop talking about how great their product is. 

Show me a single Cruze entry on Fuelly.com that looks unrealistic or impossible to achieve. The only unrealistic ones there are the ones that are rated too low in the low 20s. Any margin for error applies to every car, not just the Cruze. When you have several hundreds of thousands of miles driven over different owners and cars for the Cruze, your margin of error starts to become quite insignificant. Give or take 1-2MPG difference will not change the facts by a consequential amount.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

I respect the engineering of the Prius. I just do not feel like the Cruze needs to be a plug in because the Volt exists and the Cruze is based off the Volt to begin with. But like I said earlier in the thread, I don't anticipate this being about car sales. This is simply CAFE at its finest. Expect every car maker to have 3-5 or even more hybrids out. Possibly every model may come hybrid.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

How Consumer Reports tests cars: Fuel economy

XtremeRevolution:
I mostly agree with you about the non-eco and eco Cruze manual transmission equipped cars. The automatics might be a different story. When it comes to CR, we seem to disagree a lot. I try to be objective and non-biased in my opinions, based on the best available information. 
I do appreciate your opinion and I do learn things. I only ask that you might take another look at CR, and although not perfect, nothing is. They now have about 1.3 million cars in their annual survey. The annual auto edition might already be out, but has not reached my door yet. 
EDIT: From what I have read online about CR's overall manufacturer's rankings, Chevrolet and Chrysler has had some of the biggest gains in reliability, quality, and road tests, although still lags behind the best. Ford's mytouch and the new powershift transmission has knocked them down some while they go through some teething problems. Honda is down, while Subaru, Mazda, and Toyota are at the top. 
The new Toyota Camry looks pretty impressive. Time will tell. I personally cannot wait to get a look at the new Malibu and Fusion. The new Escape, or whatever they are going to call it, should really be interesting. Not sure when any of these vehicles will actually go on sale.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> What does the DIC have anything to do with Fuelly.com? You ignore the DIC entirely. What you enter when you fill up on Fuelly.com is how many miles you've gone and how many gallons you've pumped. If people inflate the numbers, you can be damned sure they won't do it just for the Cruze. In fact, it would be more likely that someone's Prius fuel economy numbers would be inflated.
> 
> All of the Prius owners I've met are like all of the Mac product owners I've met; they just can't stop talking about how great their product is.
> 
> Show me a single Cruze entry on Fuelly.com that looks unrealistic or impossible to achieve. The only unrealistic ones there are the ones that are rated too low in the low 20s. Any margin for error applies to every car, not just the Cruze. When you have several hundreds of thousands of miles driven over different owners and cars for the Cruze, your margin of error starts to become quite insignificant. Give or take 1-2MPG difference will not change the facts by a consequential amount.


Sorry, I've have no account on fuelly.com, so I don't know the procedure. Never even heard of the site until a few years ago. I'd have too much data to enter there (from my spreadsheet) if I wanted a have a complete history now. I'll consider it on my next ICE car.

As for "The only unrealistic ones there are the ones that are rated too low in the low 20s", why is unrealistic? In CR's (admittedly harsh city) FE tests, both Cruze non-Ecos they tested achieved 17 city/36 highway/26 mpg overall (and 34 or 35 mpg on a 150 mile trip, depending on engine). I can easily see someone w/very short city trips in bad traffic, underinflated tires, poor driving habits and tons of idling (some unnecessary), not even breaking 20 mpg.



zr1000a1 said:


> How Consumer Reports tests cars: Fuel economy


More on the tests (and the old EPA test) at http://www.consumersunion.org/Oct_CR_Fuel_Economy.pdf.

BTW, back earlier to the comment on '11 Prius pricing being so low, it might also be due to the fact that the '12 is a mid-cycle refresh and they've included more standard equipment on the lowest non-fleet only model, the Two (and raised on the price on all models of the '12). See http://priuschat.com/news/exclusive-2012-my-prius-changes-and-additions. On '11 Twos, you didn't get a standard touchscreen (backup camera mentioned at the URL on Two turns out to be wrong) nor Bluetooth support and USB port until you went to more expensive models/packages.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

Here we go again...

I'll say again, Cruze Eco or Prius is an individual choice. They're both good cars, and both can get good mileage in the right hands. They appeal to different audiences, and drive differently. I'm trying to get my MIL to look at a Prius-C for a new car. She'll be thrilled with the gas mileage and the utility.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

zr1000a1 said:


> The new Toyota Camry looks pretty impressive.


LOL, I hope you don't mean aesthetically  (seriously those things are hideous)

I don't think you can turn to ANY automotive magazine for fuel mileage tests. All Xtreme is saying is that fuelly is the most accurate source of data because it is real users and is a legit primary source. Auto reviewers tend to actually show obscene bias in their reviews. Don't EVER look at comparison tests either for fuel economy. They will most surely go toward the brand the reviewer supports. Motor Trend praises Ford in every way possible and was able to squeeze 28 MPG out of it using the "same driving" as the Cruze, which they claim only hit 22 MPG. Then testing the Cruze Eco they got 29 MPG and admitted on beating on it. The funny thing is that 90%+ of actual non-bias sane Cruze Eco owners are a good 10 MPG *higher* than that based on fuelly. Fuelly really is the best source for that sort of thing.


----------



## TSURacing (Jan 1, 2011)

I personally cannot wait to get a look at the new Malibu and Fusion. The new Escape said:


> Malibu ECO is out now. In my biased opinion it looks great and the interior is very sharp. I love what was done with the rear end and tail lights, which i felt was a weak point on the outgoing Malibu.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

ERICBEggs: I was actually mostly thinking of the new hybrid Camry, with it getting 38(CR)-41(EPA) mpg overall. It starts out at $26,660 after destination. The fuel economy and acceleration of the other Camry's are pretty impressive too. They have not even gone direct injection or started putting out the smaller engines with turbos that are planned in the next 2-5 years. The interior looks much better than last year. 

TSURACING:
I will have to check them out. I thought they would not be out until later this year.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

zr1000a1 said:


> How Consumer Reports tests cars: Fuel economy
> 
> XtremeRevolution:
> I mostly agree with you about the non-eco and eco Cruze manual transmission equipped cars. The automatics might be a different story. When it comes to CR, we seem to disagree a lot. I try to be objective and non-biased in my opinions, based on the best available information.
> ...


I've looked through consumer reports. Here's the only consumer report I need. I walk into a dealership, I inspect the car to be purchased, I analyze it, I test drive it, and I make my decision. I check forums for real people with real problems and make my decisions based on that. I check fuelly.com to see what real people are getting in the real world in normal driving conditions, both high and low for those that care and those that hypermile on the highway. I think erikbeggs put it perfectly. I cannot and have never trusted a magazine's ratings for the following:

A. perceived reliability
B. "calculated" fuel economy
C. "calculated" performance, both 0-60 and 1/4 mile

So many magazines couldn't get more than high 9 second 0-60 times in the Cruze Eco. They must have smoked a few joints before getting behind the wheel because everyone else is clocking in low to mid 8 seconds 0-60s, and a high 9 second 0-60 is Prius territory. I can guarantee you the Prius is scary slow compared to the Cruze Eco, MT or Manual. 

I take perceived reliability with a HUGE grain of salt. I will know exactly how reliable a car is once enough people have put 100,000 miles on theirs and have reported back. How exactly consumer reports thinks they can even have a hunch on how reliable the Cruze would be is beyond me. Its entirely different from most if not all GM cars of the past. Designed by Daewoo and engineered by Opel. Its a brand new platform for GM in the US, new generation, and now a 2nd model year. I don't think anyone here has an idea of how reliable it would be, nor should they. 



cwerdna said:


> Sorry, I've have no account on fuelly.com, so I don't know the procedure. Never even heard of the site until a few years ago. I'd have too much data to enter there (from my spreadsheet) if I wanted a have a complete history now. I'll consider it on my next ICE car.
> 
> As for "The only unrealistic ones there are the ones that are rated too low in the low 20s", why is unrealistic? In CR's (admittedly harsh city) FE tests, both Cruze non-Ecos they tested achieved 17 city/36 highway/26 mpg overall (and 34 or 35 mpg on a 150 mile trip, depending on engine). I can easily see someone w/very short city trips in bad traffic, underinflated tires, poor driving habits and tons of idling (some unnecessary), not even breaking 20 mpg.
> 
> ...


Well, at least now you know how Fuelly is calculated. You don't have to start from scratch and enter your complete history; you can start from today and enter every fuel-up from now on going forward. 

CR's tests of the Cruze fuel economy is pure garbage. 17mpg? Man, that's harsh. I drove my sister's 2002 Saturn L200 with 3 other passengers like I stole it all around LA in rush hour traffic for an entire week while I was out there and STILL averaged 19mpg city. What did they do, let it idle for an entire day and then romp on it? My 95 Regal with an L67 (Supercharged 3800) swap and lots of mods gets better than 17mpg in the city. I'm not sure why alarm bells aren't ringing and bullshit flags aren't flying when you read numbers like those, because they sure are for me. My last tank of gas averaged 40 mpg *in the city*. That's 100% in-town driving, no highway driving. 

If EPA rates 26MPG for a Cruze non-eco and a review magazine is getting (and publishing) 17mpg, it should be painfully obvious that there's something wrong there.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

40 miles per gallon, all city driving in SW Chicago? I did not realize they outlawed all stop signs, stoplights, traffic, and idling in the Windy city! Wait, they must of outlawed the wind too, and put the town in a vacuum.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I take perceived reliability with a HUGE grain of salt. I will know exactly how reliable a car is once enough people have put 100,000 miles on theirs and have reported back. How exactly consumer reports thinks they can even have a hunch on how reliable the Cruze would be is beyond me. Its entirely different from most if not all GM cars of the past. Designed by Daewoo and engineered by Opel. Its a brand new platform for GM in the US, new generation, and now a 2nd model year. I don't think anyone here has an idea of how reliable it would be, nor should they.
> ...
> Well, at least now you know how Fuelly is calculated. You don't have to start from scratch and enter your complete history; you can start from today and enter every fuel-up from now on going forward.
> 
> ...


CR does have some idea of how reliable the Cruze was for the 200+ respondents who reported troubles or lack of on their Cruzes so far. Do we even have 100+ responses compiled here for reliability for each engine choice for '11 Cruzes?

As for Fuelly, yes, I can start w/the data now, but it'll obviously be missing data points from my previous ~61K miles of driving.

As I said, CR's city test is very harsh. You can see how the best vehicles did at The most fuel-efficient cars along w/best and worst at Best & worst cars review, fuel-efficient vehicles.

Your test was ALL day, not theirs. From the last page of http://www.consumersunion.org/Oct_CR_Fuel_Economy.pdf. 


> CITY MPG
> Our tests. These tests are stop-and-go city-driving simulations on our test track, which has a total of 18 stops and 4 minutes of total idle time. Top speed is 40 mph. Two different testers each drive three runs for a total of six 2-minute, 40-second trials on every test vehicle. Total test time is approximately 16 minutes.


It's unclear how long the cooldown period is between each run or if they just do the full 16 minutes in one shot.

FWIW, in CR's tests, the 03 L200 they tested got 15 city/36 highway/24 overall and 30 mpg on a 150-mile trip. Again, I suspect your driving the L200 was a lot longer than 16 minutes total from a cold engine.

BTW, back to the whole issue of Fuelly bias. There is some bias. People who are reporting tend to be those who either care about mileage or bought a vehicle that they believe will get good mileage. This can tend to skew results. I'm sure there are a boatload of people who have Cruze (esp. non-Ecos) who couldn't be bothered to calculate their mileage or report #s to fuelly. 

Who do you think is more likely to report? A new Prius owner or a new Cruze owner? How about a Cruze Eco vs. Cruze non-Eco owner?

Take a look at some best sellers like Top 10 Best-Selling Cars of 2011 - Kicking Tires - The Washington Post and Top 10 Best-Selling Cars: January 2012 - KickingTires and compare to the representation they get on fuelly.

Or, take a look at say Tahoe sales at http://investor.gm.com/sales-production/docs/sales_prod/11_12/DeliveriesDecember2011.pdf vs. Prius sales at Toyota | December 2011 Sales Chart. Last year, 80K Tahoe were sold in the US vs. 136K Priuses. Yet, there are only 88 Tahoes in total on Fuelly, of which 3 were 2011s. There are 890 Priuses on Fuelly and 147 were 2011s.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> CR does have some idea of how reliable the Cruze was for the 200+ respondents who reported troubles or lack of on their Cruzes so far. Do we even have 100+ responses compiled here for reliability for each engine choice for '11 Cruzes?
> 
> It's unclear how long the cooldown period is between each run or if they just do the full 16 minutes in one shot.
> 
> ...


You have a good point cwerderna. However, the people who look at fuelly are also people who care about fuel mileage and interested in driving that way in the first place. I don't think the bias is too strong and certainly not as strong as a reviewer like CR. They got 17 MPG for a Cruze? I have no idea how that is possible. My worst tank was 19.9 MPG with the stock set up, winter driving, and 100% city with an average speed of just under 20 mph. There was plenty of idling and traffic to go around. CR just likes to beat on their cars to "mimic" the driving of most American peddle-happy drivers. But if you drive sane it is a complete wash. I can't stand it.

Also, the reliability is straight crap. 200 people report out of 200,000 Cruzes sold. Great. -_-


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

zr1000a1 said:


> 40 miles per gallon, all city driving in SW Chicago? I did not realize they outlawed all stop signs, stoplights, traffic, and idling in the Windy city! Wait, they must of outlawed the wind too, and put the town in a vacuum.


Read:

http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/27-fuel-economy/5387-how-get-better-fuel-economy.html

I did get 40+ miles per gallon, and I had under 10 miles of highway driving, which to me is insignificant. 40.6mpg is what fuelly.com calculated. I don't drive my car like an idiot like everyone else on the road does. They hop off red lights like jackrabbits and pass me when I'm taking my time accelerating, only to have me come up right behind them at the next light because they're in too much of a hurry. I leave for work early enough to not need to be in a hurry, and it makes a difference. 

See my commute route in case you have any doubts. I also have the Cruze Eco with a Manual transmission, and I also know how to drive it. 90% of my driving is done under 1500 RPM, and I used 93 octane premium fuel that tank. If you are wondering why, there are several threads about this in other sections of the forum. 

Please tone down your attitude or leave. I have no need for your sarcasm.



cwerdna said:


> CR does have some idea of how reliable the Cruze was for the 200+ respondents who reported troubles or lack of on their Cruzes so far. Do we even have 100+ responses compiled here for reliability for each engine choice for '11 Cruzes?
> 
> As for Fuelly, yes, I can start w/the data now, but it'll obviously be missing data points from my previous ~61K miles of driving.
> 
> ...


No, again, CR does not have an idea as to how reliable the Cruze is. They have 200 cars. 200 out of how many sold? I'll leave it to you to find that research. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. One cannot predict or determine the long term reliability of a car after only one year of production, and certainly not after that one year is made up of the first generation of a new model for the US. It has already been noted countless times that the 2012 models have vastly fewer problems than the 2011 models. 

CR's test is very harsh? Guess what, that makes it invalid and useless. Exactly why do I care for a "worst case, beat on my car like I hate it" fuel economy test? It is absolutely useless. 

A new prius owner is more likely to report, and I already separated the fuel economy numbers of the Eco and Non-Eco trims. There's a thread about it I'm sure you've posted in. 

Exactly how do best selling cars correlate to fuelly.com registrations? They don't. Why? Because nobody cares about the fuel economy of more than half of the vehicles on those lists. Different target buyers, different demographics. Your correlation has no basis. Why are there no Tahoe registrations on fuelly? *Because people don't buy a Tahoe to get great fuel economy. *Therefore, they won't care what they fill up at the pump because either they need the car for its size or utility, or they can easily afford to fill it up every day. A prius owner might get his car because he wants to save money or fuel, so its more likely that he/she would create a fuelly.com account. You're trying to make connections that simply aren't there.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Read:
> 
> http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/27-fuel-economy/5387-how-get-better-fuel-economy.html
> 
> ...


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

zr1000a1 said:


> XtremeRevolution said:
> 
> 
> > Read:
> ...


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

> XtremeRevolution said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that there is no scientific method, but typical driving is not really significant, and we aren't looking for one specific physical vehicle's mileage to another one. Everything changes often, and there are various types of drivers for any vehicles entered. The more vehicles you enter, the more accurate your results will be. By the time you're at 200+ vehicles, that one guy who doesn't know what he's doing will not affect the outcome. I don't see it necessary to drop the high and low values, because they cancel themselves out either way. I've already gone over the issue with filling up your tank till it clicks in another thread. If I drove 4,000 miles and pumped 100 gallons, I don't care what deviation I'll have had from pump to pump, at the end of the day, I'll have achieved 40mpg. There is extremely little room for any consequential error in the long run, which is what fuelly calculates. Yes, there are many variables, but those variables are offset by sheer numbers and the fact that every car has those issues. You can come up to me and say "some Cruze owners drive in warm climates and get better fuel economy, so their results invalidate the average." I'll go right back to you and say "same can be said of the Prius or any other car on Fuelly."
> ...


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

zr1000a1 said:


> > Were you able to ascertain manual transmissions versus automatics with the Eco category, or are they combined because of lack of info?
> >
> > I am amazed that you can get that kind of gas mileage on a regular basis in town.
> >
> ...


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

zr1000a1 said:


> A problem here is how we define city driving. If you are not stopping several times every mile at lights and stop signs, then it really is not city driving. It is more like suburb or rural highway driving. There is city driving, then there is heavy traffic downtown city driving where you stop every block. Suburb driving might find you stopping twice in a mile.
> 
> 90-95% of my driving is a mix of city and residential suburb, with some heavy city traffic. I only get out on the expressway about 5% of my tank, and that is at 65 mph. I quickly get skeptical when I see great "city" mpg's. I kind of like the way truedelta.com breaks it down.


This is a fair point. I have a strict algorithm for determining my city vs. highway split on my account and try to make it as accurate as possible because I know people browse fuelly expecting accurate results. All it takes for me is a quick calculation. Let me explain.

I use 1 factor and 1 factor alone to determine my city / highway split: the average speed on the DIC. I reset it every time I add a fuel up. Now lets get into detail:

Average speed = Distance / Time. For the sake of this comparison.. time is what is important. How much time in the city vs. how much time on the highway.

I use the EPA testing cycle as a benchmark. The average speed of the city test is 21 mph. Therefore, I use 20 mph or lower average speed as a 100% city conditions. This has only happened on 1 of my fuel ups. The highway test cycle puts an average speed of 48 mph I believe, so I round that to 50 mph. 

Now here is where I make my distinction. I factor in *true* speed of my highway driving. Back at home in Buffalo, NY drivers are less aggressive because the cops brutally enforce the 55 mph state speed limit on all the local highways. Therefore, I am able to safely travel at 55 mph cruise every time I get on the highway. For simplicity (and to counteract getting on and off ramps), I assume a 50 mph average speed or higher in this scenario to be 100% highway driving. I also realize that most people don't have the luxury of driving this speed. While I'm at school in Delaware, 55 mph on I-95 is not only unlikely - it is dangerous. So when I'm here, I bump the cruise up to 65 mph which is about what people can get away with on most highways. In that case, I use 60+ mph average speed as 100% highway driving.

So calcuating the split, the average speed basically tells you how far your car has traveled in the time it is on since you last filled up. I interpolate between the two values. An average speed of 40 mph is exactly halfway between 20 mph (100% city) and 60 mph (100%) highway. It will show up on my fuelly as 50% city / 50% highway. Back in Buffalo, 35 mph is directly between 20 mph (100% city) and 50 mph (100% highway). (Not) Coincidently, this really does accurately describe the driving split. For calculation simplicity (so that you don't need a calculator to do it), just take your average speed.. find out in multiples of 4 (for 60 mph highway) or 3 (for 50 mph highway) how far it is from either end and that is your split to the nearest 10%. So a 36 mph tank for me equates to 60% city / 40% highway in Delaware and 50% city / 50% highway in Buffalo. For the nearest 5% (what is used by fuelly), just use multiples of 2 or 1.5. And on the couple road trips I've had.. speeds of 64 mph and 62 mph have shown up. 100% highway. . Some road trips you get city like conditions like accidents. I've had one slow my average to 57 mph with a half hour of traffic. That was included in the entry as 10% city / 90% highway. Sound accurate?

By keeping this that detailed, my fuelly displays the exact amount of driving conditions I drive in. As of now it reads 53% highway / 47% city.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

And Xtreme I peeped your commute... You don't take that tollway? Is it that bad? Man... a straight shot like that to work I'd do it, LOL. Sit on the highway and cruise and not have to **** with lights


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> And Xtreme I peeped your commute... You don't take that tollway? Is it that bad? Man... a straight shot like that to work I'd do it, LOL. Sit on the highway and cruise and not have to **** with lights


Your way of calculating city/highway is great. I think I'll start using that!  

I would take the highway (355), and I used to, but then tolls went up and I bought this car to get better fuel economy and not take the tollway. I drive to work 4 days a week (work one day a week at home), and tolls are $6.80 round trip with the i-pass account, which calculates to $116.13 per month for tolls or $1393.60 a year. Kind of a lot of money.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

ExtremeRevolution:

Thank you for your sentiments and offer. My father is pretty much bed ridden at this point. We do at home peritoneal dialysis every night, hooking him up to a machine for 9.5 hours. We usually will do a manual bag in the afternoon or evening for some additional dialysis. I usually only have to get him out to see the nurse and doctor every two weeks, now. It beats the hemo-dialysis that had to be done every other day at a center. Between the kidney disease, diabetes, congestive heart failure, etc., we are having a blast. 
Hope things get better with your father-in-law. 
When Dad is not in the car, I try not to turn on the heat until temp gauge starts moving to a certain point. I still let her warm up for 30 seconds to a minute, depending on how cold, and then try to drive slow for a little while. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIKGEggs:

Great algorithm. I am going to copy and use that!


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> No, again, CR does not have an idea as to how reliable the Cruze is. They have 200 cars. 200 out of how many sold? I'll leave it to you to find that research. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. One cannot predict or determine the long term reliability of a car after only one year of production, and certainly not after that one year is made up of the first generation of a new model for the US. It has already been noted countless times that the 2012 models have vastly fewer problems than the 2011 models.
> 
> CR's test is very harsh? Guess what, that makes it invalid and useless. Exactly why do I care for a "worst case, beat on my car like I hate it" fuel economy test? It is absolutely useless.


CR has reliability survey responses from at least 200 Cruzes. So, if you took a random sampling of a sufficiently large (min of 100 per model year in CR's case) sample size of Cruzes from all around the country and got results about where the owners experienced problems that those results wouldn't extrapolate to a larger population? You don't think that from that you could derive and average vs. all vehicles for each given model year and say how much below or above average that vehicle was? 

When you buy a car, the reliability of it is ends up being a game of chance. Doesn't it seem to follow that a car is more likely to be reliable if it and the manufacturer has historically done well in such an odds game vs. one that hasn't? Sure seems a lot more reliable than gut feels or looking at an even tinier sample size here w/no consistency on places like message boards.

The better reliability scores can result from all sorts of factors: management priorities, design, engineering, testing, validation, assembly, specifications, acceptable defect rates, statistical process controls, how well their monitor their suppliers, etc. and all of those on the part of their suppliers. 

As for their test, I consider it to be harsh because it's only 16 minutes long, has stop and go and 4 minutes of idling, all from a cold engine. If they did each run from a cold engine, it'd make it even more harsh. I disagree that's invalid and useless but would consider it to be near a worst case. Some people don't drive very much. There's a guy on Priuschat w/an almost 3 year old Prius and only 9K miles on it. Don't know if most of his drives are city ones though.

If I were still in high school, my drives wouldn't be long. My old HS was 1.3 miles away and 4 mins by car. Google Maps puts it at a 24 minute walk (that's about right... so I used to bike before I could drive.)

You seem to just hate Consumer Reports and say everything is wrong w/them and their methodology, seemingly because you don't like what you see.


zr1000a1 said:


> CR and EPA is also geared for being able to compare between different makes of vehicles because the controls and testing is supposed to be uniform for all vehicles. That makes it a valid comparison, whether or not they reflect someone else's real world gas mileage. They judge every vehicle under the same standards, which makes it possible to compare.
> 
> The problem with using fuelly.com to compare between different models of cars is that there are no controls or scientific method being used. There are no standards of protocol that is followed for every vehicle. Too many variables. Just filling up the tank to the same level every time is impossible, especially when filling up at different pumps at different times of the day.


Agree. 


XtremeRevolution said:


> CR blatantly stated that they drove the Cruze very hard. In order to get 17mpg city, one would have to. I can race people at every light with my Supercharged and modified 3800 powered Regal and get better than that. This is vastly different from the way normal people drive their cars, and erikbeggs touched on this as well. There are only two cars in the 2011 Cruze category on fuelly.com that managed to achieve under 20mpg average, out of 175 cars. I think its safe to say that CR had their head up their ass during that test and that its not valid for any purpose.


No they didn't. The only thing coming close to that is that their video mentions a rigorous city test. Many other non-hybrid small cars also get sub-20 mpg in CR's harsh city test, which I attribute to its its shortness and start from a cold engine. As I posted before, http://www.consumersunion.org/Oct_CR_Fuel_Economy.pdf describes their tests.

As I stated before, the overall mileage assigned to '11 Cruzes w/both engines was 26 mpg overall. For the 150-mile trip, it was 34 mpg or 35 mpg, depending on the engine.


----------



## gman19 (Apr 5, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> In fact, it would be more likely that someone's Prius fuel economy numbers would be inflated.
> 
> All of the Prius owners I've met are like all of the Mac product owners I've met; they just can't stop talking about how great their product is.


My experience as well....What Prius owner would buy one, drive it, and want to post crappy mileage numbers?? I can see these numbers being more likely to have some inflated values as well.


----------



## gman19 (Apr 5, 2011)

ErikBEggs said:


> You have a good point cwerderna. However, the people who look at fuelly are also people who care about fuel mileage and interested in driving that way in the first place. I don't think the bias is too strong and certainly not as strong as a reviewer like CR. They got 17 MPG for a Cruze? I have no idea how that is possible. My worst tank was 19.9 MPG with the stock set up, winter driving, and 100% city with an average speed of just under 20 mph. There was plenty of idling and traffic to go around. CR just likes to beat on their cars to "mimic" the driving of most American peddle-happy drivers. But if you drive sane it is a complete wash. I can't stand it.
> 
> Also, the reliability is straight crap. 200 people report out of 200,000 Cruzes sold. Great. -_-


Agreed....and owners that have had problems are a LOT more likely to respond to the survey. If I were to receive a survey, I'd be more likely to trash it as I have had no issues with my Cruze. Now, take someone that has had a bad experience....they will most likely fill the survey out and voice thier displeasure. For the record, I did return my survey...couldn't behappier with my Cruze, unless it was paid for! Also, with about 80% highway driving, see my sig...


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

cwerdna said:


> CR has reliability survey responses from at least 200 Cruzes. So, if you took a random sampling of a sufficiently large (min of 100 per model year in CR's case) sample size of Cruzes from all around the country and got results about where the owners experienced problems that those results wouldn't extrapolate to a larger population? You don't think that from that you could derive and average vs. all vehicles for each given model year and say how much below or above average that vehicle was?
> 
> When you buy a car, the reliability of it is ends up being a game of chance. Doesn't it seem to follow that a car is more likely to be reliable if it and the manufacturer has historically done well in such an odds game vs. one that hasn't? Sure seems a lot more reliable than gut feels or looking at an even tinier sample size here w/no consistency on places like message boards.
> 
> ...


I don't think that 200 sampling is valid. Here are a few reasons why:

A. its only 200 people, and as mentioned before, people who have had problems will be more likely to complain about them than those who haven't. There are well into 300,000 Cruzes on the road. 
B. I've mentioned this before and I still think its valid. The 2011 Cruze had issues that the 2012 Cruze doesn't. They supposedly made the Auto transmission better. It is rumored that the clutches don't have a defect if produced after October 2011. They've recalled the popping noise in the front suspension and parts will soon be available. Every Cruze produced after December 2011 will not have that popping noise. If you buy a Cruze today, it will likely be very reliable. 

Therefore, we cannot "predict" how reliable all Cruzes will be based on a sampling of disgruntled surveyors who drove the first year of a first generation of a new platform (to the US). Furthermore, being an Opel engineered, Daewoo designed vehicle, we cannot pick up where old GM left off and assume that the reliability will be consistent with what GM has sold in the past. This is why historical reliability trends in GM are irrelevant. 

If they take a "near a worst case" scenario, it is irrelevant. People don't read reviews about cars to get an absolute worst case scenario; they read reviews to get a "most likely" scenario that will cover the highest number of people. The fact that CR performed a test with the Cruze to drive it as harshly as one could ever drive it makes it an invalid test for comparison purposes as a very small percentage of Cruze drivers will even come close to those conditions. As noted earlier, with an average of ~30mph in what would be considered at least 75% city driving, I am getting 40+MPG tanks consistently. I keep up with traffic and I'm not a hazard on the road unlike some Prius drivers around here. 

If my commute or high school was 1.3 miles away, you can bet your ass I wouldn't be driving. It would be a complete waste for anyone unless the weather is terrible. 1.3 miles is walking or biking distance and is not even close to an average commute length. The average commute length in Chicago is 33 minutes, just to provide one example. 

I don't hate them because I don't like what I see. I hate them because their testing is severely irrelevant and useless, and their results are only applicable to a very small and inconsequential number of people. I also hate them because they invalidly claim to be able to predict a car's reliability based on a flawed testing method. Perhaps they need to realize that not everyone in the US lives near downtown in a large city.


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

I will sum up my opinion with this, if the Prius got 100 MPG I wouldn't buy it because it looks like a butt ugly easter egg. Yes I know this irrelevant and off topic, but so is 99% of this thread



That is all


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

NBrehm said:


> I will sum up my opinion with this, if the Prius got 100 MPG I wouldn't buy it because it looks like a butt ugly easter egg. Yes I know this irrelevant and off topic, but so is 99% of this thread
> 
> 
> 
> That is all


Being irrelevant and off-topic, however, doesn't make it useless.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I stopped trusting CR reviews of cars years ago. They rated the Dodge Intrepid extremely high for reliability and the Pontiac Transport low. My wife's Intrepid had to have the transmission replaced after 38K (a known defect yet it was out of warranty) and the rack & pinon steering after 40K. The Intrepid lasted less than 70K before being replaced. It also stalled two or three times after every fill up. My Transport, on the other hand, went over 160K before any major problems (water pump) and lasted to 240K before being replaced. Talking to other Dodge and GM owners of same era vehicles, I wasn't the only person with results completely at odds with CR, yet it took years for CR to stop rating Dodges as best buys.

As for the topic of this thread, here are my actual pump to pump results on a 2012 Cruze ECO MT:


Total MilageGallons Tank MilageTank MPGTotal MPG05.0000 0.00.015610.460156 14.914.95148.924358 40.126.58287.537314 41.730.81,16210.834334 30.830.81,4967.641334 43.733.01,8158.031319 39.734.02,26113.820446 32.333.6

The last fillup was today. Note that the first click off was at 10.9 gallons and the Distance to Empty read 560 miles after the fill up. Other than the dealer fill up at 156 miles, all these fill ups have been at two pumps at the same gas station. The two readings in the low 30 mpg range were the result of my putting in over 2.5 gallons after the first pump click off and filling the tank well beyond the rated 12.6 gallons. (Chevy - get rid of that blasted bushing that blocks easy access to the final 3 gallons)

My take on hybrids that switch between gas and electric motors - they drive like garbage. I drove a Camry Hybrid for a week and hated it's performance. I'll take a 100% gasoline, diesel, or electric drive any day over a hybrid. Electrics like the Vold and Fisker that use a gas motor to recharge the batteries fall under the 100% electric drive train. I test drove a Volt waiting for my Cruze's dealer prep and actually thought it was well done, but too expensive.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

obermd said:


> My take on hybrids that switch between gas and electric motors - they drive like garbage. I drove a Camry Hybrid for a week and hated it's performance. I'll take a 100% gasoline, diesel, or electric drive any day over a hybrid.* Electrics like the Vold and Fisker that use a gas motor to recharge the batteries fall under the 100% electric drive train. I test drove a Volt* waiting for my Cruze's dealer prep and actually thought it was well done, but too expensive.


GM lied about the engine never driving the wheels. Until the word came out, GM led everyone to believe the Volt was a pure series hybrid. See Unbolting the Chevy Volt to See How it Ticks - Motor Trend. Unfortunately, the lie still persists today and I've even heard it out of the mouth of a rep manning Volt test drives at an auto show a few months ago. (Even though the test drives look like they're being conducted by GM, they're actually being manned by an outside agency.)

There's a bit more clarification at http://www.plugincars.com/truth-out...lts-wheels-powered-directly-engine-90006.html and http://www.plugincars.com/exclusive...rivetrain-says-volt-electric-vehicle-90758.ht.

The Volt's transmission design is similar to the Power Split Device found in Toyota hybrids except that GM added 3 clutches. It also apparently owes its origins to the two-mode transmissions system used the GM's two mode hybrid SUVs and trucks (What a 2011 Chevy Volt Has In Common With a Huge Tahoe Hybrid).

You can watch GM's powertrain engineer explain all the different modes of the Volt's operation at Hate the Volt? - Page 4 - PriusChat Forums.

They supposed lied/misled people for IP/patent related reasons. See http://translogic.aolautos.com/2010/10/12/why-gm-doesn-t-want-you-to-call-the-volt-a-hybrid/ and http://web.archive.org/web/20101223...ng-up-confusion-about-the-chevrolet-volt.html. 

That said, the revelation/lie/whatever shouldn't be enough to say "ZOMG! Can't buy the Volt now because of the mechanical connection from engine to wheels, in some cases."


gman19 said:


> Agreed....and owners that have had problems are a LOT more likely to respond to the survey. If I were to receive a survey, I'd be more likely to trash it as I have had no issues with my Cruze. Now, take someone that has had a bad experience....they will most likely fill the survey out and voice thier displeasure. For the record, I did return my survey...couldn't behappier with my Cruze, unless it was paid for! Also, with about 80% highway driving, see my sig...


But wouldn't your above assertion apply to all vehicles, not just the Cruze?


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

cwerdna said:


> GM lied about the engine never driving the wheels. Until the word came out, GM led everyone to believe the Volt was a pure series hybrid. See Unbolting the Chevy Volt to See How it Ticks - Motor Trend. Unfortunately, the lie still persists today and I've even heard it out of the mouth of a rep manning Volt test drives at an auto show a few months ago. (Even though the test drives look like they're being conducted by GM, they're actually being manned by an outside agency.)
> 
> Interesting article. When I tested the dealer's Volt, I started at a red light and turned left onto C-470 in Denver. I then kept the pedal on the floor until I was doing slightly faster than the flow of traffic at 75 MPH. The Volt had a constant acceleration all the way to 75, so even if the gas engine did kick in to help or fully power the drive train and wheels, I didn't notice it. On the other hand, the first time I passed 30 MPH in Boston rush hour in the Camrey Hybrid I thought the car had stalled because the switch over from electric to gas involved around a full second of power loss during easy acceleration. The service manager at the Toyota dealership that was working on my wife's Solara Convertable told me that a second is at the high end of "normal" but that there is almost always a momentary drop in power during transition from electric to gas. Also, as a long time Hyper-miler (I have always gotten slightly higher mpg that then EPA highway estimates over the life of a vehicle) I was disappointed with the overall MPG of that Camrey Hybrid, but since it was a rental I have no idea about how it had been maintained.
> 
> Based on the article's description and my personal driving experience of both Toyota's solution and GM's solution, GM has the better solution from a driver's standpoint.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

obermd said:


> Interesting article. When I tested the dealer's Volt, I started at a red light and turned left onto C-470 in Denver. I then kept the pedal on the floor until I was doing slightly faster than the flow of traffic at 75 MPH. The Volt had a constant acceleration all the way to 75, so even if the gas engine did kick in to help or fully power the drive train and wheels, I didn't notice it. On the other hand, the first time I passed 30 MPH in Boston rush hour in the Camrey Hybrid I thought the car had stalled because the switch over from electric to gas involved around a full second of power loss during easy acceleration. The service manager at the Toyota dealership that was working on my wife's Solara Convertable told me that a second is at the high end of "normal" but that there is almost always a momentary drop in power during transition from electric to gas. Also, as a long time Hyper-miler (I have always gotten slightly higher mpg that then EPA highway estimates over the life of a vehicle) I was disappointed with the overall MPG of that Camrey Hybrid, but since it was a rental I have no idea about how it had been maintained.
> 
> Based on the article's description and my personal driving experience of both Toyota's solution and GM's solution, GM has the better solution from a driver's standpoint.


If you floor a Prius or Camry Hybrid, you will feel constant acceleration. There's a video of it at 0-60 MPH performance of various transmissions - PriusChat Forums. Ford hybrids, the Altima Hybrid and Prius also use a power split device w/the same overall design. (The Altima Hybrid's almost certainly uses the same power split device as the '07-'11 Camry Hybrid.)

FWIW, I generally liked the HyCam when I had it as a loaner for a bit over a day (my random impressions after driving a HyCam for ~62 miles - PriusChat Forums). That's now a previous gen as the '12 HyCam is a new design and much improved (bigger trunk, more power at 200 hp and EPA rating of 41 mpg combined vs. 187 hp and only 34 mpg combined, better interior, etc.)

As for what you experienced in a HyCam, it's probably throttle lag that 2010 Camry hits full throttle seriously slowly - PriusChat Forums was complaining about. For more details about the the power split device works, see Toyota Prius - Power Split Device and Graham's Toyota Prius (under Understanding the Prius). The principles and overall design are the same.

If you look at the details of what's mentioned for the Volt, there are certain cases, when in charge sustain mode (big battery too low and you can no longer run in pure EV mode), where the ICE will assist.

I have test driven the Volt a few times and the longest I had was still at relatively low speeds (<60 mph). Each time, I had to drive it in charge sustain mode as the battery was low. The Volt basically is a PHEV but with a strong bias on staying in EV mode and feels like mostly like an EV.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I also drove the Volt "normally" for speed ranges from 0 to 45 and had no drops in power. I stand by my statement that GM has developed a more driver-friendly hybrid solution than Toyota's Hybrid-Synergy drive system.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

I want to drive a Volt. Seriously.

I wonder if anyone with a Volt has a fuelly account. LOL.

EDIT: Yes, we have some Volt users with awesome stats. LOL, last tank 177.5 MPG.

EDIT #2: Oh man, he is clearly posting for bragging rights, LOL


----------



## Eugene_C (Mar 15, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> This is just a piss-poor attempt to comply with CAFE and not to sell cars. Chevy has the Spark coming out and already has the Volt. Between the Cruze Eco and Cruze Eco-diesel I don't anticipate anyone actually shopping for a Cruze plug in unless GM discontinues the Volt. They basically would be the same car.


There's always a market for technology geeks like myself. Chevy wants a plug-in Cruze for same reason that the Grocery Chain keeps a few aisles of organic foods. I projects their image as a progressive brand and attracts a few more customers who will also buy other things that they sell. More important it impresses young buyers who tend to think of Chevy as and "old, blue-collar, geezer" brand. There's a lot of reasons to market the car even if it isn't a huge seller. 

I don't think it will be the same as a Volt. It will probably either not plug in, or have a much shorter plug-in range, like in the 15-mile range. Which is actually great for saving your engine from short-trips to the corner store and boosting your gas mileage on weekend errands.

I can't imagine anyone developing a non-plug-in this late in the game but you never know.


----------



## Eugene_C (Mar 15, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> I want to drive a Volt. Seriously.
> 
> I wonder if anyone with a Volt has a fuelly account. LOL.
> 
> ...


I actually ordered a Volt last summer but the lease payment came in a little higher than I expected and the old lady put the kabosh on it until the kitchen is redone. I got to take it on a 15-minute test run. The low-end torque is a blast, and the computer is AMAZING! 

When I started with the car it had 37 miles of range on it, because the dealer had just "taken the scenic route" to put gas in the tank. The test drive was about 7.5 miles and I didn't exactly drive it economically so it was reporting about 26 miles of range when I was done. Never got to drive it with the engine on. I must say the electric experience is pretty amazing. Smooth as silk, and quiet. It's like you're gliding on invisible rails. 

The most disappointing thing was the radio. Which has me concerned about the Cruze stereo. I'm used to a Pontiac Monsoon system. However, I will say that it's easier to hear the radio without all the engine noise.


----------



## Jpmcginnis100 (Feb 6, 2012)

*Why a Hybrid Would be Great!*

I hate to be a rude but a hybrid car has self recharging batteries. The use of friction from the brake pads and friction from the gasoline engine allows the car to self recharge itself without using electric energy from your home, so its essentially free energy for your car. Also, the coal burning theory is true but you have to understand that gasoline is a non renewable energy that is dominated by a company outside of the united states, that is not regulated by U.S. laws for monopoly. We are allowed to regulated electric prices inside the U.S. or any other country for the matter because most countries have a regional electrical company that may or may not be investing in renewable resources. We will have electricity for the rest of our lives and with new markets for solar, wind, and hydrogen power, we now can produce electricity without burning coal. (0% environmentally harmful) I do agree that the price of a new cruze eco is a fantastic price and is no brainer choose over a pricy hybrid, but once the market for hybrids lower in price i think chevy should stick with the ecotech engine. I just want everyone to be clear that hybrids are not the devil and that if a motor company could integrate solar and wind power in a car, then we could have a cruze that would never have to stop again.

P.S. this is in reply to the very first post of this tread.


----------



## Eugene_C (Mar 15, 2012)

Jpmcginnis100 said:


> I hate to be a rude but a hybrid car has self recharging batteries. The use of friction from the brake pads and friction from the gasoline engine allows the car to self recharge itself without using electric energy from your home,...
> P.S. this is in reply to the very first post of this tread.



Well there are two kinds of hybrids. Plug-in and non-plug-in. Plug in's use some fuel from the grid, non-plug-ins simply recapture some braking power, in which case all of your energy is still coming from gasoline.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Eugene_C said:


> Well there are two kinds of hybrids. Plug-in and non-plug-in. Plug in's use some fuel from the grid, non-plug-ins simply recapture some braking power, in which case all of your energy is still coming from gasoline.


Keep in mind, that regenerative braking only occurs when you're braking more softly and give yourself ample time to come to a stop. With the kind of braking most people do in the real world, you don't see those same benefits.


----------



## GoldenCruze (Dec 18, 2011)

The whole coal business can be worked for some people by installing solar panels on your property. It has been shown that a 2 panel setup with a battery bank would work out to an annual fueling cost for an electric car of about $8.50 a year over a 20 year span.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

GoldenCruze said:


> The whole coal business can be worked for some people by installing solar panels on your property. It has been shown that a 2 panel setup with a battery bank would work out to an annual fueling cost for an electric car of about $8.50 a year over a 20 year span.


I've looked into it, and the cost of solar is still cost-prohibitive if you want a reasonable charging time. Most plug-in cars require a 240V outlet. They will charge on 120V, but it will take significantly longer. We're talking about some very large solar panels here. 

Then there's the issue of what to do when its not sunny...

That's not to bash on solar by the way. I still want to install some solar panels for myself, no doubt about that. I'd like to be able to outfit a section of my basement with shop lights and grow a garden down there, supplied by light generated with electricity off of solar power and deep cycle batteries.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

Xtreme, I have had the same thoughts too concerning a garden (the edible kind) in the basement. When looking into the costs of solar panels, batteries, and such, not to mention extra heat, I start thinking of other ways. Some other ways, which I do not know how well they will work, is sun or light tunnels, l.e.d. growing lights, and fiber optics. Some of these ideas would also require some sort of magnifying or focusing lenses, "dispersion" lenses, reflectors, etc. Of course fiber optics and l.e.d.'s are expensive too. 
I should of payed more attention in natural science and physics class. I need to grab a botany book or something.
I also do not know what light waves/radiation you need for growing and at what levels, and if fiber optics filters some out. The same goes with l.e.d.'s and the mix of different types or if they have enough output.
Edit: The same goes for fluorescent lights or some sort of hybrid. I just do not know enough about it.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

zr1000a1 said:


> Xtreme, I have had the same thoughts too concerning a garden (the edible kind) in the basement. When looking into the costs of solar panels, batteries, and such, not to mention extra heat, I start thinking of other ways. Some other ways, which I do not know how well they will work, is sun or light tunnels, l.e.d. growing lights, and fiber optics. Some of these ideas would also require some sort of magnifying or focusing lenses, "dispersion" lenses, reflectors, etc. Of course fiber optics and l.e.d.'s are expensive too.
> I should of payed more attention in natural science and physics class. I need to grab a botany book or something.
> I also do not know what light waves/radiation you need for growing and at what levels, and if fiber optics filters some out. The same goes with l.e.d.'s and the mix of different types or if they have enough output.
> Edit: The same goes for fluorescent lights or some sort of hybrid. I just do not know enough about it.


Yeah, I've heard that too, but for some reason, all of my plants at work that I put under a commercial light grow faster than you can imagine. I've heard some flowering plants need a different light spectrum, but then I read more about it and discovered that those "plant lights" are nearly useless. I was thinking of starting out with a shop light containing two 4 foot 40W tube lights. 

Then I started thinking...why solar? Why not wind?


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

Wind! now that's the ticket! Time to go to the junk yard, get a bunch of old alternators, and strap some propellers on em!


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

ErikBEggs said:


> I want to drive a Volt. Seriously.
> 
> I wonder if anyone with a Volt has a fuelly account. LOL.
> 
> ...


Better place to look is Volt Stats! Tracking real world usage of Chevy Volts in the wild....


XtremeRevolution said:


> I've looked into it, and the cost of solar is still cost-prohibitive if you want a reasonable charging time. Most plug-in cars require a 240V outlet. They will charge on 120V, but it will take significantly longer. We're talking about some very large solar panels here.


I don't know of any that _require_ outlet. Even some Leaf owners run purely on 120 volts and one I personally know was charging at 120 volts for months. 

If the battery capacity is small enough, the 120 volt charge time isn't unreasonably long. For the Volt, it's 10 hours. How long is your car sitting at home idle once you've arrived home? For the new Plug-in Prius, it's 3 hours.


Jpmcginnis100 said:


> I hate to be a rude but a hybrid car has self recharging batteries. The use of friction from the brake pads and friction from the gasoline engine allows the car to self recharge itself without using electric energy from your home, so its essentially free energy for your car.


No. That is NOT how braking works on hybrids. Please see Graham's Toyota Prius under Understanding Your Prius, the hybrid articles under AUTOMOTIVE TECHNICAL ARTICLES (such as http://autoshop101.com/forms/Hybrid01.pdf and http://autoshop101.com/forms/Hybrid16.pdf). More on the power split device at Toyota Prius - Power Split Device.

On simpler hybrid systems such as Honda's parallel only IMA system, they have a single motor/generator sandwiched in between the engine and transmission (briefly mentioned at Inside the Honda IMA Hybrid System | GreenCar.com).

There are other mild hybrid systems that such as the BAS (belt-alternator-starter) system that GM used. The 2nd gen of that is now called eAssist.

It is NOT free energy. All the energy from non-plugin hybrids comes ultimately from gasoline. It took ultimately took gasoline to get accelerate you up to a certain speed. 

Regen allows you to recapture some of the kinetic energy that would otherwise be wasted on non-hybrids as heat and brake dust.


XtremeRevolution said:


> Keep in mind, that regenerative braking only occurs when you're braking more softly and give yourself ample time to come to a stop. With the kind of braking most people do in the real world, you don't see those same benefits.


There's no need to slam on the brakes. One doesn't need to brake _that_ softly to regen only and not throw away energy via the friction brakes. You'll even get some regen when you let off the accelerator and coast.

I can watch how any amps go into the HV battery via my ScanGauge (via an XGauge). 3rd gen Priuses have a HSI bar that gives you a better sense of how much regen you're getting or if you're braking too hard.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

sciphi said:


> I'm trying to get my MIL to look at a Prius-C for a new car. She'll be thrilled with the gas mileage and the utility.


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


----------



## Eugene_C (Mar 15, 2012)

cwerdna said:


> Better place to look is Volt Stats! Tracking real world usage of Chevy Volts in the wild....


Great stats. Nearly half the people can make do with 80% or more electric use, which gives you 150-200 mpg (or more). If you can stay over 90% you're pulling 300 mpg. 

That's the message that's not getting out. Matched with the right driver, a car like this actually CAN be a good investment. It all depends on your driving habits. The stats also reveal that in a cold state like Minnesota, you're going to get worse performance in the Winter, as expected. So you can factor that into the equation. 

The Volt may not be for everyone but it can be a great car for millions of drivers.


----------

