# Some Special High MPG Models Not Worth the Cost



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Once again CR doen't know what the s**t they're talking about. I don't know about the Ford or Honda, but they completely ignored the fact that the ECO is the middle trim of five for the Cruze. LS, 1LT, ECO, 2LT, LTZ.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I think they do have a point though. For those who do mostly in-town driving with 50% or less highway driving, the high fuel economy models are probably not worth the price difference for a 3-5 year ownership period. Most of the cars in this class already get pretty respectable MPG numbers in the first place.

They noticed a 1 mpg bump - I've never gotten under 30 mpg at the pump from my Cruze, though - even sitting in traffic or at stoplights most of the time. And I don't drive all that conservatively.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

I really understand testing all three as automatics to not seem biased, but they fail to even mention the fact the the cruze eco manual is rated at 3mpg higher highway 2mpg city vs the automatic cruze. 

Also wonder how they are driving, as I have never had a tank below 30mpg in my non eco automatic cruze.


----------



## Vetterin (Mar 27, 2011)

"Finally, and least remarkably, is the Cruze Eco, which costs $800 more than the Cruze LT." 
Why do they forget to add..............."or $4000 LESS than the LTZ."
Just one more reason why CR SUCKS!!!


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Vetterin said:


> "Finally, and least remarkably, is the Cruze Eco, which costs $800 more than the Cruze LT."
> Why do they forget to add..............."or $4000 LESS than the LTZ."
> Just one more reason why CR SUCKS!!!


They're comparing the fuel-efficient models, which are usually based on the lower trim levels (1LT, LX for the Honda, SE for the Focus). How is the LTZ trim even relevant?


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

Edit: ^ beat me to it!

The price comparison with the LTZ doesn't matter. All economy trims extra costs were in the ballpark when compared to their base trims and counterparts.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> They're comparing the fuel-efficient models, which are usually based on the lower trim levels (1LT, LX for the Honda, SE for the Focus). How is the LTZ trim even relevant?


The Ford and Honda fuel efficient models are the most expensive versions of those cars. This makes the LTZ relavant because it is more expensive than the ECO, removing the ECO from the long list of fuel efficient cars that are more expensive than any other trim in the car's lineup.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

obermd said:


> The Ford and Honda fuel efficient models are the most expensive versions of those cars. This makes the LTZ relavant because it is more expensive than the ECO, removing the ECO from the long list of fuel efficient cars that are more expensive than any other trim in the car's lineup.


What? No they're not either. That is only true for models with hybrids (Camry and Sonata, for instance).

LX Retail - $18.605
HF Retail - $19,605
EX Sedan - $20,655
EX-L Sedan (LTZ equivalent) - $22,105

Focus
The SFE package is for the SE model (not the SEL or Titanium). 
SE - $17,500
SFE + SE - $18,000
SEL (LTZ-equivalent + leather is extra) - $20,500


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

spacedout said:


> Also wonder how they are driving, as I have never had a tank below 30mpg in my non eco automatic cruze.


Yeah i have to say my driving is about 50/50 city and highway and i see an average of 31mpg in my LS model, without cruise control. (and without being the most conservative driver %100 of the time) I would think i could do much better in an Eco. In fact i know i could based on peoples averages on here. this is a BS article.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

Terrible article. They just love destroying their own credibility don't they?


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

They also didn't test the most fuel-efficient trims out there. The Eco MT has an advantage over the Eco AT in fuel economy. 

I'd love for a big car mag to do a fuel-economy comparison of the manual transmission variants of the well-known "compact" models. Then compare those with the auto versions for fuel economy. Sadly, that will never happen.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

AutoGuide is just as bad in this instance. They didn't bother to double check the numbers before parroting CR.


----------



## CruzeEcoBlueTopaz (Jan 5, 2012)

My 2012 Chevy Cruze Eco has been well worth the investment. I drive 375 miles 5 days a week @ 58mph and at the end of the night my DIC is reading 57mpg average. My Cruze Eco efficiency almost doubles that of most new cars and especially trucks on the road today.


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

sciphi said:


> They also didn't test the most fuel-efficient trims out there. The Eco MT has an advantage over the Eco AT in fuel economy.


The thing is that they were testing the most fuel efficient model of those cars. Why should the cruze have to take a handicap just because the other manufacturers dont offer manuals in their high efficiency models? 

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using AutoGuide.Com Free Appk


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

silverls said:


> The thing is that they were testing the most fuel efficient model of those cars. Why should the cruze have to take a handicap just because the other manufacturers dont offer manuals in their high efficiency models?
> 
> Sent from my DROID BIONIC using AutoGuide.Com Free Appk


Because CR is a bunch of morons.


----------



## bartonmd (Jun 30, 2011)

obermd said:


> Because CR is a bunch of morons.


Exactly.


----------



## wallbngr (Feb 2, 2012)

I drive almost ali Highway Miles and the saving I get is GREAT ..
I drove a Chevy Blazer for about 2 months because the winter was so bad , had to use 4 wheel 
It cost me 400 bucks a month 
I had a 2004 Impala then too my gas bill was CONSISTANTLY 300 bucks 
The HIGHEST bill I had last year was 280 .. 
I drove my Cruze all winrwr too , although it was an open one 
I figure I 5 to 600 bucks saved a year is a good thing ..


----------



## danimal (Oct 4, 2011)

My wife and I save at least 250-300 a month in gas. Going from a Silverado getting 16mpg to the Cruze where I haven't had less than 41mpg, the gas savings alone make the car payment


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

silverls said:


> The thing is that they were testing the most fuel efficient model of those cars. Why should the cruze have to take a handicap just because the other manufacturers dont offer manuals in their high efficiency models?
> 
> Sent from my DROID BIONIC using AutoGuide.Com Free Appk


The MT Eco is undisputedly the fuel economy champ in the Cruze lineup. What CR did was test the second-most-fuel-efficient Cruze. That's not fair to the Cruze, and it's not fair to their readers. For somebody who really puts on the highway miles, knowing they could get 3 mpg highway better and save $1000 immediately by doing their own shifting is important information. CR omitted to mention that. They left the impression that the Eco AT is the most fuel-efficient Cruze. Bull! 

They tried to make it apples-to-apples, I'll give them that. They did not attempt to make it a complete picture, though. Even a one-off report on a MT Eco, or doing a row-your-own special report would have been nice.


----------



## TechCruzer (Mar 15, 2012)

*Cruze Specs Before & After*

You know despite the article... I still love my Cruze & don't really care what the article says. As far as I'm concerned I've more than doubled my gas mileage over my old SUV (I know they're not comparing it to an SUV)... so there.

What does chap my @$$, is this... before & after shots of the "official" Chevrolet webpage for the Cruze. I feel I was baited & switched & somewhat lied to by what the site was supposed to "officially" telling me the consumer what I was to expect in my vehicle shopping.

I actually opened a case with Chevy regarding this & I suppose that is why the webpage has been updated, but now as obermd points out the ECO is just middle trim as opposed to the top line trime... kinda sux.


----------



## coinneach (Apr 10, 2012)

TechCruzer said:


> You know despite the article... I still love my Cruze & don't really care what the article says. As far as I'm concerned I've more than doubled my gas mileage over my old SUV (I know they're not comparing it to an SUV)... so there.


Yup. Even my relatively inefficient LS beats EPA on every tank no matter how hard I push it. 36.3 on my last tank. CR can bite my shiny metal ass.


----------



## bartonmd (Jun 30, 2011)

sciphi said:


> The MT Eco is undisputedly the fuel economy champ in the Cruze lineup. What CR did was test the second-most-fuel-efficient Cruze. That's not fair to the Cruze, and it's not fair to their readers. For somebody who really puts on the highway miles, knowing they could get 3 mpg highway better and save $1000 immediately by doing their own shifting is important information. CR omitted to mention that. They left the impression that the Eco AT is the most fuel-efficient Cruze. Bull!
> 
> They tried to make it apples-to-apples, I'll give them that. They did not attempt to make it a complete picture, though. Even a one-off report on a MT Eco, or doing a row-your-own special report would have been nice.


That's really just it... The manual transmission ECO, because you add a $1k ECO package and subtract $1k for the manual, costs the same as the bottom of the line LT... Since I didn't like the automatic transmission on the test drives, it was really a no-brainer for me, plus we drive ~80% highway.

Mike


----------



## Hoon (Mar 18, 2012)

I have an LT (manual) and get close to 40mpg in mixed driving. With the Eco it would easily be 43-44, and worth the $$ IMO. The Eco wheels alone are worth the extra $ over the 16" 1LT wheels...i just didn't like the taller gearing of the Eco.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

Did you guys ever consider logistics in getting access to all the cars they need for testing? There's still a lot that goes into at least finding the desired car. Maybe they couldn't find a manual eco in the area they were doing testing. Sometimes it comes down to availability.

Grain of salt required when it comes down to *any* automotive discussion no matter what the media outlet you use!


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Aeroscout977 said:


> Did you guys ever consider logistics in getting access to all the cars they need for testing? There's still a lot that goes into at least finding the desired car. Maybe they couldn't find a manual eco in the area they were doing testing. Sometimes it comes down to availability.
> 
> Grain of salt required when it comes down to *any* automotive discussion no matter what the media outlet you use!


CR has publicly stated that they will only test cars they think have mass market appeal. However, their own choices show differently. They attempted to test the $100,000+ Fiskar Karma (it died during testing) and tested the Nissan Leaf but refuse to test any Teslas, even though Tesla is has a far better range. CR probably felt that the ECO MT wasn't "worth" testing, so they didn't bother.


----------



## Skraeling (May 30, 2012)

Its worth noting the automatic for the eco is a 995 dollar option. Seeing as how the standard option is the well... standard. They should test it as it comes from the factory no?


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...what they (CR) fail to comprehend is that *many* people buy these "high-MPG" vehicles as "hedges" against the _inevitable_ increase in future gasoline prices, so that they don't have to *spend* so much on fuel in the *future!*


Hence.. on my little spreadsheet, a 2.7% inflation rate (average over last 20 years) is used. Gasoline prices tend to mirror inflation almost completely


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> Hence.. on my little spreadsheet, a 2.7% inflation rate (average over last 20 years) is used. Gasoline prices tend to mirror inflation almost completely


That's because energy costs are the primary driving factor for inflation.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...if you've been tracking the *Consumer Price Index - Urban *(CPI-U) since 1970, you'll find the _*annualized inflation *r_ate has _consistently_ been about *4.6%*, thus if your stocks/bonds/401K's, etc. aren't earning _more_ than that annually, you're slowly _"...going down hill..."_ financially.


That seems alarmingly high...?


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

silverls said:


> Yeah i have to say my driving is about 50/50 city and highway and i see an average of 31mpg in my LS model, without cruise control. (and without being the most conservative driver 0 of the time) I would think i could do much better in an Eco. In fact i know i could based on peoples averages on here. this is a BS article.


For those calling "BS" on the CR test results, please see http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...ze-reliability-dec-11-issue-18.html#post99271.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

cwerdna said:


> For those calling "BS" on the CR test results, please see http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...ze-reliability-dec-11-issue-18.html#post99271.



It does not matter how they are testing when their results do not equal what most people get in real world driving. In almost 4,000miles I have never had a tank less than 30mpg with my NON-ECO automatic car. my average is 35mpg over all those miles(probably like 30/70 city/highway).


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

spacedout said:


> It does not matter how they are testing when their results do not equal what most people get in real world driving. In almost 4,000miles I have never had a tank less than 30mpg with my NON-ECO automatic car. my average is 35mpg over all those miles(probably like 30/*70 *city/*highway*).


But that's the thing, their cycle equally weights the city/highway and one-day (150 mile trip). They've recently stopped doing the 150 mile trip.

From http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/27-f...mileage-i-just-failed-hit-20-a.html#post55928



> As I've posted on a bunch of other threads here before...
> 
> FWIW, this is what Consumer Reports got w/the Cruze on their tests.
> 2011 LS sedan, 1.8-liter Four, 6-speed automatic: 17 city/36 highway, 26 overall, 34 for 150-mile trip
> 2011 *1LT *sedan, 1.4-liter Four turbo, 6-speed automatic: 17 city/*36 highway*, 26 overall,* 35 for 150-mile trip*


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

In the Consumer Reports article, the whole article, that is published in the July 2012 edition and online for subscribers, they do mention the Eco Manual and note that it is touted as getting 42 mpg on the highway. 

When they do comparo's they group their testing with vehicles with like options and pricing schemes as close as they can get. Availability in the time frame that they are planning the testing does play a part. Finding Cruze's with Manuals, especially the Eco can be a pain. 

Chances are when they test some new fuel efficient manual transmission cars, at least one or two of the Cruze's might be in the mix. The problem is that the Cruze has basically three different manual equipped cars. The Ls with a 1.8L, the Lt lines with the turbo 1.4L, and the Eco with different gearing and the special fuel savings package. Since they usually group things with like price ranges, it might be tough if they go for the bargain basement, stripped down models to test the Eco Manual along with them. We can only hope. Since they purchase all the cars that they do the comprehensive testing on, we can easily see that it might take some time before they test all three models. They have already purchased three Cruze's. 

Let us not forget that GM also has Spark's and Sonic's that will have more than one engine package with more than one transmission option. That is a lot of Chevy's they have to buy.
It would help if there were more automakers equipping cars with special fuel economy packages with manual transmissions.

In the end, it really does not matter, because most here will never be happy with the results or trust that Consumer Reports' is not out to get the American Car manufacturers. I wonder if Mel Gibson drives around in a Cruze looking for conspiracies while uncontrollably buying, "Catcher in the Rye" books? :1poke::tututtongue4:
I jest.


----------



## Eugene_C (Mar 15, 2012)

:uhh: Yeah, well you might as well say that buying a car with twice the horsepower you need is not cost-effective either. What's the payback on the sport option? They're forgetting that people buy cars for reasons that have nothing to do with straight dollars and cents.


----------



## bruces1g (Feb 12, 2012)

I now have a tad over 6K miles on my Eco w/6-speed manual. I set the DIS the first week and have not reset it. I commute about 55 miles a day - with a mix of highway and downtown Birmingham (very stop and go) driving. The DIS says that I am averaging 31.3 mpg. And I am decidedly NOT a conservative driver  My previous vehicle was a '02 Trailblazer 4x4 and I am enjoying the change.

My wife also has an Eco w/manual and she drives a bit more conservatively than I do. And while her commute is not as far - about 30 miles round trip - it is mostly in-town, red-light-to-red-light, driving. She is averaging 33.2 mpg. She is coming from a Honda DX coupe that averaged about 29 mpg.

We both are extremely happy with the mileage and the cars.


----------



## Djimbe (May 26, 2011)

BTW, with my final break-in of the engine, and proper inflated tires (41psi) on my MT Eco, i get close to 10 MPG more than in the firsts 10000 KM (From Québec i am). in the firsts 10000KM, i was abour 29-32 mpg and now i'm between 37-44 mpg and i'm not an hypermiler, 120km+ on the highway, WOT to pass slow poeple, full boost only for fun. NO way they can do it with any other cars. Despite the problems with coolant smell, seat crack and noises not mentioning that it's not even, trunk open button failure, i like the driving, fuel economy, safety and it looks **** great factory dropped with the shiny wheels!!!


----------



## gritz1483 (Apr 17, 2012)

agreed>>>>>The fuel economy isnt the only thing you get from the cruze eco... 17" polished aluminum wheels, turbocharged engine, and bluetooth. I think the turbo charger alone make its worth the extra money not to mention the 2lt and the ltz both cost more than the eco. I swear consumer reports gets outside money


----------



## baghdaddy (Sep 26, 2011)

I saw the article, and I drive a Cruze ECO Manual. I drive mostly commuting, from the suburbs of Washington, DC, to a downtown office, with a couple of 300 mile trips a year.
With 12,000 miles on the odometer, my AVERAGE MPG is 40.3! I don't know how CR got less than 30, because I am not a hyper miler, in fact, I drive my Cruze pretty quick. CR should test the manual, and see what they get. 
On my most recent trip, to Myrtle Beach with a friend, and all our luggage, golf clubs, etc, I got over 46mpg average, and part of that was stuck on I-95 on Sunday afternoon, in very slow stop and go traffic for about 40 miles. 46 miles per gallon, in my non-hybrid, 4 cylinder turbo, $20,500 Chevy Cruze--- awesome! Don't believe CR-- believe the people here on Cruzetalk--- the ECO is well worth the few extra bucks. Great mileage, quiet, and quick. Try it, you'll like it.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

gritz1483 said:


> agreed>>>>>The fuel economy isnt the only thing you get from the cruze eco... 17" polished aluminum wheels, turbocharged engine, and bluetooth. I think the turbo charger alone make its worth the extra money not to mention the 2lt and the ltz both cost more than the eco. I swear consumer reports gets outside money


They're not comparing ANY of these models to cars with leather, etc. The 2LT and LTZ have no relevance in this article. They're comparing the Eco to the 1LT model with everything the ECO has to begin with.

Baghdaddy, that is OUTSTANDING mileage for this area. My main commute a few times a week is a bit of around-town driving, a 65-70 mph stint for a few miles on 395 or 495 (thankfully not during rush hour), and then more around-town driving. I've managed to stay above 32 mpg even running AC and not really caring too much about how hard I accelerate. My old 2.3-liter car struggled to get that mileage on the highway alone.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

First off, gas does not cost 4 bucks a gallon, more like $5.60 per gallon with BTU reductions to gain a so-called cleaner fuel. Can multiply that cost 3-4 times for what it is costing us to keep peace in the middle east. I don't know how to put a value on the American lives lost or the thousands permanently damage for life.

So why aren't they comparing these cars with cars that only offer an inch or two of extra space that cost 2 to 3 times as much? Same tin, but with much greater hp ratings that no one can use.

Or better yet with huge SUV's and pickups, wife took me out to dinner Sunday night and just happened to count the number of these huge SUV's and pickup's. Not one delivering a new refrigerator or lots of food to the restaurant we ate at. Most only had a couple in these gas burning buggies.

Really don't consider myself to being "green" person, just don't like being robbed blind at the gas station. If everyone drove these far more sensible cars, could forget about the middle east and bring our troops home. This should be the basis of their article. Bet they are getting money under the table from oil companies, ha, call me paranoid. Wasn't born that way, made that way.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

I only got 34 mpg today over 50 miles with the cruise control set at 72 with quick blasts to higher speeds, the A/C cranked, going mainly uphill, and into a 20 mph headwind. :angry: Usually I get 45-47 mpg on the same trip doing about 60 mph driving it by foot with the A/C off.


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

sciphi said:


> I only got 34 mpg today over 50 miles with the cruise control set at 72 with quick blasts to higher speeds, the A/C cranked, going mainly uphill, and into a 20 mph headwind. :angry: Usually I get 45-47 mpg on the same trip doing about 60 mph driving it by foot with the A/C off.


Well the a/c and the speed are to blame for that. At 60mph the car is comfortable but at 72+ mph your engine speed was over 3k the whole trip. Even the Prius wouldn't conform to its normal standards under those kinds of conditions. 

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## litesong (Oct 14, 2011)

Originally Posted by *sciphi*  
I only got 34 mpg today over 50 miles with the cruise control set at 72 with quick blasts to higher speeds, the A/C cranked, going mainly uphill, and into a 20 mph headwind. 
///////////////
silverls wrote:

Well the a/c and the speed are to blame for that. At 60mph the car is comfortable but at 72+ mph your engine speed was over 3k the whole trip. Even the Prius wouldn't conform to its normal standards under those kinds of conditions. 
///////////////
litesong wrote:
Agree with silverls. Sciphi just proved that engines doing 3 or 4 things at the same time takes the engine out of its efficiency region. Slow down, ya move too fast........

However, a Chevy Eco Cruze 6 sp. manual engine, at 72mph, is turning somewhat under 2300rpms. Jeesh.....at the same speed, even a cheap 2012 Versa sedan w/CVT tranny rotates under 2300rpm & may deliver close to 40mpg. Careful long distance driving can exceed 50mpg with the Eco Cruze & 45+mpg with the Versa, as pen & paper can show.


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

litesong said:


> Originally Posted by *sciphi*
> 
> 
> However, a Chevy Eco Cruze 6 sp. manual engine, at 72mph, is turning somewhat under 2300rpms. Jeesh.....at the same speed, even a cheap 2012 Versa sedan w/CVT tranny rotates under 2300rpm & may deliver close to 40mpg. Careful long distance driving can exceed 50mpg with the Eco Cruze & 45+mpg with the Versa, as pen & paper can show.


**** i wish i had the eco gearing. My LS is over 3k rpm by like 65mph

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

litesong said:


> However, a Chevy Eco Cruze 6 sp. manual engine, at 72mph, is turning somewhat under 2300rpms. Jeesh.....at the same speed, even a cheap 2012 Versa sedan w/CVT tranny rotates under 2300rpm & may deliver close to 40mpg. Careful long distance driving can exceed 50mpg with the Eco Cruze & 45+mpg with the Versa, as pen & paper can show.


My 2012 1LT automatic only turns like 2300-2500rpm at 72mph. I don't know exactly because I haven't driven that fast in awhile. Really glad GM changed the gearing of the automatic in 2012.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

silverls said:


> **** i wish i had the eco gearing. My LS is over 3k rpm by like 65mph
> 
> Sent from my DROID BIONIC using AutoGuide.Com Free App


Wow, really?? Whats the point of having 6 gears if it's still geared like an old Civic? The LT manual hits 3000 at 80 mph. I thought they were the same transmission in both the 1.4 and 1.8, but apparently not.


Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


----------



## litesong (Oct 14, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> Whats the point of having 6 gears if it's still geared like an old Civic?


Yeah, 2007 Nissan Versa had one of the first 6 speeds in a cheap car. Nissan threw it all away with a top gear rpm higher than its CVT or even 4 sp. automatic!


----------



## ManthaBurner (Jul 4, 2011)

They are so far off it is terrible. My parents got the lt1 and me the mt eco, my mpg over both cars 20,000 miles is 10 mpg better.... equates to a little more savings than their claimed $20 a year lol


----------



## litesong (Oct 14, 2011)

ManthaBurner said:


> They are so far off it is terrible. My parents got the lt1 and me the mt eco, my mpg over both cars 20,000 miles is 10 mpg better.... equates to a little more savings than their claimed $20 a year lol


..... more like $580 per year.......? But when does gas savings have to 'pay' for itself all the time. We often use many things without worrying about its consequences or costs. Why can't someone enjoy NOT using 166 extra gallons of gas per year. Oh, Heaven Forbid. That person must be an ecology nut.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

ManthaBurner said:


> They are so far off it is terrible. My parents got the lt1 and me the mt eco, my mpg over both cars 20,000 miles is 10 mpg better.... equates to a little more savings than their claimed $20 a year lol


I don't know your actual mpgs, but assuming 30 and 40 mpg, at 20,000 miles that's 167 gallons difference. The average price of gas this past year has been somewhat 3.75 in most of the country. Your payback for the price differential will be less than 2 years. ($625 per year). The payback rate decreases with each mpg lower and increases as the mpg rises, but even assuming you're getting 50mpg, it's still less than 3 years. Once again so much for CR's ability to rate cars properly!


----------



## NYCruze2012 (Jan 16, 2012)

If we are looking to save money by purchasing more economical cars is it really worth it in the end? All the money and fuel we are going to save just got nullified by the purchase of a new car plus more insurance. Sure we may use less fuel which is good for the environment but it has cost us more money to do so.

Sent from my DROID3


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

NYCruze2012 said:


> If we are looking to save money by purchasing more economical cars is it really worth it in the end? All the money and fuel we are going to save just got nullified by the purchase of a new car plus more insurance. Sure we may use less fuel which is good for the environment but it has cost us more money to do so.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3


It depends - if you're already in the market for a new car, the ECO MT is worth the initial price difference from the LT1 MT. Also, your statement about higher insurance isn't always true either. When I traded my Lancer GTS MT for my ECO MT my insurance dropped quite a bit. Even the I'm paying slightly more for the car payment I came out about $100 per month ahead with reduced insurance. The 25% reduction in fuel costs is an added benefit on top of the drop in insurance. The Lancer was very expensive to ensure with a teenage driver in the house.


----------



## leeclark (Mar 25, 2012)

the vehicle i was driving before was a blazer that got 16 mpgs. The money i'm saving in gas every month is paying for the car alone. The money it was costing me in repairs from being an older vehicle is more money in my pocket. I get an average of 33.5 mpgs with this car which is twice as much. My insurance on the blazer is costing me the same money as the cruze is, so now the blazer is parked and is going to stay that way for a while.


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

Yea i was driving a 1996 chevy s10 with the 4.3 liter. Great truck but the money i save in gas literally makes my car payment.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## Beachernaut (Mar 27, 2012)

I have yet to read a CR article that made me feel that they made an honest effort to be unbiased, and cover all of the information relevant.

However, they are also missing the fact that some people purchase the high MPG models for reasons other than the fact that they are the high MPG models. My requirements were that it had to be 4 door, fairly comfortable, and a manual. Although there were several other manual cars on the lot, the ECO was the one I liked best. Apparently I spent the extra $500 (or whatever it is) on the right color and wheels I liked.... Oh well.

Besides, I traded in a SUV that got 15mpg on a good day. I'm not going to even do the math, but I'm pretty sure that in the 2500 miles I've put on the Cruze, the fuel savings have already paid for the trim difference.

Edit: Apparently I'm not the only one that went from the S-10 platform to a Cruze.


This discussion is pretty much invalid anyway. What about those who bought the LTZ? It's like telling them they were wrong to buy that trim level because it's not worth the extra money. However, if they are happy with their LTZ purchase, they got the correct car. Much of it is a matter of personal preference. You aren't wrong because I don't like your car.


----------



## baghdaddy (Sep 26, 2011)

baghdaddy said:


> I saw the article, and I drive a Cruze ECO Manual. I drive mostly commuting, from the suburbs of Washington, DC, to a downtown office, with a couple of 300 mile trips a year.
> With 12,000 miles on the odometer, my AVERAGE MPG is 40.3! I don't know how CR got less than 30, because I am not a hyper miler, in fact, I drive my Cruze pretty quick. CR should test the manual, and see what they get.
> On my most recent trip, to Myrtle Beach with a friend, and all our luggage, golf clubs, etc, I got over 46mpg average, and part of that was stuck on I-95 on Sunday afternoon, in very slow stop and go traffic for about 40 miles. 46 miles per gallon, in my non-hybrid, 4 cylinder turbo, $20,500 Chevy Cruze--- awesome! Don't believe CR-- believe the people here on Cruzetalk--- the ECO is well worth the few extra bucks. Great mileage, quiet, and quick. Try it, you'll like it.


Update: with over 19,000 miles on the clicker, I am still averaging over 40mpg-- mow showing average of 40.2 for total miles driven. Very nice for my commuter car. 
I should tell the skeptics that I do commute into DC at about 6:30am, when traffic is much lighter, and there is very little stop and go. If I were stuck in regular rush hour, my mpg would be much lower!


----------



## DrVette (Dec 6, 2011)

Sounds like CR has an influence from Big Oil

IMHO


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

DrVette said:


> Sounds like CR has an influence from Big Oil
> 
> IMHO


The article is only slightly inaccurate. They are looking at cruze eco automatic with window sticker does only get 1mpg better than the standard automatic. real world seems most see about 3mpg better than the standard auto, so really only saves $60 a year, not the $20 they claim. 

I suspect if you could get any eco manual driver to switch to a 1LT manual(window sticker difference of 42mpg eco, 38mph 1lt), you would see on there average drives they get about the same MPG with very little savings over a year. 

At thousands more than a 1LT the ECO is not worth it automatic or manual if you are buying for MPG to save you money. Current 2013 prices the eco manual is $1120 more than the 1LT, the automatic $1220. Even if the automatic saved your $60 a year, it would take 20 years to recover the initial extra cost. If the eco manual was 6mpg better than the 1lt manual(which I doubt in real world), That would save $120 a year so it would take 10 years to recover the initial cost.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

^^^Exactly. But don't mention that to the Eco drivers here that do solely highway driving


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

spacedout said:


> The article is only slightly inaccurate. They are looking at cruze eco automatic with window sticker does only get 1mpg better than the standard automatic. real world seems most see about 3mpg better than the standard auto, so really only saves $60 a year, not the $20 they claim.
> 
> I suspect if you could get any eco manual driver to switch to a 1LT manual(window sticker difference of 42mpg eco, 38mph 1lt), you would see on there average drives they get about the same MPG with very little savings over a year.
> 
> At thousands more than a 1LT the ECO is not worth it automatic or manual if you are buying for MPG to save you money. Current 2013 prices the eco manual is $1120 more than the 1LT, the automatic $1220. Even if the automatic saved your $60 a year, it would take 20 years to recover the initial extra cost. If the eco manual was 6mpg better than the 1lt manual(which I doubt in real world), That would save $120 a year so it would take 10 years to recover the initial cost.


I haven't driven an LT manual, but my experiences with the ECO MT is that the EPA highway estimate for the ECO is about 10% low. It should be around 45-46 MPG EPA Highway. All the little tweaks GM used for aerodynamics combined with the long legs of 6th gear really make a difference. I also find the city estimate (28 MPG) for the ECO MT to be low. I get around 35 city. However, I'm not driving in one of the large coastal cities so it may be that 28 is correct. You'll notice my lifetime combined MPG (~70% highway) is over the EPA highway estimate.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

spacedout said:


> The article is only slightly inaccurate. They are looking at cruze eco automatic with window sticker does only get 1mpg better than the standard automatic. real world seems most see about 3mpg better than the standard auto, so really only saves $60 a year, not the $20 they claim.
> 
> I suspect if you could get any eco manual driver to switch to a 1LT manual(window sticker difference of 42mpg eco, 38mph 1lt), you would see on there average drives they get about the same MPG with very little savings over a year.
> 
> At thousands more than a 1LT the ECO is not worth it automatic or manual if you are buying for MPG to save you money. Current 2013 prices the eco manual is $1120 more than the 1LT, the automatic $1220. Even if the automatic saved your $60 a year, it would take 20 years to recover the initial extra cost. If the eco manual was 6mpg better than the 1lt manual(which I doubt in real world), That would save $120 a year so it would take 10 years to recover the initial cost.


I think that many Eco MT owners are folks who drive a lot, so they very deliberately chose a high-MPG car instead of a "sportier-geared" LT. With fuel costs a concern, that 4 mpg difference adds up quickly at 20-30k miles a year. The highest I've heard a 1LT manual get is ~47-48 mpg on a long trip and 40-42 mpg tanks, while I can routinely get 47 mpg tanks during the summer and 42-44 mpg during the winter. With the amount I drive, the difference adds up quickly. 

I've already repaid 2012 Eco's price premium over the 2012 LS MT's in fuel savings since purchasing my car. Then again, I drive a lot so a high-MPG car makes lots of sense for me.


----------



## baghdaddy (Sep 26, 2011)

baghdaddy said:


> I saw the article, and I drive a Cruze ECO Manual. I drive mostly commuting, from the suburbs of Washington, DC, to a downtown office, with a couple of 300 mile trips a year.
> With 12,000 miles on the odometer, my AVERAGE MPG is 40.3!


Updating-- with now over 37,000 miles on the clock, my avg MPG is still over 40mpg. Not sure if it is at 40.3 or 40.2, because I haven't looked the last day or two, but it is still over 40.


----------



## WhiteAndBright (Mar 4, 2013)

sciphi said:


> The highest I've heard a 1LT manual get is ~47-48 mpg on a long trip and 40-42 mpg tanks, while I can routinely get 47 mpg tanks during the summer and 42-44 mpg during the winter.


I can pull over 47 in my 12 LTZ in the summer.. I have a tank over 700 miles on a trip from Co to Ok.. IIRC my avg was just a hair over 50mpg and used right at 14 gal, now I know the conditions were in my favor with the wind and going down in elevation but I still went 700 miles pump to pump without stopping..

I'm going to try and beat that this year when I drive to Lordstown for the annual meet..



Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

49.9 was my best and I won't say what my worst was.


----------



## jalaner (Dec 28, 2013)

Consumer Reports is not perfect but is the only unbiased information source for consumers. They are not car enthusiasts and do not pamper the cars, basically treating the cars like a refrigerator or other product. Most of the tested cars are almost new and not broken in. The tested fuel economy may be worse than a real car guy (or girl) would get after owning the car for a while and learning to drive it economically. The reliability ratings from actual car owners are a very valuable tool for any car buyer and are available nowhere else. I purchased a 2008 Pontiac Vibe based on their reliability recommendation and it has never required a single repair. My new Cruze Diesel and a Cruze 1LT rental that I drove for a month (while the Diesel was in the shop) posted the exact fuel economy numbers that CR published.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

jalaner said:


> Consumer Reports is not perfect but is the only unbiased information source for consumers. They are not car enthusiasts and do not pamper the cars, basically treating the cars like a refrigerator or other product. Most of the tested cars are almost new and not broken in. The tested fuel economy may be worse than a real car guy (or girl) would get after owning the car for a while and learning to drive it economically. The reliability ratings from actual car owners are a very valuable tool for any car buyer and are available nowhere else. I purchased a 2008 Pontiac Vibe based on their reliability recommendation and it has never required a single repair. My new Cruze Diesel and a Cruze 1LT rental that I drove for a month (while the Diesel was in the shop) posted the exact fuel economy numbers that CR published.


So far my experience with Consumer Reports car ratings is that they are 100% wrong. The best cars I've had have been panned by CR and the worst have been CR Best Buys.


----------



## sx sonic (Nov 25, 2013)

CD sucks, their evaluations are about as thorough and holistic as a 6th graders analysis on how to build a space shuttle. They routinely lose sight of the big picture and regularly show bias.

I read their articles with a cup of salt.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

obermd said:


> So far my experience with Consumer Reports car ratings is that they are 100% wrong. The best cars I've had have been panned by CR and the worst have been CR Best Buys.


I found it funny that they recommended the Jeep Liberty (my dad bought one)...then 3 years later, said not to buy it as a used car.

It has not been a reliable car.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

CR panned the Pontiac Transport and Montana mini vans I had as well as the Chevy Cruze yet all three have been great cars for me. They gave the Dodge Intrepid a best buy and it was an absolute lemon with major repairs required between the end of the 36K warranty and 40K miles. In addition it stalled for most of the time we had it with the stalling only be resolved when the fuel pump finally went out at 70K miles. Multiple dealerships couldn't figure out what was causing the stalling. My wife and I didn't even look at CR when she was looking to replace her Dodge Lemon.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

If you look through the eyes of a road test driver you would realise that their concept of any car is completely different to that of the owner. For starters they don't have any financial interest in the cars they test and really don't place any value on them. No fuel tyres or maintenance is a problem for them and because they get to test some top tier cars our cars are just a chore to them and they just want to get it over with. You won't find them talking about the cheap car they just tested but the Ferrari or Corvette they have driven. I find that the most honest comparison made by car jurnos is made by women as they tend to be more interested in features that are "woman" friendly.

Just for information only my diesel at110kph (68mph) is doing 1750rpm.


----------



## jalaner (Dec 28, 2013)

Consumer Reports first rated the 2011 Cruze in 2012. They were positive about the comfort, safety, and price. Unimpressed with the fuel economy. They were unable to recommend it until the first year of average or above reliability was reported in 2013. The Cruze is on their recommended list now. The new Dodge Intrepid was recommended in 2000 and 2004. The recommendation stated that they were too new for reliability ratings. In 2003 and 2004 the 1994-1999 and 2001 were added to the Used Cars to Avoid list after poor reliability was reported by owners. In 2006 the 1997-1999 Intrepids were added to the Avoid list. In 2008 the 1997-2000 and 2003 were added to the Avoid list. CR rated the 2005-2008, 2010 and 2011 Jeep Liberty as a Used Car to Avoid. Maybe all of the CR haters are referencing a different Consumer Reports. I'm sure you can get better information from car dealers and free internet sites.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

jalaner said:


> Consumer Reports first rated the 2011 Cruze in 2012. They were positive about the comfort, safety, and price. Unimpressed with the fuel economy. They were unable to recommend it until the first year of average or above reliability was reported in 2013. The Cruze is on their recommended list now. The new Dodge Intrepid was recommended in 2000 and 2004. The recommendation stated that they were too new for reliability ratings. In 2003 and 2004 the 1994-1999 and 2001 were added to the Used Cars to Avoid list after poor reliability was reported by owners. In 2006 the 1997-1999 Intrepids were added to the Avoid list. In 2008 the 1997-2000 and 2003 were added to the Avoid list. CR rated the 2005-2008, 2010 and 2011 Jeep Liberty as a Used Car to Avoid. Maybe all of the CR haters are referencing a different Consumer Reports. I'm sure you can get better information from car dealers and free internet sites.


That didn't help people using CR for first generation Dodge Intrepids when they were new. They were a CR Best Buy, along with almost any other Dodge/Chrysler product on the market at the time. I strongly suspect, but cannot prove, that CR had a Dodge fan on their staff reviewing cars. I have yet to meet an owner of a non-RAM truck Dodge or Chrysler product during that era who was happy with the reliability of their car.


----------



## jalaner (Dec 28, 2013)

Several years ago CR changed their rating system to address that exact problem. They now require average or above reliability history before adding any car to the recommended list. New or redesigned cars are no longer recommended until proven reliable. Reliability of any car model can also change over time. The ratings are not infallible but it is the best they can do since it is difficult to predict the future. I continue to believe CR is valid and I have saved myself a lot of money and grief by subscribing to their service.


----------



## sx sonic (Nov 25, 2013)

Having done some testing for companies, both pre production and Beta I can honestly say I CANNOT see it from CRs road testers perspective if their results reflect their methodology.

It doesn't matter if It's a Ferrari Enzo or a Prius, a review is a review, this is their line of work and giving a more thorough review of one type of rare car over a common car is a GUARANTEED sign of faulty and untrustworthy testing/mindset! in the case of cars is compared to cars in its class or near It's class unless otherwise specified. All should be given ample road time before officially announcing findings with a comprehensive analysis of features, comfort, fuel economy, space, utility, looks, performance, and driving dynamics (which are almost always lacking in depth).

It's that simple, drive it and note how each feels and compares to It's peers, It's also a sign of proper testing if the tester indicates what is actually better (objective) and what feels better (subjective) when comparing cars. Another HUGE indicator of accurate results is a lack of sugar coating (especially for the perceived "favorite" brands), this is very rare though and severely lacking in CD, and requires careful reading between the lines. As far as I've seen only one commercial tester, and one of Edmunds performance testers gives complete unrestrained reviews; unfortunately the magazine in question only tests motocross bikes and gear.

Focus on some feature and avoidance of other important categories is a sure sign of either poor vehicle attributes or biased writing. Eg car X has an awesome 60 inch navigation that's so effing cool and does blah, blah, blah..... car X is a little uncertain in turns but otherwise isn't bad handling; this = worthless review and what I see a lot in CD, some stupid feature hyped up and some tragic everyday trait like vehicle controls or driving dynamics overlooked.


At anyrate I'm starting to ramble. All I can say is I see many tragic flaws in CDs testing and expect bias or poor testing methods and/or criteria. No part of their testing methods or analysis that I've seen would qualify for much more than entertainment in my eye, It's seriously lacking.


----------



## jalaner (Dec 28, 2013)

Yea I guess you are right. Next time I buy a car I will probably just ask the dealer to pick out the best deal for me. Maybe I'll ask the salesman who sold my Cruze Diesel to me. He didn't know what a glow plug was. This really works well with used cars. When I buy a new TV I'll depend on the expertise and honesty of the highly trained sales staff at Best Buy. When I want reliability information I'll ask my neighbor with a similar product to provide his anecdotal opinion instead of using the objective data gathered from millions of consumers by CR, a non profit union of consumers a that does not accept advertising.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

jalaner said:


> Yea I guess you are right. Next time I buy a car I will probably just ask the dealer to pick out the best deal for me. Maybe I'll ask the salesman who sold my Cruze Diesel to me. He didn't know what a glow plug was. This really works well with used cars. When I buy a new TV I'll depend on the expertise and honesty of the highly trained sales staff at Best Buy. When I want reliability information I'll ask my neighbor with a similar product to provide his anecdotal opinion instead of using the objective data gathered from millions of consumers by CR, a non profit union of consumers a that does not accept advertising.


A little sarcastic - you think. What sonic sx and I have both stated is that we have experience directly contradicting Consumer Reports' recommendations. I'm glad that they have changed their processes for car reviews/recommendations but for me at least that's too little too late. If you have had good luck with them, by all means use them as one source of information. I will use other sources such as JD Powers and on-line forums. I know the forums will show the worst of the cars, but knowing the worst can be useful as well as knowing the best.


----------



## jalaner (Dec 28, 2013)

JD Power and Associates is a marketing firm owned by McGraw Hill Financial. A majority of the company revenues are generated from automotive manufacturers and other corporations that directly benefit from the recommendations. I find most advertising distasteful so I could not spend much time reviewing the site. I did note a few interesting observations about JD Power recommendations from my short review. The reliability ratings only cover initial reliability and the first 3 years while Consumer Reports covers 12 years. I believe that most car owners would benefit more from reliability surveys that cover years 4-12 when repairs and loaner cars are not covered by warranty. I find it an odd coincidence that the JDP reliability information ends at exactly the point that consumers would need it the most. Both JDP and CR also recommend many cars that performed poorly on the IIHS Small Overlap Frontal Crash test. CR always reports this result and JDP does not. For example, both recommend the Honda Fit. CR reports the poor crash test result. JDP does not. IIHS developed this test because this type of crash results in many devastating leg injuries and fatalities in cars that score well in all other crash testing. Again an odd coincidence, because I'm sure that an automobile advertising company would not withhold this information, with potentially fatal outcome, from car buyers.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

I have not found any magazine/website doing car reviews that did not seem to have some bias toward one car or another. My issue with Consumer Reports is their method for testing MPG is not what most will get real world. They use some excessively heavy city driving, using a cold engine for most of the test. 

I don't remember the exact numbers CR got, but if I remember correctly I would have to take a 10MPG hit from my 40K mile mpg average with my 1LT to get as low as they did. You know there is something wrong with their testing methods when I can beat their mpg average in the dead of winter using remote start for 5-10 minutes a day.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

I believe that driving a small turbo engine would be difficult to do properly for a road tester as the sort of RPM that I see used by the members of this forum seem really low for a turbo car. You just don't expect a small engine to pull at low revs and would tend to use more than is really needed. I know they are supposed to know better but do they really know how to drive for economy in this type of car?


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Aussie said:


> I believe that driving a small turbo engine would be difficult to do properly for a road tester as the sort of RPM that I see used by the members of this forum seem really low for a turbo car. You just don't expect a small engine to pull at low revs and would tend to use more than is really needed. I know they are supposed to know better but do they really know how to drive for economy in this type of car?


Some reviewers are starting to learn, but for the most part American car reviewers think you have to be at the red line all the time.


----------



## Zenturi (Jan 25, 2014)

> I have yet to meet an owner of a non-RAM truck Dodge or Chrysler product during that era who was happy with the reliability of their car.


It is well established among car dealers to avoid Intrepids/Concordes as trades. It's also fascinating how quickly those disappeared (along with the cloud cars) from the roads. But I still see quite a number of old soldier Saturns, Buick Centurys, Ford Tauruses etc from the late 90s still being driven.

High MPG is definately not everything when considering used cars. Can you get parts quickly and cheaply? Are there mechanics familiar with it? 

How much will you drive ... REALLY? Someone that drives 8000 miles a year doesn't even need to put MPG high on their list of concerns.


----------



## jalaner (Dec 28, 2013)

The driver has a lot of control over MPG. When I bought my CTD I decided to let my girlfriend drive my 2008 Pontiac Vibe (EPA 25 city,31 HWY) which returned about 32 MPG for me when driven carefully. The MPG immediately dropped to about 24 MPG. She is always in a hurry, accelerates up to stops then brakes hard, and requires AC most of the time so her hair doesn't friz. In 2008 Consumer Reports rated MPG at 28, the average of both driving styles.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Zenturi said:


> How much will you drive ... REALLY? Someone that drives 8000 miles a year doesn't even need to put MPG high on their list of concerns.


Not sure what you mean by this, as higher MPG will cost less money every time. Lets say I buy a brand new toyota tundra that gets 12.5mpg vs my cruze average of 36mpg. That 8,000 miles could cost me $2240(640 gallons) in the tundra or $778 in the cruze(222 gallons).

My monthly average miles driven is 1700, to drive a toyota tundra would average more gallons a month that I used when I put 4000+ miles on my cruze in a month.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Zenturi said:


> High MPG is definately not everything when considering used cars. Can you get parts quickly and cheaply? Are there mechanics familiar with it?
> 
> How much will you drive ... REALLY? Someone that drives 8000 miles a year doesn't even need to put MPG high on their list of concerns.





spacedout said:


> Not sure what you mean by this, as higher MPG will cost less money every time. Lets say I buy a brand new toyota tundra that gets 12.5mpg vs my cruze average of 36mpg. That 8,000 miles could cost me $2240(640 gallons) in the tundra or $778 in the cruze(222 gallons).
> 
> My monthly average miles driven is 1700, to drive a toyota tundra would average more gallons a month that I used when I put 4000+ miles on my cruze in a month.


This depends on the actual miles driven, type of driving, MPG differences, and cost/per gallon differences. For instance, someone driving a 2014 LTZ mainly in the city won't see any cost of ownership benefits moving to the CDT. But someone driving a hundred highway miles a day in a 2014 LTZ will see cost of ownership benefits moving to the CDT.


----------



## spaycace (Feb 9, 2012)

I guess my question would be ... are they simply using the manufacturer ratings, or did they perform ACTUAL testing on the vehicles on "level terms" to get these numbers? I still seem to find the best numbers for the Eco when looking at fueleconomy.gov to actual drivers' mpg reports.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

spaycace said:


> I guess my question would be ... are they simply using the manufacturer ratings, or did they perform ACTUAL testing on the vehicles on "level terms" to get these numbers? I still seem to find the best numbers for the Eco when looking at fueleconomy.gov to actual drivers' mpg reports.


My personal opinion is that the ECO MT should be rated 33/47/38 (City/Highway/Combined). This means that at 65 MPH on the freeway you will be getting +/- 1 MPG of the highway MPG. In Denver I have never gotten below 35 MPG driving cross town on city streets and usually average 37-38 MPG. The combined rating of 38 is (City * 0.65) + (Highway * 0.35).


----------



## bruces1g (Feb 12, 2012)

NYCruze2012 said:


> If we are looking to save money by purchasing more economical cars is it really worth it in the end? All the money and fuel we are going to save just got nullified by the purchase of a new car plus more insurance. Sure we may use less fuel which is good for the environment but it has cost us more money to do so.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3


I think that depends on what you are coming from and where you are geographically as it relates to fuel prices. 

In my Trailblazer ('02 4x4 LT model), I was spending approximately $100 per week for a 50+ mile round trip commute. With my Cruze, it is about $100 per month. Where I live gas averages about $3.50 per gallon, with it being closer to $4 when I was driving the Trailblazer. The payment on my ECO after trading the Trailblazer is just a few cents over $300 and my insurance is actually LESS for the Cruze for same coverage.

So the end results are that the savings in gas/insurance is more than covering the difference plus I am driving a much newer vehicle. The added bonus is that the 6MT Eco is much more fun to drive!


----------



## RollinOn18s (Mar 28, 2013)

obermd said:


> This depends on the actual miles driven, type of driving, MPG differences, and cost/per gallon differences. For instance, someone driving a 2014 LTZ mainly in the city won't see any cost of ownership benefits moving to the CDT. But someone driving a hundred highway miles a day in a 2014 LTZ will see cost of ownership benefits moving to the CDT.



I get get where you're going with this, but feel that it's not the right comparison. A better one would be a LS to an eco. Running around town the 1.8 will only be slightly harder on gas than an Eco, but really not much. And definately you would never recover the money spent for the Eco. If you were a heavy highway commuter you will be getting an easy 10 mpg more in the Eco. 

The reason why I feel the diesel does not work aswell is the city driving of a diesel will beat an Eco 6mt let alone an auto Ltz


----------



## tracepk (Aug 20, 2013)

Someone somewhere ****** up royally with their driving...you can run any model cruze at 2000-3000rpm and still get better than 30...Ive got a 2LT 6M, am super heavy on the gas, heavy acceleration from launch and speeding/passing people constantly and still get 34-35 avg..


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Currently all city I'm seeing a lifetime average of 33mpg (american) I don't know if that's descent but I'm only at 2500 miles


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

money_man said:


> Currently all city I'm seeing a lifetime average of 33mpg (american) I don't know if that's descent but I'm only at 2500 miles


For all city that's excellent. The CTD is rated 27 MPG city.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

makes me feel better


----------



## spaycace (Feb 9, 2012)

money_man said:


> Currently all city I'm seeing a lifetime average of 33mpg (american) I don't know if that's descent but I'm only at 2500 miles


That's not even anywhere NEAR broken in yet (as diesels have a habit of doing), so I would guess that number will still increase as you approach the 10-20 thousand mile mark. Some even claim that on the VW diesels, 30k is the magic number. I'm also more curious as to how often you're having to refill the "diesel exhaust fluid" reservoir on the TD? I know my wife's uncle has a truck that uses it, and he fills it up rather often, and hates it too BTW because it seems his diesel mpg has dropped from his older truck that didn't require that fluid. After reading an article about the comparisons between the TD and the Eco, I would have to opt for the Eco since the price per gallon for fuel is less, and I KNOW for sure what kind of mpg I can expect on the Eco because I used to own one. Perhaps by the time I'm ready to purchase a 2015, I'll see posts on here from some of you TD owners to see if my decision will be swayed towards diesel ...


----------



## ryansimm (Sep 29, 2013)

my take had my eco for almost a year now over 46k on the clock now i usually net 36-38 typically in new england i have maxed out on a 56.3 mpg average getting about 600 mile to a single tank so yes straight looking at numbers can help but its all in how you drive the eco options are a tool to help mitigate fuel costs its up to you as to how effectively you use them.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Most ppl with the TDs say 10k miles for the def


----------

