# How much better MPG does the Eco get in the real world over a non-Eco driven by same?



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

It will always be about the driver and location. If i had an ECO down here, i will notice a slight increase of MPG but probably not by much.

But i will notice it on the HWY the major difference. I don't have 1.4, i have a 1.8 and i am still impressed with the MPG.

EPA shows it as a ~4 MPG difference, we all here have kind of beat it lol.


----------



## CruzeTech (Mar 23, 2012)

The EPA didn't drive an Eco with over 10,000 miles on it. That's when my car started blowing away the 42mpg. I'm getting 46-49 at 70-72mph. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Suns_PSD said:


> Sometime back I did a calculation to try and determine pay back period for the Eco option and it was a LONG LONG time not making it seem like such a great deal.
> 
> But then I come on here and see some Eco driver's posting some pretty incredible MPG numbers, way above real world numbers for the standard Cruze.
> 
> ...


It's a combination of more highway driving than the average driver and an underrated EPA estimate MPG. The EPA tests for the ECO MT simply underestimate this car's highway MPG by about 10%. The ECO MT (I can't speak for the AT) really does blow away the EPA estimates on the highway. You have to be doing about 77 MPH to average 42 MPG on the highway in this car. At 55 MPH, this car will average about 55 MPG. These numbers are without doing any hypermiling. With hypermiling you can increase them another 5-10% without too much difficulty. Based on Denver traffic, the ECO MT's city estimimate is low. My opinion, based on 26,000+ miles, is that the ECO MT's numbers should be closer to 33/47/38 (City/Highway/Combined). The official EPA numbers are 28/42/33.

Trim and cost wise, the ECO is between the 1LT and the 2LT.


----------



## FromTheCrypt (Mar 13, 2013)

With everyone of my fill ups I am consistantly getting over 40MPG now via the DIC on my last 3 fill ups. Judging by what some people on here have posted about the 1.8 vs the 1.4 and the mileage they are getting in the city and in normal driving situations it seems the Eco can produce very high numbers if not driven as though it were stolen lol. That is the key if you drive it like a knowledgeable driver who wants to improve his MPG you can easily get well over 40MPG even as high as 50 depending on where you are driving. If you are doing all city driving you might not see such a high increase in comparison. The manual is also key to the Eco as the automatic doesn't get near what the manuals can.


----------



## Beachernaut (Mar 27, 2012)

I average around 38 in town (not stop and go city), 44-47 at 80mph on the interstate, and 47-50 on the highway (55-65mph). The little things that are different with the Eco definitely help, but are worthless if the driver doesn't pay attention to how they drive. The Eco will get the rated mileage when driven like any other car, but little things can bump those numbers considerably. 

OTOH, when it comes to the savings of my Eco, I consider what it cost me to drive the vehicle that the Cruze replaced (02 4wd Blazer). When I do the calculations, I'm saving enough money in gas alone to more than make my car payment every month.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

One of these Eco drivers with the insanely high numbers needs to be given an LT 6MT to figure that out.

Comparing MPG numbers is useless if we're not doing the same commute.

I've seen 44 MPG from mine at 65 MPH, but I'm much too impatient to drive slower than that. If I'm on the highway and not stuck in traffic, I'm usually doing 70+.

Mine's around 30/40 unless driven over 75. Traffic here does not make for ideal driving conditions...ever.


----------



## CruzeTech (Mar 23, 2012)

Actually, with the tune on, I can get 46-48 at 80mph. I don't usually drive that fast though. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> One of these Eco drivers with the insanely high numbers needs to be given an LT 6MT to figure that out.
> 
> Comparing MPG numbers is useless if we're not doing the same commute.
> 
> ...


Or a LT MT owner can adapt the instructions I gave in how to hypermile the ECO MT and report back.


----------



## DMC (Oct 22, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> One of these Eco drivers with the insanely high numbers needs to be given an LT 6MT to figure that out.
> 
> Comparing MPG numbers is useless if we're not doing the same commute.
> 
> ...


If someone wants to work out a trade for a week, we can find out. 

I bought the Eco because I knew I would get the most benefits on my long highway commute to work. The aerodynamic improvements and taller gearing work to my advantage. Like Beachernaut, I had a cost of ownership calculator so I could figure out how much I would spend vs. my old minivan at 23 mpg average. Somewhere around 35 mpg, it was a wash. My long-term average is just under 40. That should go up as my average dipped during the winter. Now, with milder temperatures and summer blend gas, It's typical to see between 48-50 indicated on the DIC. Below is a round trip for me, this was on a day in light winds and mild temperatures. 









Calculated, my average has been 44 (including the city driving I do on weekends). One other thing to note is that I do very little to optimize my MPG. I run my tires at 38 psi, I have not checked my spark plug gaps yet, and I only occasionally do light hypermiling. I usually set my cruise control at 72 mph in 65 zones, and 65-70 in 55 zones. So yeah, it does depend on how you drive, but I do think there is an advantage with the Eco.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

obermd said:


> Or a LT MT owner can adapt the instructions I gave in how to hypermile the ECO MT and report back.


Unfortunately I don't do long drives too often. May have a chance to try it out late one night on Rt 1 (next to no traffic, rolling hills, and 55-65 mph speed limits) on my way back to NC in a few weeks. I could also try on 66 one night (flat, little traffic) just to see what I could do.

Unfortunately, I think you're right with something you said earlier...the Cruze does have a huge advantage in hills to make up for lost MPG because of its crazy coasting ability compared to other cars (it will coast WAY longer down a hill than any car with >2 liters under the hood that I've driven). There are no hills here, but I did see some great numbers coming down I81 into the Roanoke Valley. 



> So yeah, it does depend on how you drive, but I do think there is an advantage with the Eco.


Absolutely I'm sure there's a difference...but I'm curious to see how much is the car...and how much is the driver. Maybe it is as little as 4 MPG from the gearing/aerodynamics. Maybe more!

I'd be willing to trade for a week if anyone around here wants to mess around with (a stock) one.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

The comparison would be very hard to do, would require one driver, route, fuel grade, ethanol content, similar climate & wind in relatively equal cars. 

1LT manual VS ECO manual
1LT Automatic VS ECO automatic

Window sticker the ECO automatic only gains 1MPG on the highway, though in real world at higher speeds that might be closer to 2-3mpg. 

I can already beat my 1LT window sticker hwy of 38MPG with the cruise set at 65mph, I typically get 40mpg. Twice now I have had 200+ mile trips with the cruise set at 68mph and achived 39-40MPG both times. Once was 50degrees & more recently it was 80degrees out(both times with premium gas).


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I developed my ECO MT hypermiling tips from a 30 mile one-way commute with an occasional longer drive. You should be able to implement the pulse & glide in just about any heavy traffic and I think this is where the bulk of my city MPG boost is coming from. My highway boost is coming from slowing down from 65 to 60 in the mornings. The afternoons I have to use P&G.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

The Eco MT owners were generally already folks interested in getting higher MPG vehicles, who had longer commutes that reduced the payback time over a 1LT manual (mine's paid itself back over a LS manual already), and/or may already have had experience in getting good MPG from other vehicles. In other words, they were already likely to get better fuel economy than average, so they self-selected a efficient vehicle. 

At 68 mph on flat roads my Eco can get about 45-46 mpg in the summer. Compared to reports of a 1LT manual, that's about 3-4 mpg better.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

sciphi said:


> The Eco MT owners were generally already folks interested in getting higher MPG vehicles, who had longer commutes that reduced the payback time over a 1LT manual (mine's paid itself back over a LS manual already), and/or may already have had experience in getting good MPG from other vehicles. In other words, they were already likely to get better fuel economy than average, so they self-selected a efficient vehicle.
> 
> At 68 mph on flat roads my Eco can get about 45-46 mpg in the summer. Compared to reports of a 1LT manual, that's about 3-4 mpg better.


That's a very good point.


----------



## Beachernaut (Mar 27, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> the Cruze does have a huge advantage in hills to make up for lost MPG because of its crazy coasting ability compared to other cars (it will coast WAY longer down a hill than any car with


Big +1. I've continuously been impressed with how far the Cruze will coast.



jblackburn said:


> Absolutely I'm sure there's a difference...but I'm curious to see how much is the car...and how much is the driver. Maybe it is as little as 4 MPG from the gearing/aerodynamics. Maybe more!


The highway is where the Eco really shines. That is where the aero tweeks and gearing make the most difference. I can tell you that my best tank had nothing to do with the driver. Hours with the cruise set at 65mph resulted in 49.9mpg over 400+ miles. I have a feeling that in town where the aero and gearing aren't as much of an issue, I'd probably get similar mpg numbers driving both Eco and non-Eco.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

sciphi said:


> The Eco MT owners were generally already folks interested in getting higher MPG vehicles, who had longer commutes that reduced the payback time over a 1LT manual (mine's paid itself back over a LS manual already), and/or may already have had experience in getting good MPG from other vehicles. In other words, they were already likely to get better fuel economy than average, so they self-selected a efficient vehicle.
> 
> At 68 mph on flat roads my Eco can get about 45-46 mpg in the summer. Compared to reports of a 1LT manual, that's about 3-4 mpg better.


Valid point. I was already hypermiling my Montana and was looking for a super efficient stick shift.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

I would guess the difference for an Eco is 10% for the Automatic transmission.. since the difference in drag is 10% and they have the same transmission.. *shrug*

Manual Eco has it's own gearbox, so the different gearing may be worth probably 20% over a "standard" Cruze.

Then again, what is your definition of "standard?" One doesn't care about the Eco if they aren't in the market for best possible fuel economy (some people just want the RS package, don't knock em for it). The Cruze is still a 35-40 MPG sedan either way you slice it.


----------



## Vetterin (Mar 27, 2011)

Just do some comparisions on Fuelly.com as those numbers say it all.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Vetterin said:


> Just do some comparisions on Fuelly.com as those numbers say it all.


Flawed logic. Most ECO MT drivers probably do mostly highway driving, and bought the car for just that.

To make as accurate of a comparison as possible, the cars would have to be driven by the same driver, on the same routes, etc. to see how they really stack up.


----------



## H3LLON3ARTH (Dec 16, 2011)

I drive about 95% city driving with a little agressive driving here and there also see mods in signature.


But I can also drive 50 miles around town with three stops for browseing and get over 40 mpg city driving.
Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Suns_PSD (Feb 16, 2013)

Good responses guys. Thanks.

Sounds like the Eco option is a pretty decent investment over a standard Cruze if that is the trim you like anyways.

I have another question because tomorrow I'm told is the last day that I will be able to change the color on my ordered '14 Cruze D.

Do white cars get better mpg in hot climates than dark cars? I was on the Chevy lot today and there were all these Cruzes parked next to each other directly in the 87 degree (not that hot by Texas standards) bright Sun and I was really struck by how much hotter the surface temperatures of the dark colors were over white. I'd guess that the surface metal temp of a black Cruze was 30+ degrees warmer to the touch than the white Cruzes as I could touch both at the same time.

Does this require more AC to cool down or does it maybe not really matter since it's the outside metal and not the interior? If there is an effect, how much of a difference is it?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

H3LLON3ARTH said:


> I drive about 95% city driving with a little agressive driving here and there also see mods in signature.
> 
> 
> But I can also drive 50 miles around town with three stops for browseing and get over 40 mpg city driving.
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


But there again, what you consider "city" and what I consider "city" and then what the next person considers it are probably very, very different things.

I can do the same on a "city" route with very light traffic.










That same route at rush hour will drop to 28-30 MPG. That's a huge difference.

Another all-city drive, multiple trips back and forth moving stuff in my car.









All-highway drive @ 75 MPH w/ a short drop to 60.









Numbers can vary HUGELY and comparing one drivers driving to another's is useless. No matter what Cruze you get, though, it will get "good" MPG by just about any standard compared to most cars on the road.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> Does this require more AC to cool down or does it maybe not really matter since it's the outside metal and not the interior? If there is an effect, how much of a difference is it?


The inside of a black one gets hot as heck. The AC in the Cruze is weak and it can be 10-15 minutes on a 90-100 degree day before the inside cools down to a nice temp.

Not to mention you bog the heck out of the 1.4T running the AC at max fan speed.


----------



## H3LLON3ARTH (Dec 16, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> But there again, what you consider "city" and what I consider "city" and then what the next person considers it are probably very, very different things.
> 
> I can do the same on a "city" route with very light traffic.
> 
> ...


Yea but i dont even try to get good gas milage.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

H3LLON3ARTH said:


> Yea but i dont even try to get good gas milage.


Me either. I'm quite a lead-foot, ask my friends.


----------



## CruzeTech (Mar 23, 2012)

I highway commute, but that isn't why I bought the Eco. For me, the wheels on the LT are hideous. 

The 2LT wheels are nice, but I didn't need the 2LT stuff. And the LTZ only comes in an auto. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## BowtieGuy (Jan 4, 2013)

+1 on the Eco wheels. IMO they are the best looking wheels in the Cruze lineup.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Maybe its just me, but I think the Eco wheels are the worst in the whole lineup. They look tacky to me. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> Maybe its just me, but I think the Eco wheels are the worst in the whole lineup. They look tacky to me.


No not just you, I think they have a bit of a chromed hubcap look. I realize they are made to be light weight, but walking up next to the car and seeing how thin they look also does not inspire confidence, they look flimsy and breakable. 

I realize its forged not cast so it should be strong, but they do look a bit cheap or like they belong on a high end Buick.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Now the LTZ wheels...yes please :3


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> Maybe its just me, but I think the Eco wheels are the worst in the whole lineup. They look tacky to me.
> 
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com App


I only like the 18 inch ltz wheels and the 17s. But the ECOs wheels are nice. We are talking about the 17s right? Because the 16s non hubcap are horrible. I even prefer my hubs

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

iKermit said:


> I only like the 18 inch ltz wheels and the 17s. But the ECOs wheels are nice. We are talking about the 17s right? Because the 16s non hubcap are horrible. I even prefer my hubs
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


Aww


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Window Sticker on my 2012 2LT states a EPA range of 21 to 31 mpg for city driving, and 31 to 45 mpg for highway driving.

They are sure correct closer to that 31 mpg figure for winter highway driving with that stupid winter gas we have to buy. Intended for city driving for guys that make a series of two block trips. To bad we can't buy summer gas for highway driving when you are driving 300-600 mile trips. Engine only warms up once with these kind of trips.

How about averaging 46 mpg driving at 55 mph with summer gas on a long trip?

Was first interested in the Eco only to learn the only way to get a spare tire was to drop the MT and get an AT instead, that dropped the EPA rating to the 2LT. With that 3 gallons less for fuel tank capacity, can emulate that by only filling to 3/4 full. Don't do that anyway, use about that much in the first 90 minutes of driving.

Saving 60 pound was easy, by trading off my then 220 pound wife for a 120 wife, heck I am 60 pounds lighter than the Eco.

Feel that shutter stuff is BS, been playing around with fans for the last 40 years trying to get better fuel economy. Can see those meetings, we have to get better fuel economy what should we do? Let's play with the fan! Really the only thing they accomplished was to create engine over heating problems.

Basic facts are in city traffic, you need all the fans you can get, but on the highway, no savings whatsoever due to the windmilling effect. Practically no engine load at all when blasting 70 mph air on it. But with those fan clutches, either fluid would leak out or that bimetallic spring would break with no fan cooling at all. And with a fan clutch, the most they are saving is about 1/6 HP, really stupid. Got rid of those as soon as I could.

Least with with the 2LT, don't have to be concerned about those shutters remaining closed and an overheated engine. Less problems, practically zero gain. It's all BS. 

Want better fuel economy, drive down south and fill your tank in the winter, and drive sanely.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

NickD said:


> Feel that shutter stuff is BS, been playing around with fans for the last 40 years trying to get better fuel economy. Can see those meetings, we have to get better fuel economy what should we do? Let's play with the fan! Really the only thing they accomplished was to create engine over heating problems.


The "shutter stuff" actually changes how the air flow travels around the car. When the shutters are open air flows into the radiator, which is a nearly solid wall at a right angle to the direction of the air flow. When the shutters close, a small pocket of air compresses into the car's lower grill and appears to oncoming air to be a nearly smooth surface for the air to flow around. This new "surface" is angled to the direction of travel and follows the curve of the car's front end. GM claims the shutters are good for 1 MPG on the highway, which leads to the question "Why aren't they on all GM Cars and Trucks?"


----------



## Hoon (Mar 18, 2012)

I've gone back and forth between driving LTs and Ecos on the same route many times when working for GM. 

MPG difference was about 3mpg on a mixed route with about 75% highway.

When i did the math it would take 100K miles to recoup the added cost of the Eco package, in a car that is less fun to drive IMO. 

LT was a clear choice for me.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

obermd said:


> The "shutter stuff" actually changes how the air flow travels around the car. When the shutters are open air flows into the radiator, which is a nearly solid wall at a right angle to the direction of the air flow. When the shutters close, a small pocket of air compresses into the car's lower grill and appears to oncoming air to be a nearly smooth surface for the air to flow around. This new "surface" is angled to the direction of travel and follows the curve of the car's front end. GM claims the shutters are good for 1 MPG on the highway, which leads to the question "Why aren't they on all GM Cars and Trucks?"


Another uncontrollable variable in particular if you have to be at certain place at a certain time.

With my motorhome and a 30 mph head or tail wind, can make a difference of up to 12 mpg dependent on which way I am heading. With a plane with much greater winds up there, can either be flying a 200 mph, or 80 mph, air speed is the same, but ground speed sure isn't.

With the Cruze, not as bad especially when making an east west trip going west east coming back, maybe a 4-5 mpg difference in speed. would take a 30 mph tailwind any day of the week to get better fuel economy. That is what makes the difference.

Did not buy a 2011 2LT, only available with the automatic transmission, only reason why I purchased the 2012, finally made it available with a manual transmission. And with a spare tire, wonder who comes up with these crazy options. If they didn't, wouldn't be driving a Cruze.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

I liked the ideal of the grill shutter but decided it was just another thing to fail down the road. All it takes is ice, a stick or trash in the lower grill to set off the check engine light because the system isn't actuating properly. My state requires a front plate so almost 1/3 of my lower RS grill is already blocked anyway.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I don't think ice is an issue with the shutters. I have seen my lower grill completely packed with ice and no check engine light came on. The shutters themselves are quite a ways back. A stick or small rock might cause a problem if it gets stuck in there. Sticks are easy to avoid - don't drive through a bush. Small rocks might land in there but as far as I can tell they aim for my windshield. I've looked in the shutter area and it's completely free of debris. I think the biggest concern is the shutter motor or gears failing.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

obermd said:


> I think the biggest concern is the shutter motor or gears failing.


exactly my point, yes sticks and other debris can get sucked in all the way to the shutters. I remember reading of one user awhile back(before I bought my cruze) that hit a tumble weed on the hwy and the check engine light went off. Sure enough the shutters movement was blocked by debris. 

If a tumble weed can block the actuating motor(and possibly burn it up) ice accumulation certainly can hinder/damage the system as well.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

CruzeTech said:


> Actually, with the tune on, I can get 46-48 at 80mph. I don't usually drive that fast though.


Sorry I call BS. I have seen others claim 40-37MPG at 75-80mph stock with an ECO manual, there is absolutely no way you are getting a 6-11MPG increase tuned.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I see high 40 MPGs on some stretches of I-25 with the Cruze control set to 78 MPH. My ECO is stock.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

The aerodynamic underbelly panels probably account for as much or more of the highway MPG difference than the shutters do.

The 2011 Camry didn't have these; the 2012 did (along with a slightly retooled exterior design, slight aerodynamic changes, and a gearbox with a final drive that runs 500 RPM slower in top gear and up-shifts more aggressively at lower RPM). The powertrain is unchanged, but those tweaks alone made for a 2 MPG EPA difference (35 vs 33) from the 2011 on the window sticker, but we've seen 40 MPG from that car.


----------



## Beachernaut (Mar 27, 2012)

spacedout said:


> Sorry I call BS. I have seen others claim 40-37MPG at 75-80mph stock with an ECO manual, there is absolutely no way you are getting a 6-11MPG increase tuned.


Hard to say. I see anywhere from 44-47mpg on the interstate with the cruise set at 80 on a calm day. I'm running 50psi in my tires, non-ethanol fuel, and driving between 6500' and 7000' elevation. If the wind is blowing, the MPG can go above 50mpg or below 35mpg though.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Beachernaut - I think the reason you and I get high 40s cruising along at 80 MPH is because of our altitude. There's a lot less air to push through.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

BowtieGuy said:


> +1 on the Eco wheels. IMO they are the best looking wheels in the Cruze lineup.



You haven't seen my BMW.. I mean LTZ 

I stopped caring about my MPG too much because at the end of the day, my car has limitations. I know I will drive 68-65 mph on the highway (70-75 mph when I get pissed off and get in the left lane) and use cruise control. You will stop caring quickly when you realize you just won't get a certain MPG when temperature and wind conditions flat out don't permit it.. so enjoy driving your car. Some trips I get 30-33 MPG, some I get 36-38 MPG and there is NOTHING I can do about it except... drive even slower (at that point time is more important to me). Your 33 MPG at 70 mph may only jump to 36 MPG at 55-60 mph if you have a 20 mph headwind..


----------



## Patman (May 7, 2011)

iKermit said:


> It will always be about the driver and location. If i had an ECO down here, i will notice a slight increase of MPG but probably not by much.
> 
> But i will notice it on the HWY the major difference. I don't have 1.4, i have a 1.8 and i am still impressed with the MPG.
> 
> EPA shows it as a ~4 MPG difference, we all here have kind of beat it lol.


Me to I do mainly city driving in Cincinnati and I am getting @ 30 - 32 MPG city where my LS was about 24 - 26 in the city. If I could do more hwy driving, I would see it go up. I am happy with what I am getting with my Eco but it is not what others get with little open highway. That is why I have the comment in my signature above my fuelly.


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

Patman said:


> Me to I do mainly city driving in Cincinnati and I am getting @ 30 - 32 MPG city where my LS was about 24 - 26 in the city. If I could do more hwy driving, I would see it go up. I am happy with what I am getting with my Eco but it is not what others get with little open highway. That is why I have the comment in my signature above my fuelly.


I already accepted the fact it wont go higher than this. My wife and i are now competing trying to see which one of us can make it with the BEST MPG, since now the car does LONGER commutes so we take turns driving every week and so far she has me beat by .6 MPG lol... 

I would consider trading this one for an ECO but i don't see a reason to atm, been great, even after hydrolocking it, and plus my next car better be a sports car.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

iKermit said:


> I already accepted the fact it wont go higher than this. My wife and i are now competing trying to see which one of us can make it with the BEST MPG, since now the car does LONGER commutes so we take turns driving every week and so far she has me beat by .6 MPG lol...
> 
> I would consider trading this one for an ECO but i don't see a reason to atm, been great, even after hydrolocking it, and plus my next car better be a sports car.


My next car is going to have over 200 HP, dammit. I miss the power too much. I want a car that doesn't sound like it's being murdered when I ask it to zip around some slowpoke in traffic.


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> My next car is going to have over 200 HP, dammit. I miss the power too much. I want a car that doesn't sound like it's being murdered when I ask it to zip around some slowpoke in traffic.


LOL! Now with my SRI mine sounds like Lion with a raspy throat.

I kinda like it. And yeah my wife is really liking the Vette and i am not talking her out of it.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> My next car is going to have over 200 HP, dammit. I miss the power too much. I want a car that doesn't sound like it's being murdered when I ask it to zip around some slowpoke in traffic.


Sometimes I say that, then I remember you *PAY *for that extra power in insurance, speeding tickets, and fuel consumption. Your Cruze is spoiling you in other ways sir!


----------



## davie (Apr 30, 2013)

I've never seen anything remotely close to 40 MPG on my Eco.

36 MPG is my max on an all-highway drive @ 65-70 MPH.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> Sometimes I say that, then I remember you *PAY *for that extra power in insurance, speeding tickets, and fuel consumption. Your Cruze is spoiling you in other ways sir!


Fuel consumption maybe. 

But my insurance DOUBLED with the Cruze (when brand new), as did my number of tickets. Apparently 2 MPH isn't considered a complete stop when you stop, inch forward, look, and then take off when you realize you have an opportunity to merge into traffic.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

LOL.

I would get destroyed with insurance if I had a sports car or coupe.. I'm not 25 yet


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

> I've never seen anything remotely close to 40 MPG on my Eco.
> 
> 36 MPG is my max on an all-highway drive @ 65-70 MPH.


 - Is your Cruze an auto or manual trans? This past weekend I got 47 mpg @ 72 mph an a 170 mile trip (winds were between 15 to 30 mph). Check sparkplug gaps, run at least 89 octane, air up your tires - you should be doing at least 10 mpg better than what you are getting.


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

Ok SO!

OP you set yet on what you want? 



ErikBEggs said:


> LOL.
> 
> I would get destroyed with insurance if I had a sports car or coupe.. I'm not 25 yet


Neither am i... ;-) but i'm married so i am at less of a risk. Some how...


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

> My next car is going to have over 200 HP, dammit. I miss the power too much. I want a car that doesn't sound like it's being murdered when I ask it to zip around some slowpoke in traffic


 Try a tune on your Cruze - it won't be 200 hp but it will be so much nicer to drive.


----------



## Beachernaut (Mar 27, 2012)

obermd said:


> Beachernaut - I think the reason you and I get high 40s cruising along at 80 MPH is because of our altitude. There's a lot less air to push through.


I agree. When I first purchased my Eco I thought the elevation would hurt mpg (loss of power). The more I look the more I see that it makes a significant difference, especially at highway speeds.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

blk88verde said:


> Try a tune on your Cruze - it won't be 200 hp but it will be so much nicer to drive.


I've driven a tuned Cruze. It's nice, but still too slow. Ill just keep it as is for now. 

I guess I should say 250+. Even 200 HP cars just left me wanting more when pushed hard.

It's more the 55-80 mph performance that bugs me and that cant be accomplished with this motor setup Even with a tune. It's plenty quick enough around town for my tastes. 

Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> I've driven a tuned Cruze. It's nice, but still too slow. Ill just keep it as is for now.
> 
> I guess I should say 250+. Even 200 HP cars just left me wanting more when pushed hard.
> 
> ...


Yea, Honda Civic Si, Scion Tc, and Suburu BRX just don't cut it. Frigging jokes


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

> I guess I should say 250+. Even 200 HP cars just left me wanting more when pushed hard.


 yes I hear you - my sons 328i is I think 240 horses - that moves out nice. My GTO is 350 and it is very responsive - nice to get on it once in awhile.


----------



## davie (Apr 30, 2013)

blk88verde said:


> - Is your Cruze an auto or manual trans? This past weekend I got 47 mpg @ 72 mph an a 170 mile trip (winds were between 15 to 30 mph). Check sparkplug gaps, run at least 89 octane, air up your tires - you should be doing at least 10 mpg better than what you are getting.


Auto. I tried out the manual Eco, but it just couldn't get up the hills in West Virginia without rowing gears. At least the automatic does it for me, and does well most of the time picking the right gear. Definitely a lot better than my old 4 cylinder Malibu. 

Still, had I known the MPG would only be in the 30s, I wouldn't have sprung for the Eco package.


----------



## LS1LOL (Feb 24, 2013)

jblackburn said:


> I've driven a tuned Cruze. It's nice, but still too slow. Ill just keep it as is for now.
> 
> I guess I should say 250+. Even 200 HP cars just left me wanting more when pushed hard.
> 
> ...


It never ends dude. My Camaro makes roughly 550HP at the flywheel (where all these cars you are comparing are rated) and I still want more (and _can_ have more, which is why I want to sell this thing, it's burning a hole thru my wallet). You are best off just enjoying the Cruze, trust me, haha.


----------



## CruzeTech (Mar 23, 2012)

The Eco is also 200 pounds lighter than the LT. I just dont see the comparison with the LT. There is nothing there. the 2LT has heated seats and you can get a sunroof and leather. I just dont see the money in it. Its about the same price as the Eco, why not get better gas mileage?


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

CruzeTech said:


> The Eco is also 200 pounds lighter than the LT. I just dont see the comparison with the LT. There is nothing there. the 2LT has heated seats and you can get a sunroof and leather. I just dont see the money in it. Its about the same price as the Eco, why not get better gas mileage?


I wanted an automatic and remote start, so $1800 more for the ECO over the 1LT for 1MPG hwy window sticker and some flashy rims didn't make sense. The Eco also can't get the RS package.


----------



## CruzeTech (Mar 23, 2012)

spacedout said:


> Sorry I call BS. I have seen others claim 40-37MPG at 75-80mph stock with an ECO manual, there is absolutely no way you are getting a 6-11MPG increase tuned.


Before my tune and anyone knows that to maintain a 70mph average, you need to be going faster than that. 












Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

davie said:


> Auto. I tried out the manual Eco, but it just couldn't get up the hills in West Virginia without rowing gears. At least the automatic does it for me, and does well most of the time picking the right gear. Definitely a lot better than my old 4 cylinder Malibu.
> 
> Still, had I known the MPG would only be in the 30s, I wouldn't have sprung for the Eco package.


Try not to shift up to much in the hills. I have discovered that if you keep your RPMs above 1500 you can start downhill and use no fuel on the downhills.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

CruzeTech said:


> The Eco is also 200 pounds lighter than the LT. I just dont see the comparison with the LT. There is nothing there. the 2LT has heated seats and you can get a sunroof and leather. I just dont see the money in it. Its about the same price as the Eco, why not get better gas mileage?


It's simple...for me. The 1LT is more fun to drive and I don't hate the gearbox.

Also, cheaper! And still gets great gas mileage in city traffic.

Win-win.

If I wanted leather and stuff, I wouldn't have bought a Cruze. I do miss having a sunroof though; really should have got one with one of those.


----------



## CruzeTech (Mar 23, 2012)

I wasn't attacking your love for the LT, J. I'm just saying that I don't see the it. I wasn't saying "hey J, why the **** could you possibly like the LT over the Eco." Just wanted to clear that up. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Each to his own I guess, wife and I spent time going through the five different models. Both wanted a manual transmission, and I wanted a spare tire, cruise and AC were mandatory items as was the 1.4L engine. 

So that quickly eliminated the LS, Eco, and LTZ. Wife demand electrically heated seats, that just about knocked out the 1LT, but the best package to get was with leather. Truly a bargain for a thousand bucks extra, leather, electrically heated seats, power adjusting drivers seat, we never move the passenger seat, a better radio, spare tire, and a jack were included.

Was 1,800 bucks extra for two GPS chips added to the radio, plus a couple hundred extra for each map update, this is not a bargain.

Wife wanted remote start, dealer said only way to get that is with an AT, but talking to a dealer not an idiot marketing manager. All they had to do was to add a switch that closed for the neutral position, already have a parking brake switch, so she gave up that one option.

Leather package is all we got extra, happy with everything else, but did complain a bit for getting hit with 15 bucks extra for that cheap front license plate piece of plastic.

Understand the gear ratios are different for the Eco, but never found a side by side comparison. 2LT gear ratios are evenly spaced, but not happy with reverse, same ratio as second gear, what idiot came up with that?

Spent all day at an airport yesterday doing repairs, was cool so took my black jacket, that didn't last long so tossed it in the front seat when the temperature hit 86*F. Have to leave the windows close or car will be filled with wasps. And of course, the key in my pocket. When I got in, my light tan leather seats were cool under that hot bright sun, but darn near burnt my hand grabbing my black jacket.

AC still works fine, but switched it off on the long drive home and rolled down the window, still trying to thaw myself out after a very long winter. Week ago, averaged 46 mpg driving at 60 mph, had to pick up my wife at St. Paul and had a tail wind. Dropped to 38 mpg on the drive back home, head wind and set the cruise at 72 mph. Was more concerned about falling asleep at 2:00 AM in the morning then saving gas.


----------



## CruzeTech (Mar 23, 2012)

There is a champagne silver Eco at my local lot with leather and a spare tire. Lol

Go aftermarket on the remote start. The new manual remote start allows you to do a shut off sequence in order to activate the remote start. You stop the car put it in neutral, pull up the e-brake, get out if the car and close the door, then the car shuts off. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

LS1LOL said:


> It never ends dude. My Camaro makes roughly 550HP at the flywheel (where all these cars you are comparing are rated) and I still want more (and _can_ have more, which is why I want to sell this thing, it's burning a hole thru my wallet). You are best off just enjoying the Cruze, trust me, haha.


Give me a good gearbox and enough power, and I'll be perfectly happy with a car. I've mostly owned slow 4 cylinder cars (a Saab, an Accord, a 72 Beetle, a Camry - fortunately briefly - I hated that car, and the Cruze), so I am used to not having much power under the hood. Most of those were lighter than the Cruze and/or had more HP under the hood if they weren't.

I loved the 240 HP my Volvo S70 put down on the highway, but it was a small engine with a big turbo and stupid gear ratios (1st to 50, 2nd to 80 mph). It lagged HORRIBLY around town and seemed to strain to carry its fat weight around until you got over 45 mph. On the other hand, the Cruze is decently quick til about 45 and then runs out of steam after 2nd gear.

My dad had a TL for a few years, and that V6 was probably the perfect balance of power for me - quick off the line, and plenty of passing power on the highway. If only the MPGs reached into the 30's.

I don't want to win races against anything out there on the road; I just want to be able to get up and move when I want to.


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

LS1LOL (which has a hilarious username btw) is kinda of right... Once you hit 250HP you wil lwant 275Hp... 275HP you say? I want 300 HP and so forth lol. Maxed it? Lets make it weigh less. Mod bug is very major when you can achieve those #'s.

As of right now, as far as speed:MPG, Cruze is perfect (1.4T) and once tuned, going fast and still keeping up with the MPG is a BIG plus for me. If i wasn't so happy about it, i wouldn't have kept my Cruze. I am young, and if i wished to have that M3 right now on my driveaway i will find a way (used) but its not the point. The Cruze ECO or not is by far the best car to own if you are on a daily commute.

1) Saves gas
2) Has enough pep and if not enough spend $400 and voila, more pep
3) Parts aren't german expensive
4) Looks amazing.

You want to go fast? Unfortunetly, right now, you can't have a gas savings and go fast. And plus fast is a relative term.

Jblackburn- The TL was super sweet, i miss that thing. But good lord the gas was killing me.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Yep, and since I moved to DC, the Volvo was killing me on gas (16-18 MPG in stop-and-go traffic).

The Cruze was the perfect car for the job, and is probably why I will keep it for quite some time as a daily driver even if I get a nicer, fancier car some time down the road.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

I'm a bit late to this party and admittedly haven't had the time to read all pages. However, I would like to share my experience with my Eco MT.

My lifetime best was 54.3 mpg over 401 miles. 6mph side wind and -200ft net elevation change. Moderately hilly terrain throughout. Temperature from 59 to 75 degrees F. DIC showed 55.7 mpg. We stopped 4 times for bathroom breaks and food and I had one passenger and luggage for us both in the trunk. Also, my two 18" subs. Sustained speed was 62-65mph.

No other Cruze aside from the new Diesel will come close to those numbers, and aside from maintaining that exact speed range throughout the trip, I did nothing unusual. No drafting large vehicles, no pulse and glide, no hypermiling. I put it on cruise control and let the car do its thing.

With sensible and disciplined 100% highway driving, this is a 49-50mpg car, year-round averaged. Under ideal conditions, it will reach 54-56mpg all-highway, and under bad conditions (freezing temperatures, winter fuel, etc), it will maintain 42-44mpg. I was even able to maintain over 40mpg on all-highway trips with snow tires on. 

On the highway, an Eco MT will get 6-10mpg better than a non-eco MT. In-town driving will depend on the skill of the driver but I suspect the gearing and weight reduction will still play a significant role. No matter how hard I beat this car in the coldest temperatures with high headwinds or the hottest days with max AC, 4 adult passengers and all-city driving, I cannot beat it below 29mpg. My lowest tank ever out of 69 fill-ups was 29.7mpg. My next lowest was 30.5 immediately after that, and 32.5 on a different month. 

It's not just the driver. 

Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> I loved the 240 HP my Volvo S70 put down on the highway, but it was a small engine with a big turbo and stupid gear ratios (1st to 50, 2nd to 80 mph). It lagged HORRIBLY around town and seemed to strain to carry its fat weight around until you got over 45 mph. On the other hand, the Cruze is decently quick til about 45 and then runs out of steam after 2nd gear.


The F/D in the '11 is more aggressive than the '12. 5% less fool economy on the highway, but even quicker off the line. 

Power wise my experience is that with the tune, it doesn't run out of steam until about 80 mph or so when it shifts from 4th to 5th gear. Gear 4 is the passing gear technically with the 1.445 ratio, so acceleration is still pretty nice all the way up there. Shes just getting going at 45 mph, it is actually in the meat of 3rd gear (1.91:1) powerband. She shifts like a missle into 4th around 55-58 mph range, and is still in the powerband at some 4000 RPMs. 

Sure, shes no dragster, but for a 1.4T being able to flirt with a sub-10 second 1/8 mile time isn't too shabby. I find myself spinning tires in 2nd when merging on the highway if I really get on it (2-3 shift is at 34 mph).


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> The F/D in the '11 is more aggressive than the '12. 5% less fool economy on the highway, but even quicker off the line.
> 
> Power wise my experience is that with the tune, it doesn't run out of steam until about 80 mph or so when it shifts from 4th to 5th gear. Gear 4 is the passing gear technically with the 1.445 ratio, so acceleration is still pretty nice all the way up there. Shes just getting going at 45 mph, it is actually in the meat of 3rd gear (1.91:1) powerband. She shifts like a missle into 4th around 55-58 mph range, and is still in the powerband at some 4000 RPMs.
> 
> Sure, shes no dragster, but for a 1.4T being able to flirt with a sub-10 second 1/8 mile time isn't too shabby. I find myself spinning tires in 2nd when merging on the highway if I really get on it (2-3 shift is at 34 mph).


Man those are short gears. My 2nd runs out around 60 MPH @ redline. I already feel like I'm changing gears a lot just speeding up to 45 around-town (usually in 6th @ 40-45).


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

the 2-3 shift happens at 34 mph, which is ~5500 RPMs. The transmission with the tune shifts that way to keep the turbo around its max boost. Any higher RPMs and it would fall on its face. I think he has mine shifting a bit closer to 6000 RPMs for 3-4 and 4-5, maybe 5700 or 5800 or so. They happen at 57 mph and 80 mph I think.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> the 2-3 shift happens at 34 mph, which is ~5500 RPMs. The transmission with the tune shifts that way to keep the turbo around its max boost. Any higher RPMs and it would fall on its face. I think he has mine shifting a bit closer to 6000 RPMs for 3-4 and 4-5, maybe 5700 or 5800 or so. They happen at 57 mph and 80 mph I think.


Same, any higher than 5000-5500 RPM and there's nothing left from the turbo. It peaks early, which isn't a bad thing.

3rd tops out around 75-80.

Yours would be GREAT gear ratios in one of the new 8-9 speed autos with 2-3 higher highway-cruising gears.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

Yes, it needs one more gear. It turns 2431 RPMs at 65 mph. Adding another gear would be great because the acceleration is pretty good. '11s are faster than '12s. A 0.61 would push that number down to 1991 RPMs at 65 mph, and 1684 RPMs at 55 mph.

The Cruze has the torque to handle that down low too. One of the things I noticed about the N/A engines with these tall top gears is they downshift on the highway using cruise control if you reach the slightest incline. The Cruze just keeps trucking


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

ErikBEggs said:


> Yes, it needs one more gear. It turns 2431 RPMs at 65 mph. Adding another gear would be great because the acceleration is pretty good. '11s are faster than '12s. A 0.61 would push that number down to 1991 RPMs at 65 mph, and 1684 RPMs at 55 mph.



Would be interesting to see the actual RPM/gear/speed differences between the 2011 & 2012. Someone should start a topic.

All 6th gear with my 2012. 

1,500RPM at 45MPH
2,000RPM at 58mph
2,500rpm at 72mph.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

iKermit said:


> You want to go fast? Unfortunetly, right now, you can't have a gas savings and go fast. And plus fast is a relative term.


Tesla Model-S


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

obermd said:


> Tesla Model-S


If I had the money to buy a Tesla, gas prices would be the _*LEAST*_ of my worries.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

spacedout said:


> Would be interesting to see the actual RPM/gear/speed differences between the 2011 & 2012. Someone should start a topic.
> 
> All 6th gear with my 2012.
> 
> ...


2900 RPM => 98 MPH (6th Gear in my ECO MT).


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

obermd said:


> Tesla Model-S












Burns gas quickly apparently... Looks amazing but too hot for my taste. No Pun.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

spacedout said:


> Would be interesting to see the actual RPM/gear/speed differences between the 2011 & 2012. Someone should start a topic.
> 
> All 6th gear with my 2012.
> 
> ...


Just use a calculator online. The only difference is the F/D. For 2011 it is 3.87, for 2012 it is 3.53. Tire diameter is 25.9" for the LTZ, 26.1" for the other models.


----------



## tecollins1 (Nov 6, 2011)

My 11' Eco manual (in performance mode 100% of the time) will do 32MPG with 95% city. 
The speed average through the whole tank is 20-25 mph(DIC)

Haven't been on a long highway trip in a while but I've seen high 40s up to 50 on short highway trips.



Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## H3LLON3ARTH (Dec 16, 2011)

Should I try for 600 miles.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

H3LLON3ARTH said:


> Should I try for 600 miles.
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


Mind=Blown... What are you doing? Turning off your car and pushing it?


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

H3LLON3ARTH said:


> Should I try for 600 miles.
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


No - 700 miles. My ECO MT usually has about 250 miles left on the tank where your gas guage is. When you get to a quarter tank left you easily have 150 miles left on the tank and you're about 100 above that. I'd love to have a second member of the 700 mile tank club for the gasoline powered Cruze.


----------



## H3LLON3ARTH (Dec 16, 2011)

There goes my chance 

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## CruzeTech (Mar 23, 2012)

The only people doubting my 6-11mpg difference between LT and Eco are the ones that don't have an Eco. I'm telling you, and you can read for yourself, the Eco is amazing when it comes to the highway. Over 400 miles on less that 2/3rds of a tank. I, for one, just can't drive that slow. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

CruzeTech said:


> The only people doubting my 6-11mpg difference between LT and Eco are the ones that don't have an Eco. I'm telling you, and you can read for yourself, the Eco is amazing when it comes to the highway. Over 400 miles on less that 2/3rds of a tank. I, for one, just can't drive that slow.http://www.autoguide.com/mobile


The question of how much better is the ECO's fuel economy is a valid one. Looking at the official EPA estimates, it really doesn't appear to be that much. The problem is that the EPA doesn't do road testing. The testing is done on a dyno meter and then adjusted. All the GM 1.4T engines look exactly the same on this test. The adjustments are made based on the type of transmission, gear ratios, vehicle weight (city) and aerodynamic drag (highway). It appears that the estimates GM used for the Cruze are accurate for the Automatic LT, Automatic ECO, and LTZ. Since the automatic transmission controls so much of how the car shifts and selects gears, this makes a lot of sense. For the manual LTs and ECOs, the driver controls the transmission, making these adjustment estimates much harder to compute. 

I have seen a number of highway MPG reports from LT RS MT here in the low 40s for "short" periods of time, but I have yet to see any LT with a combined fuelly reported MPG over 40 MPG. Non RS trims for the LT don't seem to do as well. This tells me that if you want the creature comforts of the 2LT and better fuel economy, definitely get the RS package - just don't expect to maintain a combined average MPG over 40 for the life of the car. It's just not going to happen with an LT, regardless of trim or transmission.

If you look at the fuelly reports for the ECO MT as well as the Fuel Economy reports for the ECO MT, the average combined MPG for this car is in the low 40s, well over the EPA combined 33. The question becomes "why". 

First, as sciphi pointed out earlier in this thread, those of us who drive the ECO MT have adopted and habitually drive with defensive driving techniques such as leaving extra space in front of us, watching traffic several cars ahead to predict changes in speed, and letting off the gas well before a stop light or sign. Not only are these habits a good way to avoid rear ending the cars in front of you, they are the basis for mild hypermiling in the city, which is why we see better city MPG than the 28 on the window sticker. The EPA test dyno adjustments for the city assume hard throttle and brakes - defensive driving teaches otherwise. 

On the highway, driving styles cannot account for the additional MPG boost the ECO MT gets - you're already in 6th gear and cruzing along at a steady speed. The basic drag equation is (rolling resistance)*speed + (Coefficient of Drag)*speed*speed. Looking at this equation, it's easy to see that that reducing the coefficient of drag is the single best way to reduce highway speed drag, which translates into better fuel economy. Let's look at the aerodynamic changes to the ECO vs. the LT and LT RS. The ECO changes it's aerodynamic shape on the highway, closing off roughly 40% of the air intake when that air isn't needed to cool the engine. This reduces the car's coefficient of drag enough that GM's engineers estimated a 1 MPG improvement on the highway just from this one feature. Another tweak is the lowered ride height, which the RS trim package shares. Lowering the ride height reduces the amount of air that can be underneath the car at any given time, which also reduces the coefficient of drag. In the LT, less air means less turbulance simply because the air pressure remains about the same. This is why the RS trim package appears to get real world better highway fuel economy than the non-RS trims. The ECO throws another trick to reduce air turbulance under the car - belly panels that run the length of the car body. These belly panels prevent parts of the car from hanging down and catching the air stream. Think about which is easier to drag over the ground, a smooth bottom pan or a rough bottom pan. The same thing happens under our cars. The belly pans create a smooth bottom which smooths out the air flow, further reducing the car's coefficient of drag. The final major change, and one that actually has more impact on city MPG because speeds are lower, is the use of low rolling resistance tires. The common thought is that these tires don't stick to the road as well, but while this may be true, the tire's contact patch isn't the largest source of rolling resistance. Sidewall flex is. LRR tires simply don't flex their sidewalls as much as non-LRR tires. This is also why boosting your tire pressure, which effectively stiffens the tire, will improve your fuel economy. These changes to the car's drag equation are ultimately what allowed GM to use a gear box with higher drive ratios. The engine doesn't need to produce as much power to overcome drag, which means the ECO MT can run at lower RPMs on the highway. Slower engine speed equates to less fuel used simply by running the injectors less frequently. In 6th gear, the ECO MT turns about 2000 RPM at 65 MPH. The LT turns 2500 RPM. This is a 20% reduction in engine speed and a 20% reduction in fuel injector firing rate. The injectors are variable rate, so the ECU may be putting slightly more fuel into each pulse in the ECO, but not 20% more. Here's another fuel economy boost.

Bottom line, it is my belief from looking at real world reports on fuelly and Fuel Economy that GM overestimated the downward adjustment from the EPA dyno testing for the ECO MT. The ECO MT is GM's first foray into the world of mass market high MPG cars and they missed the mark, underrating the car's real world fuel economy. Combine GM's underestimate of the car's abilities with sciphi's observation that ECO MT owners are somewhat self selecting for mild hypermiling techniques and you get a car with real world fuel economy numbers well above the official fuel economy numbers on the window sticker.


----------



## DMC (Oct 22, 2012)

obermd said:


> Bottom line, it is my belief from looking at real world reports on fuelly and Fuel Economy that GM overestimated the downward adjustment from the EPA dyno testing for the ECO MT. The ECO MT is GM's first foray into the world of mass market high MPG cars and they missed the mark, underrating the car's real world fuel economy. Combine GM's underestimate of the car's abilities with sciphi's observation that ECO MT owners are somewhat self selecting for mild hypermiling techniques and you get a car with real world fuel economy numbers well above the official fuel economy numbers on the window sticker.


My last tank was 42.6 calculated. This included two trips to the Chicago suburbs from my home and running kids around town. I had to go to Elgin yesterday, that's far enough west that instead of steady speed on I-94, I took IL-47 to I-90. I was running late, so there was a lot of 70+ mph on that stretch of road (clear weather, no traffic), plus a couple of times dropping down to 3rd gear to pass. I was also running late on the way home, so much of my northbound trip was in a pack of traffic going 75-80 with a couple of stretches above that. The point is, I did nothing to drive with fuel economy in mind for more than half of this tank and still beat the EPA estimate, and again, no mods to my car except for tires at 38 PSI, and I run 93 octane gas. If I tried, I'm sure I could make it to 48 mpg calculated.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Hate to tell you Eco guys, but the manuals can get some pretty awesome MPG if driven right. I think it is more the drivers talent than the car itself. 










Tried to tweak my driving a little bit today and watch my heavy right foot. This is a trip across the county on a highway with a 55 speed limit, some minor hills, doing the speed limit. 5 stoplights and accelerations from 0-55 were thrown into the mix, trying to keep the RPMs below 2000. It was showing 58 before I hit the first light. My car tends to only be 1-2 mpg optimistic. 

I managed 48 on a trip one time doing 60 on cruise control, but it ended up being a mixed tank with lots of in town driving at the end that ended up being my highest combined tank. 

Our 2LT rental has only averaged 33 mpg so far, but the poor thing has been stuck in stop and go traffic and doing 70-77 all day long with 4 passengers, AC, and a full trunk. Still, MPG does not seem to be on par with mine when just "cruising" along. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

54 MPG over 14 miles is a good start. Now can you get 54 MPG over the entire tank of gas, which is much harder to do. It appears you are attempting to hypermile your Cruze, which is much easier to do with a Cruze MT than with a Cruze AT. Keep it up, I'd really like to see what a 1LT MT can do when driven for fuel economy. We already know the ECO MT is capable of 50 MPG over the long haul as that's what CruzeEcoBlueTopaz is averaging. Personally, I wish GM had put the ECO's aerodynamic features on all Cruzen.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Agreed. I'll try to play around with it on a longer 200 mi trip in a few weeks and stay off I95. I think keeping it on cruise control at 55-60, I can do that. Once I quit stopping at lights, the MPG kept climbing back up on flat ground. 

This was on 87 octane btw, all windows down (oops - realized that after the fact). 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

obermd said:


> I have seen a number of highway MPG reports from LT RS MT here in the low 40s for "short" periods of time, but I have yet to see any LT with a combined fuelly reported MPG over 40 MPG. Non RS trims for the LT don't seem to do as well. This tells me that if you want the creature comforts of the 2LT and better fuel economy, definitely get the RS package - just don't expect to maintain a combined average MPG over 40 for the life of the car. It's just not going to happen with an LT, regardless of trim or transmission.


If I had not put 4,000+ miles on my car at 75-80mph averaging 31mpg My lifetime average with my 1LT automatic would be 38mpg, even with the two months this winter I averaged 30mpg(remote start). If I had a 1LT/2LT manual trans I believe I would have no problem averaging above 40mpg. 

My usual 50/50 average is 34mpg(4mpg above window sticker combined rating). If I could drive more hwy(I average 1800miles a month, 40% city) I think I could even get my 1LT automatic very close to a 40mpg average. My summer monthly average is between 36-38mpg even with my current routes. 

I do agree I think the RS package has some aerodynamic benefit, seems manual or automatic they get at least a 2mpg hwy better than regular cruze. The RPO code for the RS package does say Aero _Performance package_. Even the ugly RS rear bumper has a slight lip on the bottom edge to help get air off the car.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I don't know if you saw H3llon3arth's report. He reported 640 miles averaging 61.8 MPG on his second tank going to Lordstown. CruzeEcoBlueTopaz reported 1.4 L/100KM for a 12.8 mile downhill stretch of his daily route. This converts to 168.0 MPG (display rounding errors give a range of 162.3 to 174.2 MPG). Both of them drive ECO MTs.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

61? Holy crap

I think I can do 50 and Ill shoot for that. I've done a 44 mpg tank at 72 not doing anything special. Just need to slow down...


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

Seeing mid-50's mpg for 40-50 miles on my Eco MT happens 3-4 days a week now. A few times I've broken 60 mpg on the same trip. I wildly guess a LT manual would get about 10 mpg lower, based on what we know about each car.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Bad news since the switch from winter to summer gas, 91 octane ethanol free went for $4.00 to $4.20 per gallon. A 5% increase.

Good news instead of miles remaining with winter gas, only showed 480, with summer gas, showed 630 miles, a 31% increase.

Instead of barely averaging over 30 mpg, almost 41 mpg, can only wonder what kind of gas the EPA is using for their mileage tests?

Received a letter from my Dodge dealer comparing the Dart with the Cruze, says the Dart is averaging 41 mpg and the Cruze is averaging 42 mpg. Also wondered what kind of driving and gas they were using to come up with these numbers? Did try a 5 mile 25 mph run in 5th gear, did get 63 mpg. But can only do that on a no traffic dead flat road. 

Ha, still getting screwed, but not quite as bad.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

NickD said:


> can only wonder what kind of gas the EPA is using for their mileage tests?


Last I heard it was 91 octane with no ethanol.


----------



## nebojsa (Jan 3, 2011)

I am getting average of 39 mpg with a mix of city/hwy. But then i only have 400 miles on my 2013 ECO


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

obermd said:


> I don't know if you saw H3llon3arth's report. He reported 640 miles averaging 61.8 MPG on his second tank going to Lordstown. CruzeEcoBlueTopaz reported 1.4 L/100KM for a 12.8 mile downhill stretch of his daily route. This converts to 168.0 MPG (display rounding errors give a range of 162.3 to 174.2 MPG). Both of them drive ECO MTs.


Amazing...wish my job was at the bottom of a hill... And I lived on top lol


----------



## agreendc (Feb 2, 2013)

I'm at 5,000 miles on my 2013 LTZ. I have yet to get more than 30 mpg, even when the computer has an average of 50 mph. Included reasonable paced highway driving at about 70mph and some rural driving as well. 

Based on my experience thus far I would not have bought the car at all, or at the very least should have considered the eco. One of my main reasons to personally buying the Cruze was to get rid of my 2011 Scion TC which was getting about 27mpg for something a bit more efficient...turns out that is exactly what I am getting with my Cruze. 

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## CruzeTech (Mar 23, 2012)

Trip I took last night









And after the return with about 12 miles driven in the city. Average speed was about 72mph. 










Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## RollinOn18s (Mar 28, 2013)

agreendc said:


> I'm at 5,000 miles on my 2013 LTZ. I have yet to get more than 30 mpg, even when the computer has an average of 50 mph. Included reasonable paced highway driving at about 70mph and some rural driving as well.
> 
> Based on my experience thus far I would not have bought the car at all, or at the very least should have considered the eco. One of my main reasons to personally buying the Cruze was to get rid of my 2011 Scion TC which was getting about 27mpg for something a bit more efficient...turns out that is exactly what I am getting with my Cruze.
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


to the ltz owner. Going on the fact you bought an ltz you would of got an automatic Eco and the results of auto Eco drivers will be much much lower than throughout this thread. 
MI have a 2013 2lt 6mt and get as good or better mileage than my dads 2012 Eco. He now resents mother for not driving standard because he missed out on leather and fog lights for no increase in mileage. 

On my current tank I averaging g 46 mpg mainly freeway driving with about 30 miles in the city for a total of 300. That's in a 2013 2lt rs with 18"s


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I haven't been able to hit 38 MPG in straight highway driving with the rental, even on flat Florida highways at 65. The automatics just aren't as efficient for some reason. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

agreendc said:


> I'm at 5,000 miles on my 2013 LTZ. I have yet to get more than 30 mpg, even when the computer has an average of 50 mph. Included reasonable paced highway driving at about 70mph and some rural driving as well.
> 
> Based on my experience thus far I would not have bought the car at all, or at the very least should have considered the eco. One of my main reasons to personally buying the Cruze was to get rid of my 2011 Scion TC which was getting about 27mpg for something a bit more efficient...turns out that is exactly what I am getting with my Cruze.


My cars MPG improved around 8,000miles, as did most on people on here. However the average person will get +/- 3mpg of a cars combined MPG number. The cruze 1.4T automatic is rated 26city/38hwy/*30 Combined.* My guess is your hwy route is short or your other driving includes lots of stop signs/lights. 

100% hwy ramp to ramp on trips cruise set at 70mph my 1LT RS gets 36mpg. If I go 75mph that drops to 32mpg, 80mph 27mpg. Again all hwy 65-68mph is good for 38-42mpg. I only run premium and try to buy no ethanol gas as often as I can. Slowing to 55-58mph I get about the same MPG as 65-68mph. My 20,000mile average is 35.2mpg, my last 10 fill up average is 37.4mpg. 

The only thing keeping my average so high is the 1-4hr hwy drives I do every month, otherwise I would be averaging around 27-33mpg like all the other automatic drivers.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

I should also say to subtract 3-5MPG if you use the AC, no I am not kidding. Unless I'm doing 68mph+ it seems to really bring down my MPG.


----------



## CruzeTech (Mar 23, 2012)

3/4 of my trip (pics above) was with the A/C on. It's 97° out. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## SBK15 (Mar 29, 2011)

On no-ethanol premium gas going North on 75 around 70-75MPH I averaged 50.1MPG on a 4 hour trip. That's the best I've EVER gotten. However I am tuned and have the Injen full CAI on my Eco. I also had one passenger and small amount of luggage 


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## agreendc (Feb 2, 2013)

spacedout said:


> My cars MPG improved around 8,000miles, as did most on people on here. However the average person will get +/- 3mpg of a cars combined MPG number. The cruze 1.4T automatic is rated 26city/38hwy/*30 Combined.* My guess is your hwy route is short or your other driving includes lots of stop signs/lights.
> 
> 100% hwy ramp to ramp on trips cruise set at 70mph my 1LT RS gets 36mpg. If I go 75mph that drops to 32mpg, 80mph 27mpg. Again all hwy 65-68mph is good for 38-42mpg. I only run premium and try to buy no ethanol gas as often as I can. Slowing to 55-58mph I get about the same MPG as 65-68mph. My 20,000mile average is 35.2mpg, my last 10 fill up average is 37.4mpg.
> 
> The only thing keeping my average so high is the 1-4hr hwy drives I do every month, otherwise I would be averaging around 27-33mpg like all the other automatic drivers.



I don't know how accurate it is... but even just cruising on a flat highway at around 60-65 mph the instant mpg reading hardly ever hits the 38 mpg that it should hit at around 60. I have made a few 50 mile+ highway trips with the cruise set to 73 and still it may average 30mpg if I'm lucky. I'm hoping you guys are correct and I will see some miraculous increase in efficiency when I drive it another couple thousand miles.


----------



## BowtieGuy (Jan 4, 2013)

For some reason, it seems most of the LTZs I've seen get worse mileage than the LT/ECO.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

The LTZs are only automatic so they should be compared to the LT Automatics. If comparing with the LTs overall you're comparing automatic with manual, and the manual transmission in the Cruze is definitely more efficient.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

BowtieGuy said:


> For some reason, it seems most of the LTZs I've seen get worse mileage than the LT/ECO.


I've always wondered about that too. The weight isn't THAT different from a LT.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Feb 16, 2013)

Wheels. Larger diameter wheels notably hurt mpg on any vehicle.

The smallest diameter, skinniest lightest tire and wheel combo will always get superior mpg.

When I added forged 20" wheels on my diesel truck (same OD as my old 17" wheels) I dropped 3.5 mpg instantly, or about 22% of my fuel economy.

Whenever you have a larger rim, even if the wheels and tire combo weighs the same (very unlikely) as your smaller diameter wheel, you will still lose performance and mileage because there is a ring of weight centered around the bead area of a wheel/ tire and everything is thicker in that area. This increases your moment of Inertia.

It would be the exact same thing as if someone spun you around on a bar stool and you were extending and and then pulling in your legs going slower, then faster. You actually weigh the exact same amount but the performance absolutely changes. Then add in the fact that larger diameter wheels/ tires usually weigh significantly more than smaller diamter stuff and you can quickly see why the LTZ gets less mpg.

I have often wondered why the EPA doesn't seem to account for wheel sizes at all in their ratings when they absolutely make a real difference in mpg. The 20" stock cast wheels on Ford trucks are a killer to mpg. It really hurts them.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I actually hadn't thought about that. But it would explain why I feel like the gas mileage does go down from 1LT->2LT->LTZ moreso than the slight weight difference between trims.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

Darn, I got 50 mpg on a 100 mile round trip highway journey today. I was going about 55-60 mph and had the air conditioning on. 53 mpg going out, 47 mpg heading back. 

Wheels and tires definitely play a role. The Eco wheels are lightweight at 17 lbs, and the spokes are pretty rounded. The OEM Eco tires are also 18.5 lbs each, as I've verified by weighing one of the new OEM tires I purchased. I'm not sure if the wheels cut through the air more cleanly than other Cruze OEM wheels, but they do appear to be sleeker than the split-spoke LTZ wheels or 5-spoke LT wheels. 

Carmakers haven't traditionally paid much attention to wheels as a MPG improvement. They're more of a selling point while the car's on the lot. I can see the wheels making a difference, though. On my old Buick, I had smooth hubcaps. Those got about 2-3 mpg better than bare steelies. All the holes in the bare steelies were like little parachutes. The difference between a smooth wheel and a not-smooth wheel was apparent at the pump. The car also looked better with moon discs than steelies.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I hit my target, but I'm not happy with it. I need to find a better road where I can just freaking drive and not get caught in traffic or constantly stop. 

My old route down from the mountains to NC on back roads would have been perfect for this test - there is nothing but country road driving and little traffic. 

Rt 1 ranges from 35-55 (I reset it after the first big city). I swear there were like 30-40 freaking stoplights from NoVA to Richmond and I hit EVERY RED LIGHT. There are also lots of hills, more than I woulda thought for Virginia. 

All things considered, doing 50 in a 45 to 55 in the 55s, except at the stoplights, I hit my target...barely. 

After 2 hours of that, I said screw it and jumped on I95 and went 75. It was late, I was tired. 

First batch of stoplights omitted, with 10 or so more stops and acceleration slowly to 55. RPM was kept under 2100. Took about an hour just to get this far -_- 









It was managing 54-58 mpg for a straight 15 mile stretch @ 55 mph. I'm sure that is easily maintainable given the right drive. 

All city driving taken into account (30 miles at the beginning leaving NOVA). 










Whole drive - 2 more hours @ 75. 









Yup, Eco owners...any 1.4T model can get impressive MPG with a careful driver. With a better route, I'm sure I can average over 50 MPG. 



Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## Suns_PSD (Feb 16, 2013)

I don't get what the fascination is with a one time mpg number on your best day.

What matters is what you get over the lifetime of the car in real world driving.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Suns_PSD said:


> I don't get what the fascination is with a one time mpg number on your best day.
> 
> What matters is what you get over the lifetime of the car in real world driving.


Shrug. People like to brag about what their cars can do here. There are very few LT manual drivers, and some others wanted to know what the 1.4T without the Eco transmission is capable of when driven in similar conditions (55-60 MPH). There's your proof.

I believe that the aerodynamic advantages of the Eco come into a lot bigger role over 55 MPH than the gearing does since they achieve similar MPG at that speed, yet run ~300-500 RPM higher.

Give me a better day-to-day drive with less traffic and I'd have a LOT better MPG numbers. As it is, my car is mostly used for short trips to visit friends or go to the grocery store and really isn't driven more than 15 miles on a given day. In heavy traffic.


----------



## 14'ecocruze (Nov 18, 2016)

I'm in Wisconsin so weather is a big factor. When I got my eco mt it had 52k miles and 38 mpg average lifetime at 66k now and I believe last I checked about a month ago it should be 42 lifetime now. Last summer I pushed 48-50 steady. Winter depends on roads. Lowest winter was 35.8 3 snowfalls in 2 weeks and slush basically everyday. Current tank pushing for silver badge 550 miles 46.2 mpg average. DIC at 48.2 until today dropped hard with snowstorm. 30 miles of driving in the crap and after 400 miles at over 48 dropped me down to 47.3. started hypermile a bit but haven't perfected anything yet. Expect to go for gold in summer push for 55 though.


----------



## Cedar (Dec 13, 2016)

Thankfully someone else bumped this back up from the dead, but this was a good read. Looks like seeking out a LT RS with the MT can be very comparable to an Eco.... Now trying to find one in autumn metallic color...


----------



## 14'ecocruze (Nov 18, 2016)

First day driving my Cruze in 70°+ weather in what seems like an eternity. The mpg is back lol before my 35 mile short trip to town and back I had 116 miles on trip and 49.2 mpg average. Broke some personal records for 25 and 50 as well. Same trip but 30-40° warmer and Cruze loves it lol 40-45 mph could hold low 70s on instant mpg display.


----------

