# VW scandal doesn't keep GM from German Diesel



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

> You'd think the words "German diesel" would kill a U.S. marketing campaign, but General Motors disagrees. Despite VW's woes, Chevrolet intends to play up the German origins of the diesel engine scheduled for the new Cruze in early 2017.


Well, we'll see what happens. Personally, I don't think playing on the German engine is all that good an idea. You could play up other parts of the car with no problem, but the diesel engine? At minimum I'd think you'd need to say from what manufacturer so as to put distance between VW and the Cruze.


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

I guess wewill see how the other German diesel car company (BMW) is affected. Lookslike VW sales for November took a 25% hit. Not looking very good.

VW November sales drop leading to dealer panic


----------



## GlennGlenn (Nov 27, 2015)

Less horsepower and lower torque for the new Fluglehorn motor ? And this is good?? People are already skeptical of diesels .......

the dealers in my area are sitting on new old stock >9 months , yet many refuse to discount them?? You can sell the new 1.6 to the market if the old 2.0 isn't moving off the lots.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

GlennGlenn said:


> Less horsepower and lower torque for the new Fluglehorn motor ? And this is good?? People are already skeptical of diesels ......


...with a significantly lighter car. The power to weight ratio isn't much different than the current CTD.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

PanJet said:


> ...with a significantly lighter car. The power to weight ratio isn't much different than the current CTD.


There's also talk of more gears, as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see a regular torque-convertor 6-speed auto in the US, though, given the general public's inability to understand how a DCT works and that it's not broken when it drives that way.


----------



## GlennGlenn (Nov 27, 2015)

MP81 said:


> There's also talk of more gears, as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see a regular torque-convertor 6-speed auto in the US, though, given the general public's inability to understand how a DCT works and that it's not broken when it drives that way.


 @*MP81* , The American 2.0 already has a 6 speed auto, just not a DCT. 

And to the post above, @*PanJet* , 200 lbs on a 3500 lb car ( new car allegedly at approx 3300 lbs) is not going to make that much a difference. BTW, 200 lbs is not significantly lighter . That is basically one male passenger. That only a 5% reduction in weight for the new car. Assuming same fuel load and passenger load, but the difference in weight between the two of 3500 and 3300 respectively, the difference is approx as follows:

23.17 lbs per HP for the 2.0 engine to move the load and this doesn't include the greater torque of the 2000 cc engine, advantage :2.0 in lbs per HP, torque

24.62 lbs per HP for the 1.6 engine to move the load and this doesn't include the lower torque of the 1600 cc engine , only advantage may be better fuel mileage and quieter engine. Personally, I'll take more torque any day.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

blk88verde said:


> I guess wewill see how the other German diesel car company (BMW) is affected. Lookslike VW sales for November took a 25% hit. Not looking very good.
> 
> VW November sales drop leading to dealer panic


You forgot Mercedes! They've been making diesels since forever, and the Bluetec Mercs seem to be getting pretty popular around here.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

GlennGlenn said:


> The American 2.0 already has a 6 speed auto, just not a DCT.
> 
> And to the post above, @*PanJet* , 200 lbs on a 3500 lb car ( new car allegedly at approx 3300 lbs) is not going to make that much a difference. Assuming same fuel load and passenger load, the difference is approx as follows:
> 
> ...


Yes it does. I was just saying that while a 7-speed is possible, it wouldn't surprise me to see them stick with a 6-speed TC auto for the US market.

If it ends up having a slightly higher lb/HP ratio than the current diesel, it's likely one wouldn't even notice - currently, gears 1-3 are limited quite a lot by torque management. It would likely still be limited, just less. Meaning you'll still effectively have the same output as the current diesel, but in a lighter vehicle. Gearing is another important aspect.


----------



## GlennGlenn (Nov 27, 2015)

MP81 said:


> Yes it does. I was just saying that while a 7-speed is possible, it wouldn't surprise me to see them stick with a 6-speed TC auto for the US market.
> 
> If it ends up having a slightly higher lb/HP ratio than the current diesel, it's likely one wouldn't even notice - currently, gears 1-3 are limited quite a lot by torque management. It would likely still be limited, just less. Meaning you'll still effectively have the same output as the current diesel, but in a lighter vehicle. Gearing is another important aspect.



Of course gearing is important, but if you're spinning 1st and 2nd with lots of torque, the front wheels aren't going to hook no matter what you do. That's why either engine is going to require torque management in lower gears. More gears is more for fuel economy than performance in the Cruze. You can lower first and second ( numerically higher) for acceleration or to get the load moving and increase higher gears (numerically lower) for lower engine revs at highway speeds. Adding another gear will most likely only help at cruise speeds and fuel economy. 

What concerns me is that Chevy is downscaling the engine by 400cc which is Huge in smaller engines and decreasing both HP and tq. Any fuel savings may be negated by the driver using a heavier foot to get the car moving. Mercedes even found in their diesels and gas engines (4 cylinders) that you can only go so small and still get the fuel economy and performance that you want. Think CLA45 AMG Gas and diesel E250 .


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

The Cruze in all other countries uses smaller engines than in the US and Canada. 1.6 NA is standard in many places.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

GlennGlenn said:


> the driver using a heavier foot to get the car moving.


Heavier foot feeding a smaller engine, which will use less fuel per stroke because it is physically smaller - and also resulting in lower rotating losses due to having a smaller, lighter rotating assembly. 

Also worth mentioning: the 1.6 has an aluminum block. The car will likely be about dead even on power to weight ratio, in the end, so it probably won't even be a problem.


----------



## GlennGlenn (Nov 27, 2015)

MP81 said:


> Heavier foot feeding a smaller engine, which will use less fuel per stroke because it is physically smaller - and also resulting in lower rotating losses due to having a smaller, lighter rotating assembly.
> 
> Also worth mentioning: the 1.6 has an aluminum block. The car will likely be about dead even on power to weight ratio, in the end, so it probably won't even be a problem.


Thats where the weight savings are coming from ( primarily) the engine block specifically. Still , you can't argue with power to weight ratios and I believe that the smaller engine will in fact not perform as well as the 2.0 from a performance standpoint. Probably better fuel mileage, which is ultimately the goal with these vehicles. 

A lil history here. Remember a few years back when Ford went from the old ubiquitous 7.3 diesel in the F250/350 trucks. The new engine, the Powerstroke 6.0 , both lighter and with less torque, was a disaster from a reliability and emissions standpoint as well. It even caused Ford buybacks. There are many who Still miss the old 7.3.


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

> You forgot Mercedes! They've been making diesels since forever, and the Bluetec Mercs seem to be getting pretty popular around here.


 - wow - yes how could I forget that. And I even owned a MB (non diesel) back in 2002 to 2005. I guess I was only thinking about the Diesel study that ultimately brought to light the VW scam. BMW had the other diesel in that study.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

I think touting German origins is a good thing. They could also play off the VW scandal and say that the engine really does do what it's supposed to. I also expect the coveted 50MPG highway mark to be hit, which will be a tremendous marketing tool.

Sucks it won't be available until 2017 calendar year. i want one NOW lol


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

Will be available 2016. I'm guessing spring 2016 as was done with the CTD.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Tomko said:


> Will be available 2016. I'm guessing spring 2016 as was done with the CTD.


2017 model year. They are just now starting production of the "new gen" 2016 Cruze. You might see it in the late fall-winter months of 2016.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

On the tour this year we were given a few hints that 2016 would be a short model year.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Tomko said:


> On the tour this year we were given a few hints that 2016 would be a short model year.


I guess it would be from their production standpoint - half of it was the 2016 Cruze "Classic".


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

GlennGlenn said:


> What concerns me is that Chevy is downscaling the engine by 400cc which is Huge in smaller engines and decreasing both HP and tq. Any fuel savings may be negated by the driver using a heavier foot to get the car moving.


The amount of torque the current 2.0L diesel uses is off the scale for what's necessary in a car of this size/weight. Sure Horsepower is going to be lower but if the numbers are similar to Europe, its only 15hp less. Torque is 236lb-ft, still an impressive number for a now even lighter car. I strongly believe this change along with everything else will bump the 2.0L 46mpg EPA highway rating to 50mpg with the new 1.6L. 

Look at the gas cruze for comparison, the 1.8L auto vs 1.4T auto, the smaller engine gets 3mpg better in all environments. With the right driver those differences can be even larger.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

jblackburn said:


> I guess it would be from their production standpoint - half of it was the 2016 Cruze "Classic".


Point taken.


----------



## GlennGlenn (Nov 27, 2015)

jblackburn said:


> I guess it would be from their production standpoint - half of it was the 2016 Cruze "Classic".



Word is the updated 2016 Cruze, not the 2016 Cruze Classic will be hitting dealers Jan/Feb 2016 and diesel much later in year.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

jblackburn said:


> You might see it in the late fall-winter months of 2016.


Maybe by then the Saudis will change their game and the consumer will get religion over MPG when the prices rise.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

GlennGlenn said:


> Word is the updated 2016 Cruze, not the 2016 Cruze Classic will be hitting dealers Jan/Feb 2016 and diesel much later in year.


Depending on what's meant by "much later in the year" that would be the normal time for the 2017 MY to hit.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

I am kind of expecting the diesel to come out Septemberish. That's just my best guess adding together all the rumors I've read.


----------

