# Which diesel has the best real world mpg?



## advoutlander (May 10, 2013)

Does the sedan or hatch have the best real world mpg?

Also which brings a higher mpg the auto or the manual and of those which is the most reliable transmission? 

It seems there are a lot of dpf issues, I'm also considering the 2015 Passat TDI.


----------



## Cruz15 (Mar 17, 2016)

My 2015 2.0 Cruze got insane fuel mileage. If I did the speed limit I could get really good mileage. I set it up for power so that didn't continue. I miss that car. Oh well.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

I think the sedan and hatchback are rated the same whether they are AT or MT. The MT definitely achieves higher highway fuel economy, but the city and mixed figures are about the same.

The MT is reliable as long as you change the gear oil about every 40-50k miles. Use a high quality synthetic oil.

Don't know about the automatic transmission. Not enough of them have been around long enough to get a feel for long-term reliability.


----------



## BodhiBenz1987 (Jan 13, 2018)

The sedans get a little higher fuel economy than the hatch because the aerodynamics are a better, and the hatch diesel only came with the RS package, which means bigger wheels. The MT version of each was rated higher on the highway than the AT, and anecdotally they seem to do better as well (not exactly a big sample size though). They all seem to exceed the EPA ratings in real life. By a lot. I have a MT sedan, which is rated at 52 highway ... but have done two road trips that each averaged out to 66 mpg. My lifetime economy is about 51 ... I'm on the highway quite a lot but nonetheless that includes a few stoplights, getting in and out of my neighborhood, occasional city visit, traffic jams, etc. I think the differences between hatch/sedan/manual/auto start to narrow with urban driving. And I think even on the highway the gap between manual and auto isn't super huge ... but I think the manual can just eek out a little more.
Reliability ... I haven't had transaxle-related issues yet personally, but the manuals do seem to have some weak points (for the diesel or gas) ... the dual mass flywheel and the clutch slave. With a small sample size it's hard to say how many are affected by this. DPF issues are generally common on any DPF-equipped diesel, especially if the car isn't driven on the highway enough. I don't think the Cruze has an unusual amount compared to other cars with similar emissions systems.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

The automatic has better overall powertrain durability, the manual trans cars have been having some clutch issues. I'd say go with an automatic, but honestly there's so few of all of them that there's no enough data. But the auto is definitely more common, as 8ts used in other applications, and parts availability over time, and technician familiarity with the unit will be higher.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

BodhiBenz1987 said:


> They all seem to exceed the EPA ratings in real life. By a lot. I have a MT sedan, which is rated at 52 highway ... but have done two road trips that each averaged out to 66 mpg. My lifetime economy is about 51 ...


Wow. My lifetime economy is 44mpg, but I'm perpetually in the hammer lane. My cross-country trip to Seattle was through Montana for the return where I verified the cruise control would hold at 100mph for the entire eastbound length of the state.


----------



## BodhiBenz1987 (Jan 13, 2018)

Barry Allen said:


> Wow. My lifetime economy is 44mpg, but I'm perpetually in the hammer lane. My cross-country trip to Seattle was through Montana for the return where I verified the cruise control would hold at 100mph for the entire eastbound length of the state.


I'm out east and spend most of my time on I95 somewhere between DC and New York ... so between traffic and not wanting to negate all my fuel savings with speeding tickets, I'm usually somewhere between 60 and 70 mph. So I'm definitely right in the mpg wheelhouse. I do get up to 80 now and then if I'm feeling peppy, but even so that usually results in a lot of passing and lane-switching, plus super lookout for speed traps. I tend to go the speed I can most relax at. Occasionally there will be a day where everyone is going 80+ for a stretch and I'll go along. So I'm not always crawling but I'm definitely not a hammer-down kind of driver. Whenever we're able to travel again I'd love to get it out west and open it up a little. Though I think I'd be a little tense at 100 mpg for a whole state haha.


----------



## plano-doug (Jul 1, 2015)

BodhiBenz1987 said:


> Though I think I'd be a little tense at 100 mpg for a whole state haha.


Me, too. 

But I got to do it for a while one day in east Texas. We were returning from Destin, FL, and had just crossed into Texas from the Shreveport area. I was running with a Chevy Tahoe and a Cadillac Escalade. I was in my Impala SS and we were cruising on I-20 at 100 mph - I was truly digging it for a while there  

Doug

.


----------



## BodhiBenz1987 (Jan 13, 2018)

plano-doug said:


> Me, too.
> 
> But I got to do it for a while one day in east Texas. We were returning from Destin, FL, and had just crossed into Texas from the Shreveport area. I was running with a Chevy Tahoe and a Cadillac Escalade. I was in my Impala SS and we were cruising on I-20 at 100 mph - I was truly digging it for a while there
> 
> ...


It'd be fun for a while for sure. I very, very briefly hit 100 (or close) in the Cruze earlier in the pandemic when the highway was eerily empty, but chickened out and slowed back down quickly. I imagine it's easier to get in the mindset on a highway where you have miles of emptiness and higher limits. I think I could have run that fast in my 87 Mercedes all day ... that car was so smooth on the highway I remember one time in my early driving years going along a Pa highway, with traffic, just happily listening to music and relaxing, and realizing all the cars around me were no longer in sight. Look down and was going 97 ... had no idea it had crept up like that.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

I'd advise AGAIST the VW, had one, and the HPFP is a ticking time bomb in the VW car, that frankly is a bigger issue than the cheat scandal. 

I have had 5 Diesel Cruzes since, and still have 4 in the family fleet. The Gen 1 has been a good car, but the Gen 2 is definitly a more refined drivetrain. That said, I did have a Dual Mass Flywheel (DMF) fail on my manual Gen 2 Diesel at just ove 12K miles, replace under warranty, and that got a new clutch hydraulics as well, all warranty, and apparatnly the clutch was upgraded from the original.. all that to say that there has been some problems with the DMF and clutch hydraulics. I have 2 Gen 2 Autos, thus far no issue, but I'm still under 30K on the higher miles car. There have been a couple of reports of issues at higher miles, and it seems prudent to change fluid at 30K from what I've seen, but generally the 9sp seems pretty solid. MPG, I have seen very similar numbers in the Manual and Auto Gen 2s, wich is about 5 MPG better than Gen 1. The Gen 2 9sp auto has a really low final drive in 9th, lower than the 6th gear in the manual, and with plenty of low end torque, it seems that lower ratio and engine RPM saves enough to balance out the lost energy for the pump in the automatic transmission. 

That said, the manual if fun to drive, I happen to enjoy shifting gears, and I don't like a car computer telling me "Shift Denied" which is what happens with the auto when you try to go manual mode.. but it is a smooth automatic and seems to be much improved over the Gen 1 auto, which could do some strange shifting patterns. 

DPFs are problematic when people get a car and do frequent really short drives, and worse if done in cold weather. To clean itself, the DPF becomes an oven, so longer drives with higher temps are helpful in keeping it happy. I tell people that if you do mostly highway driveing, the Diesel is a great option, but if you do frequent short drives in a city, then perhaps a hybrid or electric is a better fit, or even a gasoline engine, that heats up much faster and thus doesn't have DPF clog issues of any kind.


----------



## phil1734 (Aug 30, 2019)

Sounds like you've more or less gotten your answer but to add a little more fuel to the fire, I went with the Cruze over the Golf/Jetta because the interior of a $19,000 Cruze is a much nicer place to be than a $19,000 VW.

If you want to spend more, I'd lean toward the VW.

Of course since both of these cars are a few years out of production your purchase price will be lower, but that's what I was looking at when shopping a new Cruze vs. a 2-year lease turn in VW a few years ago.

In addition, if you're someone that likes to consider total cost of ownership of a car, the maintenance, insurance, registration and repair of a Cruze will almost certainly be lower than a VW in America.


----------



## Rivergoer (Mar 30, 2017)

Comparing the Cruze to the Passat is kinda apples-to-oranges. The comparable VW would be the Jetta. Passat is a larger, better appointed vehicle.

That said, having owned a Jetta TDI and moving to ‘14 Cruze diesel sedan after VW buyout, hands down I love the Chevy much better. Better fuel economy, quieter ride, local dealership service centers and no more apprehension about a $5,000 HPFP catastrophic failure.

Highway 55 mpg, overall average 48.5 mpg.


----------



## Farmerboy (Sep 2, 2012)

Now if GM would just make a Cruze wagon I wouldn’t be looking at VW. 🤷🏼


----------



## TDCruze (Sep 26, 2014)

Second generation Sedan with the 6 speed manual is the most fuel efficient of all diesel Cruzes. That being said I am still very happy with my 9 speed automatic. See my fuelly stats. below in the sig.

Second gen. 9 spd. auto is way beter than the first gen. 6 spd. auto on both fuel economy and shift logic.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

BodhiBenz1987 said:


> Though I think I'd be a little tense at 100 mpg for a whole state haha.


It was a repeat of a trip I made many years ago. I used to own one of the final years production of Dodge Intrepid, so maybe a 2003-2004? It had the 3.5 High-Output engine of something like 240 horsepower. When blasting across Montana I was amazed that it would hold speeds of 100-110 with the cruise control, it didn't overheat in summer, the air conditioning kept it ice cold in the car, and the windshield wipers worked while firmly planted to the windscreen even with the wind whipping over them at triple digit speeds.


----------



## johnmo (Mar 2, 2017)

I have a 6sp sedan. My lifetime average was close to 55 MPG before I went to aftermarket wheels. I think the sedan and manual combination is the best for fuel economy. What I can tell you for certain is that the Cruze TD fuel economy easily beats the VW TDI. I had a 2009 Jetta TDI and just barely hit 50 MPG in it once or twice. Before I swapped out for larger wheels, I almost never saw a tank average less than 50 MPG in my Cruze.

That said, my 2009 Jetta remains my favorite car. The DSG transmission turned out to be a lot of fun in sport mode even though I prefer a manual. But the Cruze has also achieved a favored status. It's comfortable, has Android Auto, and fuel economy is important.

I'm sitting just a few hundred miles from 100k miles on my Cruze. The flywheel was replaced in the first year under warranty. My clutch is beginning to show signs of slave cylinder failure. I had one fuel injector replaced under warranty. Aside from these issues, it's been reliable and fun. But not as fun as the Jetta.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

Farmerboy said:


> Now if GM would just make a Cruze wagon I wouldn’t be looking at VW. 🤷🏼


They did offer the Equinox for a couple of years with the Diesel.. not a wagon per se, but close.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

phil1734 said:


> Sounds like you've more or less gotten your answer but to add a little more fuel to the fire, I went with the Cruze over the Golf/Jetta because the interior of a $19,000 Cruze is a much nicer place to be than a $19,000 VW.
> 
> If you want to spend more, I'd lean toward the VW.
> 
> ...


The newest possible VW Diesel is going to be a 2015, The Cruze Gen 1 Diesel ran 2014-2015, Gen 2 ran 2017-2019. The technology improved past 2015, don't forget the VW had a failure prone HPFP, and required a timing belt ('14-'15 Cruze does as well, but Gen 2 has a chain, so no expensive 100K belt change). Also, the DSG was a nice transmission, but the fluid was expensive, and required a complicated change procedure, if done by the dealership was very expensive. No special fluid for Gen 2 (Gen 1 did use AW-1 fluid, but Amsoil makes a good reasonably priced alternative).


All things to consider.


----------



## phil1734 (Aug 30, 2019)

MRO1791 said:


> ...don't forget the VW had a failure prone HPFP...


Not just a failure prone HPFP, but a failure prone HPFP that destroyed the entire fuel system when it did fail. Dealer cost to fix was close to $10,000.

Generally speaking, people are absolutely terrible at considering total lifetime cost of vehicle ownership. I can't wait for the current crop of pick-up truck buyers to start getting hit with those $1,250+ tabs for a new set of tires, particularly since a number of them will probably still have 3 years of payments left to make.


----------



## johnmo (Mar 2, 2017)

phil1734 said:


> Not just a failure prone HPFP, but a failure prone HPFP that destroyed the entire fuel system when it did fail. Dealer cost to fix was close to $10,000.


This was a factor in my decision to let my Jetta go in the buyback. I think the HPFP issues improved with later models and the "fixed" TDIs come with a really good warranty too. I would buy one of the later models. After I sold back my Jetta I still needed an economical miles eater and the Cruze diesel came along before the fixed TDIs started coming to market. I maintain an affinity for the VWs, but I'm probably better off with the Cruze.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I can tell you that the post-recall TDIs don't get nearly the mileage they did. My brother has a manual 2010 Jetta TDI Sportwagen (so, pre-DEF) and with more highway driving than I do, it only averages ~2-3 MPG better than my 2016 Cruze (~32 mpg). The 2012 Cruze with the 6MT was even closer.

Doesn't make sense to deal with all the TDI unreliablity for such a meager MPG advantage - and the power isn't as good as I remember it back in 2012 when I drove a TDI Golf either. I love the SportWagen, but my money would be on a 2.5 or 1.8T. Our 2.5-powered sedan is no MPG champ, but it's been rock-solid reliable especially by VW standards.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

johnmo said:


> This was a factor in my decision to let my Jetta go in the buyback. I think the HPFP issues improved with later models and the "fixed" TDIs come with a really good warranty too. I would buy one of the later models. After I sold back my Jetta I still needed an economical miles eater and the Cruze diesel came along before the fixed TDIs started coming to market. I maintain an affinity for the VWs, but I'm probably better off with the Cruze.


When I had my 2012 VW and saw the metal particles in the fuel filter, I did deep research in to the design of that pump. (BTW, VW said metal was NORMAL in the fuel filter.. and charged me $50 to say that.. I should point out the emission cheat was not the biggest reason I dumped that car, which is sad, there were many things about it that were well done). 


In any case, the fundamental design was the issue, and even the 2015 still had the Bosch CP4.1 pumps (the CP 4.2s gave the Ford and GM truck owners problems, and there is a class action lawsuit on that too).


The flawed design is that you have a cam driving a roller which actuates the piston on the pump. CP4.1 has one piston, and two cycles in a double lobe cam, per revolution. CP4.2 has 2 pistons on that same one double lobe cam. All that is lubricated with diesel fuel, and any excess fuel pumped is sent back to the tank... which is how the expensive failure happens.. Fuel is not a great lubricant, especially ULSD, which to have any hope has to have lubricity additives.. but even then you still have massive amount or pressure on a small contact area on that roller to cam interface, that puts considerable demand on the metal itself to prevent pitting and erosion. The slightest contamination or bad fuel and you can damage that roller very fast, and have a catastrophic fail that sends metal particles to every part of the fuel system. 


So, you might ask why go with such a pump over prior proven designs? Simple... $$$$ the CP4 pump is about HALF the cost of a CP3 pump, because the manufacturing process to make the pump is much simpler for the CP4. The CP3 has three Pistons, and instead of a cam roller, it has a small crankshaft that drives the 3 pistons, each piston cycles only once per revolution, vice twice for the CP4. The additional pistons and crankshaft with tight tolerances add considerable cost to manufacturing the pump, but they have proven reliable and durable. The CP4 was thought to be good enough to get out of warranty, and in most cases was, then they extended to 100K, but that is because the generally went just over 100K, not a coincidence. 

If I were to have a VW, I would buy a conversion kit and install a CP3, I don't like having a sudden, unpredictable, and EXPENSIVE HPFP pump failure, and it's a ticking time bomb on any of those cars.

The pump on the Cruze Diesel is of similar design to the Bosch CP3 pump, no cam roller. You are definitly better off with the Cruze, also no timing belt to replace.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

jblackburn said:


> and the power isn't as good


The one benefit to owning a VW TDI is the tuning and other parts available. If you want a diesel and you also want to tune and improve you car, you can easily achieve over 200 horsepower with some add-ons like a Euro-market turbocharger and an engine tune to accommodate that upgrade. "There is no replacement for displacement" and the extra bore/stroke available from a 2.0 TDI easily outclasses the 1.6 liters you get with any Gen2 Cruze.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

MRO1791 said:


> DPFs are problematic when people get a car and do frequent really short drives, and worse if done in cold weather. To clean itself, the DPF becomes an oven, so longer drives with higher temps are helpful in keeping it happy. I tell people that if you do mostly highway driveing, the Diesel is a great option, but if you do frequent short drives in a city, then perhaps a hybrid or electric is a better fit, or even a gasoline engine, that heats up much faster and thus doesn't have DPF clog issues of any kind.


 I bought a new Diesel Cruze in 2012 and as of now have done 79K km. I do 95% short trips on low speed suburban streets and the DPF warning light has come on 4 times and took around a 15 minute drive on a 80kph road holding a lower gear for it to go out. Apart from that I haven't had any issues with the drive train. My model has the 2.0L engine with VVT and chain driven cams. It came out before DEF became compulsory in Australia, so that is another problem area I don't have. Fuel economy in these conditions isn't great as the car almost never gets past 4th gear in the 6T45 transmission and I have to be doing 100kph before it will allow 6th gear. At 110kph on the freeway it is doing 1750rpm in 6th, which is most likely why it needs the lower gears below 100 so the engine can't be laboured at low rpm. On an interstate trip, fully loaded I averaged 6.1 l/100km for a 2,500km holiday.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

Aussie said:


> I bought a new Diesel Cruze in 2012 and as of now have done 79K km. I do 95% short trips on low speed suburban streets and the DPF warning light has come on 4 times and took around a 15 minute drive on a 80kph road holding a lower gear for it to go out. Apart from that I haven't had any issues with the drive train. My model has the 2.0L engine with VVT and chain driven cams. It came out before DEF became compulsory in Australia, so that is another problem area I don't have. Fuel economy in these conditions isn't great as the car almost never gets past 4th gear in the 6T45 transmission and I have to be doing 100kph before it will allow 6th gear. At 110kph on the freeway it is doing 1750rpm in 6th, which is most likely why it needs the lower gears below 100 so the engine can't be laboured at low rpm. On an interstate trip, fully loaded I averaged 6.1 l/100km for a 2,500km holiday.


The US cars have had more problems with DPFs, because our NOx emmissions have been much more restrictive, even in 2012/2013 (Back then, VW had the "cheat mode" to basically turn off EGR, saving the DPF laoding and fuel by fewer regens, but also ramping up the NOx output considerably). The method used to lower NOx has been mostly EGR, especially prior to DEF systems taking root.. and with more EGR comes alot more soot, and hence more DPF issues. In fact some people found ways to disable the EGR, and that alone solves most DPF issues on some Diesel vehicles, of course it's not legal.. I'm pretty sure your driving patern in a cold US climate, with a US emmission car would lead to far more problems than you have had. This has been a steep barrier to all diesel options taking root in the US market, the emmission problems are near epic, but the common theme to those having problems is driving pattern... those doing mostly highwy longer drives seem to have few issues.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

MRO1791 said:


> In fact some people found ways to disable the EGR, and that alone solves most DPF issues on some Diesel vehicles


A friend of mine owned a Jeep Liberty CRD. The cheat for turning off EGR with that engine was to wire a switch to the electronic EGR valve. You'd start the engine with it turned on and let the ECU go through about 30-60 seconds of function checks, and then you could flip the switch to turn EGR off. The ECU never again checked for it functioning after starting, so it fooled it good with just a switch. Fuel economy was great with EGR turned off!

Ram trucks with Cummins engines in the late 2000s could just unplug the EGR valve and you lived with the CEL on the dash. I'd do that in my car if I could. Unfortunately, the EPA caught on to that and now they require vehicles to have "limp modes" if you don't get things fixed, and that precludes disabling EGR.


----------



## dundonrl (Jul 11, 2017)

Barry Allen said:


> Wow. My lifetime economy is 44mpg, but I'm perpetually in the hammer lane. My cross-country trip to Seattle was through Montana for the return where I verified the cruise control would hold at 100mph for the entire eastbound length of the state.


Careful doing that.. I received a speeding ticket in eastern Montana 86 in an 80 (40 dollar no points ticket)


----------

