# Extra Cost For Diesel Model



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

I am 100% with you on that! I think my car is worth every penny that I paid for it in many ways. The highway fuel economy easily exceeds the window sticker in normal driving. The blast of torque off idle is so fun - plus it makes much more powerful engines such as GM's own 300+ HP V6 seem downright lazy in the same RPM range. The steering feel is quite good, I love how quiet it is on the highway and I could go on.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Many of the reports are also based on the ECO MT price, which is $1,000 lower than the ECO AT. If you like rowing your own gears and want the mpg go with the ECO MT. If you don't like rowing your own gears or the ECO MT is missing some creature comfort you just have to have go with the Diesel. I'm impressed with both.


----------



## steveg241 (Jul 18, 2013)

I concur on all points. I love diesel engines and it seems at this point the in US, all diesels are higher end models. Fine by me as that is what I am looking for. Very comfortable vehicle with power and economy. All the things I want in a car.


----------



## KpaxFAQ (Sep 1, 2013)

It's easy to be a critic...

It's what I wanted and a price I could afford that was worth what I wanted. Beyond that...if you have to worry about calculating each and every cent, you probably can't afford it. 

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Sperry (Aug 3, 2013)

Nobody believes the mileage I'm get at work. I just love the little beast . Lol. Well worth the cost of admission to me


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## jpm84092 (Jun 23, 2013)

I had a 2011 Cruze ECO MT Turbo and I loved it (traded it in on my 2014 Cruze CTD). I sort of liked manual shifting, but here in Mountain Country (Utah), that was a lot of mountain road highway shifting. I would recommend the Cruze ECO MT to anyone and it got a bit better than EPA sticker. But, my 2014 Clean Turbo Diesel is heads above the gas driven version. It can tackle the Utah mountains without breaking a sweat, and without downshifting. The acceleration really is like a 70's version Camero, and the mileage is awesome. On a "real world" highway adventure from Salt Lake City to Milwaukee and back, my composite mileage was 51.2 mpg. Keep in mind that this trip involved parts of UT and WY that had really steep climbs that went on for miles at a time.

Sperry (above) referred to his as a "beast". Yup - it is a "beast" - a torque-monster.

And, the OP made a good point. To compare pricing, you need to match trim and add-on costs.I have the 2LT Convenience package and the back-up camera and heated mirrors are awesome and worth the price.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

If Diesel was priced like overseas I would be fine with it. ECO 6mt VS diesel is moot outside of mpg until they build a ECO 6mt Diesel with all the stuff they deleted from us like no sunroof, leather seats and such. What was the weight of the diesel wheels again?


----------



## Scott M. (Apr 23, 2013)

It should be offered in all trim levels. I like all the options I have but people who can only afford to spend 20K for a cruze are out of luck.


----------



## KpaxFAQ (Sep 1, 2013)

Scott M. said:


> It should be offered in all trim levels. I like all the options I have but people who can only afford to spend 20K for a cruze are out of luck.


If this does well I believe it will be available in more trims just like the Jetta. This model "trial run" was specifically aimed at a certain buyer and after reading the buyer they were aiming for I am an exact fit lol. I guess the marketing people have me all figured out. (Young "28", male, first time diesel car buyer, higher income, looking for something fun, unique, and different to drive. Excellent economy with many creature comforts inside) I was getting a loaded trim (minus nav and rearview if possible which is the "base cruise diesel" I got) in any car I bought so throwing a diesel in for 2 grand more was an easy choice!


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

I think one important point that I noticed in my own evaluation is the perception that the car is worth what they are asking for it. I wouldn't give anywhere near $17,xxx for an LS Cruze base model (not that it's a bad car, but I have seen them advertised for $13,xxx brand new), but I had no problem paying $23,xxx for my Diesel. To me the car was worth the money overall, considering everything. Oddly enough, I never felt that way about the Jetta and never bought one.


----------



## 2013Cruze (Aug 4, 2012)

567Chief said:


> I have read many posts in this forum as well as reviews online stating how much more the diesel cost to purchase versus the gas. Most of the numbers I read seem to be comparing the base to the diesel not the 2LT to the diesel. If I go online and build one comparable to my car in the 2LT trim, with the gas motor, the difference is $1,680. For that $1,680 you get a more efficient/powerful motor, heavier brakes, quieter interior, better resale value, more longevity, and a much better driving experience. I feel that $1,680 is a fair price to pay for all that you are getting. Just my 2 cents.


Not sure where you came up 1,680 more than a 2LT because a loaded Cruze Diesel costs more than a loaded Cruze LTZ RS.


----------



## 2013LT (Jul 3, 2013)

I'm still a little outraged the diesel is not available in manual, and if it was how good would the mileage be. obermd pretty much nailed it though.


----------



## steveg241 (Jul 18, 2013)

I believe if there is demand, GM will listen and bring in a manual. They have too much to lose with higher fleet fuel requirements and competition not just from Audi/VW, but also new players like Mazda. So far demand seems to be good. I would have purchased a manual were it available.


----------



## 567Chief (Feb 25, 2013)

2013Cruze said:


> Not sure where you came up 1,680 more than a 2LT because a loaded Cruze Diesel costs more than a loaded Cruze LTZ RS.



http://www.chevrolet.com/cruze-compact-car/build-your-own.html?x-zipcode=36101

2LT Auto with:
Black Granite Paint
2LT/Diesel Convenience Pkg
Safety Pkg
Sunroof
Spoiler
Splash Guards
Fog Lamps dealer
Front Plate dealer 
My link w/nav
Pioneer
Keyless w/start

Diesel:
Black Granite Paint
2LT/Diesel Convenience Pkg
Safety Pkg
Sunroof
Splash Guards dealer
Fog Lamps dealer
Front Plate dealer
My link w/nav
Pioneer

2LT= $28075
Diesel= $29755
For a difference of $1680


----------



## Handles (Oct 8, 2012)

While my ECO MT was in the shop, I got a full 7 day use of the CTD and was able to take my exact 220 interstate round trip drive to work 2x and had some other general driving around town/hwy that I would also normally do. Was I impressed overall? Yes, I liked the CTD. Enough to buy one? No. Follow along. 
1. The diesel was loud. Not noticeable at hwy but everywhere else, yes, much louder interior engine noise than my ECO. My wife drove it a bit and not knowing it was a diesel said "What is wrong with that car? It is so loud and clunky sounding." 
2. Power - low-midrange was good, but in reality there is no difference, in 0-60 times. The heavier weight slows the CTD and the two are nearly identical And who buys a Cruze to drag race anyway? That would make as much sense as a football bat. 
3. Mileage. On the almost 600 miles I put on the CTD I averaged 41.8 mpg. Almost identical to my 41.2 that I typically get on the same driving. Peak mpg on the CTD was 51.1, On my Eco, 49.4. So let's just say that in the future (the CTD was new, so mileage will improve) that in the end the CTD will get 3mpg more than an eco. For the extra price in fuel, I'd never make up a dime of it, but would lose money each fill up, plus the extra cost up front, and living in MN where diesel gelling in winter can still be an issue... It doesn't make it worth my money to go that route. 

As some have mentioned regarding their personal driving habits. If I lived in the mountains, and/further south, I would probably be more interested in one, but as is it wouldn't make any sense, (financial or otherwise) for me to own one.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Reliability is higher on a diesel, they also have a much better Aisin automatic transmission. Most cases come with more standard equipment than the Eco as well. They have an aux electric heater for the colder months and if you look on the diesel section of the forum you'll see the only thing we talk about is what fluids to use and how far we get to a tank because nothing else seems to be going wrong with them. 

I'll agree at the points you highlighted that it wouldn't be worth it only basing your purchase on those bits but diesel owners look at the big picture


----------



## DieselMan33 (Oct 13, 2013)

Handles said:


> While my ECO MT was in the shop, I got a full 7 day use of the CTD and was able to take my exact 220 interstate round trip drive to work 2x and had some other general driving around town/hwy that I would also normally do. Was I impressed overall? Yes, I liked the CTD. Enough to buy one? No. Follow along.
> 1. The diesel was loud. Not noticeable at hwy but everywhere else, yes, much louder interior engine noise than my ECO. My wife drove it a bit and not knowing it was a diesel said "What is wrong with that car? It is so loud and clunky sounding."
> 2. Power - low-midrange was good, but in reality there is no difference, in 0-60 times. The heavier weight slows the CTD and the two are nearly identical And who buys a Cruze to drag race anyway? That would make as much sense as a football bat.
> 3. Mileage. On the almost 600 miles I put on the CTD I averaged 41.8 mpg. Almost identical to my 41.2 that I typically get on the same driving. Peak mpg on the CTD was 51.1, On my Eco, 49.4. So let's just say that in the future (the CTD was new, so mileage will improve) that in the end the CTD will get 3mpg more than an eco. For the extra price in fuel, I'd never make up a dime of it, but would lose money each fill up, plus the extra cost up front, and living in MN where diesel gelling in winter can still be an issue... It doesn't make it worth my money to go that route.
> ...


We might have ver different noise tolerances but I can only hear a faint rumble of the engine at idle. Anything over 20mpg it sounds just like any gas model I have driven and the whole cabin is much quieter then a gas version. You probably can't hear your engine in your eco because all of the wind noise. Not bashing the eco but comparing the interior noise from an eco to a diesel above 20 mph is night and day in my opinion. With the diesel being much quieter. 

Again, this might be your first time driving a diesel but of course it is always going to be louder then a gas version outside of the car and at idle. That is just the way they are designed. Go drive an older diesel truck and then drive a new diesel truck or car today and your will be amazed by the difference.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

It's true, the diesel is bragged about by motor trend and others about how quiet the interior is.


----------



## Su8pack1 (Apr 17, 2014)

For me diesel was the only way to go once GM offered it in a car.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Wtf. I posted in this the first time and thought I was the first reply. Stupid phone app


----------



## KpaxFAQ (Sep 1, 2013)

No one, no one saves money with a diesel. Especially with the modern emissions system that will cost you nice money negating the fuel savings if you own it long enough. It comes down to whether you appreciate the driving experience and can afford the price of admission. It's a premium product. 

Sometimes I feel like driving a diesel is like drinking a nice glass of scotch, your buddy comes over and has a glass, says it's "good" but you know he doesn't quite get it. It's for the refined driver lol.


----------



## DieselMan33 (Oct 13, 2013)

KpaxFAQ said:


> No one, no one saves money with a diesel. Especially with the modern emissions system that will cost you nice money negating the fuel savings if you own it long enough. It comes down to whether you appreciate the driving experience and can afford the price of admission. It's a premium product.
> 
> Sometimes I feel like driving a diesel is like drinking a nice glass of scotch, your buddy comes over and has a glass, says it's "good" but you know he doesn't quite get it. It's for the refined driver lol.


Exactly. With the way Chevy offers the diesel right now it is not comparable to a ECO. It has been discussed many many times on here. If they did offer a diesel with no leather, no heated seats, no mylink and a manual trans. Then we could discuss if it is worth the premium. It is a fact that a diesel engine is more efficient then a gas counterpart and it is only a matter of time before someone mates hybrid tech to a diesel and MPG will be in the 60MPG plus range.


----------



## ParisTNDude (Oct 7, 2013)

Handles said:


> While my ECO MT was in the shop, I got a full 7 day use of the CTD and was able to take my exact 220 interstate round trip drive to work 2x and had some other general driving around town/hwy that I would also normally do. Was I impressed overall? Yes, I liked the CTD. Enough to buy one? No. Follow along.
> 1. The diesel was loud. Not noticeable at hwy but everywhere else, yes, much louder interior engine noise than my ECO. My wife drove it a bit and not knowing it was a diesel said "What is wrong with that car? It is so loud and clunky sounding."
> 2. Power - low-midrange was good, but in reality there is no difference, in 0-60 times. The heavier weight slows the CTD and the two are nearly identical And who buys a Cruze to drag race anyway? That would make as much sense as a football bat.
> 3. Mileage. On the almost 600 miles I put on the CTD I averaged 41.8 mpg. Almost identical to my 41.2 that I typically get on the same driving. Peak mpg on the CTD was 51.1, On my Eco, 49.4. So let's just say that in the future (the CTD was new, so mileage will improve) that in the end the CTD will get 3mpg more than an eco. For the extra price in fuel, I'd never make up a dime of it, but would lose money each fill up, plus the extra cost up front, and living in MN where diesel gelling in winter can still be an issue... It doesn't make it worth my money to go that route.
> ...


The Cruze, in all of it's guises, is Chevy's worldwide best selling vehicle. It has won the European World Touring Car Championships for many years in a row. Pretty much proof that the Cruze is a great car in many different aspects. I suspect the Cruze is quieter inside and out than it's closest competitor, the Jetta and it gets much better fuel mileage at a comparable or better price. Time will tell if resale is better on the diesel than on the gas models and if reliability is as good or better. One thing for sure, there's no electronic ignition to cause problems at 100k miles. Most who drive or ride in a Cruze say it's very quiet and at my personal best of 65.2 on the 25 mile range, I'm pretty happy with fuel mileage. Besides, I love the sound of the diesel and often open windows so I can hear it better...to each his own. I don't think anyone's pressuring gas Cruze owners to switch.



money_man said:


> It's true, the diesel is bragged about by motor trend and others about how quiet the interior is.


You beat me to it. If Motor Trend says something good about a GM vehicle...it has to be VERY good in that respect!


----------



## Handles (Oct 8, 2012)

I seemed to have ruffled some feathers, which wasn't my intent. Obviously each person can make their own decision on what vehicle to buy. As my wife is thinking about a different car, I was really stoked to get the CTD for a week and see what it was like. I most certainly liked it. I think it would be a fine car for some people. At the end of the week though, looking at all the variables that I mentioned (and I left out that the ECO, being lighter, is a more nimble feeling car, and the extra weight of the CTD will mean replacing tires sooner) for my personal driving needs (and wants) the ECO MT is at the very least the most economical choice, and in some ways a more logical choice. I'm sure there will be some people who will be searching opinions, trying to figure out which one to buy, and why. I made a list for those individuals based on my very real driving experience in the exact same manner (roads, speed, etc) for a week and 600 miles. That's a test drive comparison that almost nobody in the real world will be able to come close to. 
Now if you want an automatic, leather, heated seats, etc and don't mind paying 40-50 cents more per gallon at the pump, I think the CTD is a great option especially vs it's other diesel competitors, and even vs. a Cruze with the same amenities and closer retail cost.


----------



## msav (Apr 24, 2014)

KpaxFAQ said:


> No one, no one saves money with a diesel. Especially with the modern emissions system that will cost you nice money negating the fuel savings if you own it long enough. It comes down to whether you appreciate the driving experience and can afford the price of admission. It's a premium product.
> 
> Sometimes I feel like driving a diesel is like drinking a nice glass of scotch, your buddy comes over and has a glass, says it's "good" but you know he doesn't quite get it. It's for the refined driver lol.



I am not exactly sure what you meant by this. 

Comparing to my previous car (2010 kia forte 34mpg) I am saving $30 per week in fuel. that is $1440.00 a year. Diesel is same price or cheaper in my area. I drive 180 miles per day

what are the costs associated in owning this CTD in the future that are going to negate these savings.

Please enlighten me. 

This is my first turbo diesel. I was Leary of all the electronics in the car so I opted for a 4yr/150,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Handles said:


> 3. Mileage. On the almost 600 miles I put on the CTD I averaged 41.8 mpg. Almost identical to my 41.2 that I typically get on the same driving. Peak mpg on the CTD was 51.1, On my Eco, 49.4. So let's just say that in the future (the CTD was new, so mileage will improve) that in the end the CTD will get 3mpg more than an eco. For the extra price in fuel, I'd never make up a dime of it, but would lose money each fill up, plus the extra cost up front, and living in MN where diesel gelling in winter can still be an issue... It doesn't make it worth my money to go that route.


Now if you had an automatic ECO model your MPG comparison would be valid, however your car gets 4-8mpg better than an automatic equipped gas 1.4T. So the fact you got the same MPG as you do normally is actually very very good. Ask any other manual cruze driver who has had an auto 1.4T for a few days they never seem to get above 33mpg.


----------



## Robby (Mar 1, 2013)

In general, a diesel has the potental to be cost effective under certain circumstances.
If you are a 50k plus miles annually operator, meaning minimum short hauls, predominate highway driving, not unlike a road going tractor, the operating costs can be less......that and operate in a climate that allows the sheet metal to not revert back to iron ore in less than ten years......however:
The potental is lost when ancillary failures come into the mix.
Short hauls introduce the possibility of the starter or alternator failing at a similar mileage to a gasser.
These components, due to their larger size and capabilities, are, on average, often double the price of the lighter duty gasser components.
A diesel introduces another component into the mix: glow plugs.
Again, short haul trips will shorten their lifespan.....the long haul croud will have rare failures due to less glow plug cycling.
Because of low emission requirements, the diesel now must have as much electrical gobblygook as a gasser so there is no gain in simplicity that diesels enjoyed years ago, so the thoughts of reduced electrical failures is essentially null.

The same battery failure rate as a gasser is probable and the higher ampherage battery a diesel requires is more expensive than a comparable gasser.

There are other examples......the particulate catcher may require replacement sooner than anticipated on the short haulers too.....a result of not being hot enouph, long enouph.

If I was the type that puts 50k a year on a car, with the intention of running it till the wheels fall off, and stick them back on for another year or two, a diesel would be my choice.
But, I'm a short hauler.....the trip to and from Lordstown last week was the longest my car has run since taking deliver two years ago......14k miles in two years.
Add to that, I get bored.....very rare for me to keep a car much past three years......I have been known to buy the same exact car simply because I liked it, but needed to see a new color or wanted different options.
I'm not alone.....and those who, like me, drive short, get bored, etc. a diesel won't work.....the next owner gets the benifit.

Anyways, to finish off, I part time for my son, repairing his equipment for his demolition company.
Until about two years ago he had his four jobsite supervisors in diesel pickups.....under the guise of lower costs.
Because the vehicles are predominatly short haulers, the maintenance was rather expensive as noted above, and, being in Northern Illinois, rust was a continual battle......mud plus salt is a evil evil mix.

We are now in mid conversion to gassers with the intent of rotating out every three years......already our service expense is falling.....fast.....

So, big miles, short time, diesel all the way.....short miles, long time, go gas if cost control is the plan.

Now, if you just dig diesels.....rock on....daym the expense and have fun with it.....thats what it's really about with cars...enjoyment IMO.

Rob


----------



## msav (Apr 24, 2014)

Robby thanks for clarifying. 

my purchase decision on a diesel was cost of fuel commuting. I factored that even though my car payment was about $40 more per month than my Kia, that the saving of $120 per month on fuel would offset that. 

when I read the above comment I got concerned that I made the decision without knowing all the facts and made the wrong decision. 


of course time will tell if I made a good decision once the reliability of the vehicle become more known. At least I have 150,000 mile piece of mind.


----------



## DrKlahn (Feb 10, 2014)

Part of the cost negation is speculation on how much the emissions systems will cost to replace/repair over the life of the vehicle. It's certainly going to be a factor, but it's to early to say how much. The extra weight of the diesel model will be a wear factor for things like tires and brakes, but we aren't talking about 1,000 lbs. Unless you had 2 cars being driven exactly the same your driving habits will likely be a much larger factor in wear items than the couple hundred pound weight difference.

After having a gas Cruze as a rental when I hit a deer with my Cobalt SS I find the diesel have better brakes and steering. Granted the rental was I think an LT, so I am making an assumption that the gas models all have basically the same brakes and steering. As far as gelling goes, we had the cold winter in the Midwest since '78 and I can't remember more than a few posts on here about it. I got my car in January and it sat outside for a couple -40* F (wind chills even lower) nights. Started every time. Modern diesel blends seemed to have really minimized the occurrences of this. Before I bought a diesel I talked with a friend who has driven a diesel Bug and now a diesel Passat every day for the last 8 years and a friend who drives truck. The only gelling incident the VW owner had was a cold snap with his Bug when he was running home brewed fry oil diesel. The guy who drives truck said the majority of problems happen when a truck comes from the South to the North without the right blend.

In the end I think both the Eco and CTD are great cars. My own decision was based on getting out of a manual (my wife just won't drive one), which made it a choice between the Eco A6 and the diesel (the diesel having a decent advantage economy wise here). Also I was concerned that the push to mandate higher Ethanol blends would negatively impact economy on the gas model and increase operating costs higher than I wanted.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

I went purely for the mpg and options. The resale was a big factor because in 2-3 years I'll probably trade it for a half ton truck. I'm also planning on buying a house and the extra mpg means I can move a little farther out of the city and not take a large hit in commuting costs


----------



## DJSW (Apr 8, 2014)

money_man said:


> I went purely for the mpg and options. The resale was a big factor because in 2-3 years I'll probably trade it for a half ton truck. I'm also planning on buying a house and the extra mpg means I can move a little farther out of the city and not take a large hit in commuting costs


+1 for me. I bought the CTD because my wife does 90% hwy at 80 miles a day. Plus we put about 20K miles a year on our cars. So at the end of a 6 year loan average a 120K(give or take a few thousand). Which will be worth more on trade in? Diesel all the way!
Plus we went from a 06 Saturn Vue Redline that got 22mpg to a CTD that is getting about 50mpg. Decent savings there.


----------



## Cruze2.0TD (Feb 12, 2014)

I priced it out on GM Canada's website and only got a $1310 price difference! I think the biggest difference in cost between the diesel (for me anyways) came from the financing. I could have gotten 0% for 84 months on any Cruze except the diesel. The diesel was 3.99%. I knew that when I got the diesel though and to me it is worth the extra cost. Even if the car never pays for itself in savings, the enjoyment to drive is so much more than the gas Cruze.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

It's definitely not just about the cost. If someone were only concerned about the cost, they should buy an old Geo Metro XFI. There are many things to like about the CTD that really only reveal themselves after you've owned one for a while.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

diesel said:


> It's definitely not just about the cost. If someone were only concerned about the cost, they should buy an old Geo Metro XFI.


Right because a 20+ year old car doesn't come with a bunch of headaches & end up costing as much or more than a new car payment. If the diesel makes you happy that's all that matters.


----------



## Robby (Mar 1, 2013)

So, you can see why I finished off with the 'Buy what YOU like' comment.

Truth of matter is you want to buy something that you still congratulate your purchass decision as you are writing the payment check.
No fun writing a check for something you really don't enjoy everyday.

You will often find yourselves trying to justify your decision to other folks when in fact all you have to say is 'I bought cause I liked it'

Nobody can dispute that response.

Have fun out there!
Rob


----------



## Cruze2.0TD (Feb 12, 2014)

Robby said:


> So, you can see why I finished off with the 'Buy what YOU like' comment.
> 
> Truth of matter is you want to buy something that you still congratulate your purchass decision as you are writing the payment check.
> No fun writing a check for something you really don't enjoy everyday.
> ...


That really sums it up. People will say "you could've gotten a base model Cruze for $16,000, why would you go with a diesel?!!?".....all I have to say is, "because I liked it."


----------



## Handles (Oct 8, 2012)

Since there is no option for MT in a CTD, I understand your concerns. However the thread title is "Extra Cost for Diesel Model". One of those extra costs is that there is no option for MT. That not only affects the upfront cost, but also decreases mpg for the diesel. 
People are drawn to and purchase the Cruze line very often because of financial/economic reasons. A car that costs more initially, and costs more to drive is certainly something that people will factor in. I personally decided on the MT because I knew I would get better mileage with it. Choosing a diesel would give me slightly better mpg's, but cost me more both at the purchase and at each gas stop. This has nothing to do with the CTD being a bad car, but rather has to do with it's extra weight, and the price at the pump. 
I also mentioned the noise difference which is very noticeable in city driving. As one poster said, he rather likes the sound. That's awesome for him. I'm glad he likes it. Nothing wrong with that. I just said the diesel is louder, period. Once again, just getting information out for those doing some searching.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

Yes! You can't really put a price on driving enjoyment. If you have a car you really like, it is worth every penny and then some.


----------



## DieselMan33 (Oct 13, 2013)

Handles said:


> Since there is no option for MT in a CTD, I understand your concerns. However the thread title is "Extra Cost for Diesel Model". One of those extra costs is that there is no option for MT. That not only affects the upfront cost, but also decreases mpg for the diesel.
> People are drawn to and purchase the Cruze line very often because of financial/economic reasons. A car that costs more initially, and costs more to drive is certainly something that people will factor in. I personally decided on the MT because I knew I would get better mileage with it. Choosing a diesel would give me slightly better mpg's, but cost me more both at the purchase and at each gas stop. This has nothing to do with the CTD being a bad car, but rather has to do with it's extra weight, and the price at the pump.
> I also mentioned the noise difference which is very noticeable in city driving. As one poster said, he rather likes the sound. That's awesome for him. I'm glad he likes it. Nothing wrong with that. I just said the diesel is louder, period. Once again, just getting information out for those doing some searching.


A good automatic trans will get the same MPG has a manual these days. The 14 Jetta TDI auto and manual are rated at exactly the same MPG.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Same or better 1/4 mile time too

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## jalaner (Dec 28, 2013)

I had to drive a 1LT for 34 days when my CTD was in the shop. I'm required to drive my car on long work related trips. The car is loaded with equipment and driven at 75-80 mph. The CTD averaged 45 mpg. 30 mpg is the best I could get with the 1LT on the same trips. My 56 cents per mile reimbursement covers my fuel and car payment. The CTD is much cheaper to operate. If I drive at 65 like most Eco hypermilers do I'll be mowed down by a speeding semi.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

jalaner said:


> I had to drive a 1LT for 34 days when my CTD was in the shop. I'm required to drive my car on long work related trips. The car is loaded with equipment and driven at 75-80 mph. The CTD averaged 45 mpg. 30 mpg is the best I could get with the 1LT on the same trips. My 56 cents per mile reimbursement covers my fuel and car payment. The CTD is much cheaper to operate. If I drive at 65 like most Eco hypermilers do I'll be mowed down by a speeding semi.


I'm having a brain fart, is that the 1.8 or 1.4T?


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

money_man said:


> I'm having a brain fart, is that the 1.8 or 1.4T?


Only the LS has a 1.8L.


----------



## Handles (Oct 8, 2012)

DieselMan33 said:


> A good automatic trans will get the same MPG has a manual these days. The 14 Jetta TDI auto and manual are rated at exactly the same MPG.


Didn't know this was the jetta forum. Curious why so many members on here have reported over and over that the cruze auto will always be between 3-5 (or more) mpg less than a manual? Does'nt matter diesel or gas. Auto's will cost you more at the pump.


----------



## Cruze2.0TD (Feb 12, 2014)

Handles said:


> Didn't know this was the jetta forum. Curious why so many members on here have reported over and over that the cruze auto will always be between 3-5 (or more) mpg less than a manual? Does'nt matter diesel or gas. Auto's will cost you more at the pump.


I think 3-5 mpg is an exaggeration, I could see 1-2 mpg. Also, I think he was saying the Jetta auto and manual are the same because it is a good ground for comparison. It is pretty hard to compare a manual Cruze diesel and an automatic Cruze diesel when only the automatic exists in North America. Also, there is some features that an auto now has that helps improve fuel economy. Like the way the Cruze puts itself into neutral when at a light. Now, I will say that the Jetta isn't as good of a comparison because the DSG transmission operates more like a manual. However, a new auto is not that far off of a manual. The reason manuals will get better fuel economy is because people will drive along in 6th gear at 25 mph to save some gas. If you did this an auto it'd greatly reduce fuel consumption as well.


----------



## Handles (Oct 8, 2012)

The reason that the auto's will lower mpg is that there is always a torque conversion process going on, and they weigh more. Both of those things equal lower mpg's.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Handles said:


> The reason that the auto's will lower mpg is that there is always a torque conversion process going on, and they weigh more. Both of those things equal lower mpg's.


Exactly, and I'd say the range you said above is pretty close for the LT gas model (the GM 6T40 just isn't the best transmission either).

Now, CVT's or dual-clutch autos without a torque converter might be much closer to the MT figures. In fact, in cars like the Accord with a CVT and MT option, the CVT does slightly better in both city and hwy tests because it can keep RPM at a consistent level the whole time.

I'd be willing to bet the 2.0TD with a manual might see very slightly higher city numbers, though the highway number might be the same.


----------



## ParisTNDude (Oct 7, 2013)

567Chief said:


> I have read many posts in this forum as well as reviews online stating how much more the diesel cost to purchase versus the gas. Most of the numbers I read seem to be comparing the base to the diesel not the 2LT to the diesel. If I go online and build one comparable to my car in the 2LT trim, with the gas motor, the difference is $1,680. For that $1,680 you get a more efficient/powerful motor, heavier brakes, quieter interior, better resale value, more longevity, and a much better driving experience. I feel that $1,680 is a fair price to pay for all that you are getting. Just my 2 cents.


I'm not sure, but I don't think you can get all the upgrades the diesel has on other Cruze models. Like: 4 wheel disk brakes, Aisin 6 speed, heavy duty suspension, larger tires and wheels? I'm not an expert on the variety of options on other Cruzes.???? If you built a 2LT could you even get these options?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

ParisTNDude said:


> I'm not sure, but I don't think you can get all the upgrades the diesel has on other Cruze models. Like: 4 wheel disk brakes, Aisin 6 speed, heavy duty suspension, larger tires and wheels? I'm not an expert on the variety of options on other Cruzes.???? If you built a 2LT could you even get these options?


2LT package comes standard with the Z-link rear suspension, 4 wheel disc and 17" wheels.

Unique to the diesel: AW transmission, larger disc brakes (it's a heavier car, so really negates the change), larger springs (heavier car), more sound insulation (definitely makes a difference).


----------



## ParisTNDude (Oct 7, 2013)

jpm84092 said:


> I had a 2011 Cruze ECO MT Turbo and I loved it (traded it in on my 2014 Cruze CTD). I sort of liked manual shifting, but here in Mountain Country (Utah), that was a lot of mountain road highway shifting. I would recommend the Cruze ECO MT to anyone and it got a bit better than EPA sticker. But, my 2014 Clean Turbo Diesel is heads above the gas driven version. It can tackle the Utah mountains without breaking a sweat, and without downshifting. The acceleration really is like a 70's version Camero, and the mileage is awesome. On a "real world" highway adventure from Salt Lake City to Milwaukee and back, my composite mileage was 51.2 mpg. Keep in mind that this trip involved parts of UT and WY that had really steep climbs that went on for miles at a time.
> 
> Sperry (above) referred to his as a "beast". Yup - it is a "beast" - a torque-monster.
> 
> And, the OP made a good point. To compare pricing, you need to match trim and add-on costs.I have the 2LT Convenience package and the back-up camera and heated mirrors are awesome and worth the price.


Your post is right on target with my feelings. I like to put the Cruze on cruise control even around town and watch other vehicles as we climb hills. The little Cruze that could, holds it's speed and most other vehicles fall behind.

The experts say hills won't effect fuel mileage as long as the route is "round trip". Yes, you lose mpg going up the hill, but you gain just as much on the down hill side. It averages out. If you watch your instant mpg meter, it drops to maybe 12 mpg going up the hill, but 99 going down the back side. Using that logic, you should gain mpg in hilly country.


----------



## ParisTNDude (Oct 7, 2013)

jblackburn said:


> 2LT package comes standard with 4 wheel disc and 17" wheels.
> 
> Unique to the diesel: AW transmission, larger disc brakes (it's a heavier car, so really negates the change), larger springs (heavier car), more sound insulation (definitely makes a difference).


How about the electric heater? This is an awesome feature that I don't think any other American car has???


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

ParisTNDude said:


> How about the electric heater? This is an awesome feature that I don't think any other American car has???


True! That's an awesome feature.

100% needed though on the diesel motor. The 1.4 EVENTUALLY makes heat, but takes its sweet time about it.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> Your post is right on target with my feelings. I like to put the Cruze on cruise control even around town and watch other vehicles as we climb hills. The little Cruze that could, holds it's speed and most other vehicles fall behind.


Even in gas form, with the non-Eco transmission, this car is amazing on hills...and I've owned another turbo gasser with 100 more HP/tq before that couldn't even pull hills like this car. Our other car is a non-turbo 4-cylinder and really struggles on mountain trips, often downshifting to 3500 RPM on hills. Meanwhile, the Cruze pulls them no problem in 6th gear. 

Just don't try to pass at highway speeds on a hill...


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

jblackburn said:


> True! That's an awesome feature.
> 
> 100% needed though on the diesel motor. The 1.4 EVENTUALLY makes heat, but takes its sweet time about it.


That's my only real gripe for winter. Those windows fog up quickly when the car barely warms up on those cold commutes. I'm glad that -20*F weather was rare situations. 


Sent from my iFail 5s


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Merc6 said:


> That's my only real gripe for winter. Those windows fog up quickly when the car barely warms up on those cold commutes. I'm glad that -20*F weather was rare situations.


This is why I bought weathertech window deflectors. No more fogging o windows in any weather. Dead of winter I now just crack all my windows and turn the floor heat. Sure it still take a bit to get heat, but I'm not fighting fogging. 

Really enjoy them when raining, used to fight fogging on inside and outside base of windshield. Now can drive around in the rain with heater turned off with no fogging at all. Can also stop and eat hot food in my car while raining with no fogging.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Aux heater is worth the extra cost alone.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

And the Aisin is far superior to the gm whatever it is crapomatic


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

ParisTNDude said:


> The experts say hills won't effect fuel mileage as long as the route is "round trip". Yes, you lose mpg going up the hill, but you gain just as much on the down hill side. It averages out. If you watch your instant mpg meter, it drops to maybe 12 mpg going up the hill, but 99 going down the back side. Using that logic, you should gain mpg in hilly country.


This is only partially true, from all my testing you loose a bit more in the climb than you gain back. However the DIC on the gas cruze sure will make it look like you gain back everything + a bit more. If I'm driving in hills I can guarantee a 4-6mpg loss vs staying of flatter routes. I live in the bottom of a valley with one way out of town that doesn't involve a 300+ foot hill. Even though this route adds 3 stop signs If I exclusively take that route I easily pick up the MPG listed above. 



jblackburn said:


> Even in gas form, with the non-Eco transmission, this car is amazing on hills..


Even the automatic gas cruze has no problem climbing some pretty steep grades in 6th gear, however you need to be into the power band enough first. 55mph will require a downshift to 5th on most steep grades, but 65-70mph can climb anything. Drove 4,000+ mile on a trip to Texas and back, my cruze never left 6th gear the entire highway trip at 68-82mph. On the two lane highways around here I usually drive 55-60mph but when a hill is approaching I usually kick my speed up to 62-64mph to stay in 6th.


----------



## DrKlahn (Feb 10, 2014)

jblackburn said:


> 2LT package comes standard with the Z-link rear suspension, 4 wheel disc and 17" wheels.
> 
> Unique to the diesel: AW transmission, larger disc brakes (it's a heavier car, so really negates the change), larger springs (heavier car), more sound insulation (definitely makes a difference).


I don't know about negates. The brakes in the diesel seem much better than the gas model I had as a rental. Quite impressive for the little econo box that it is.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

DrKlahn said:


> I don't know about negates. The brakes in the diesel seem much better than the gas model I had as a rental. Quite impressive for the little econo box that it is.


You probably had a 1LT with rear drums, the pedal feel is horrible, stopping power is good once you really push hard. The 2LT/LTZ with rear discs feels so much better, So much in fact I would not buy a 1LT if I had to do it again for the better brakes alone.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

DrKlahn said:


> I don't know about negates. The brakes in the diesel seem much better than the gas model I had as a rental. Quite impressive for the little econo box that it is.


If the rental had rear drum brakes like all but the 2LT/LTZ do, that isn't surprising. The pedal is mushy and most models with drums are mis-adjusted from the factory, biasing all but heavy braking towards the front discs.

The only thing that larger rotors are buying you is more thermal capacity for braking since more heat will be generated by slowing the heavier car. I believe the pad and caliper setups are the same between 1.4T and 2.0TD models.


----------



## DrKlahn (Feb 10, 2014)

jblackburn said:


> If the rental had rear drum brakes like all but the 2LT/LTZ do, that isn't surprising. The pedal is mushy and most models with drums are mis-adjusted from the factory, biasing all but heavy braking towards the front discs.
> 
> The only thing that larger rotors are buying you is more thermal capacity for braking since more heat will be generated by slowing the heavier car. I believe the pad and caliper setups are the same between 1.4T and 2.0TD models.


Could very well be. I wish I had paid better attention to the model and options. I know it had nice very wheels compared to some of the base models (which made it a very attractive little car). Boggles my mind that we still have cars coming out with drum brakes. If they are using the same pad/caliper setup on the upscale gas models, the extra rotor size probably doesn't make a huge impact. I can't find any good data to compare. You could read road tests from the same source, but if they aren't same day-same conditions they aren't really valid to compare (Car and Driver had the Diesel stopping a foot shorter in the TDI comparison than the Cruze LTZ in its review but the data is years apart).


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Everyone on here says converting to rear discs will not be worth it since the front brakes do 80% of the stopping. However the major improvement in pedal feel would make me do the swap(besides better brake cooling). 

ZZP makes a rear disc conversion for the sonic but its listed as not fitting the cruze, at $500 its relatively cheap so I can just hope someday they make it for the cruze as well.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

I've been driving my diesel like a baby. Today I got on her around town on the way home, she moves better than I thought


----------



## TheGov (Feb 12, 2014)

Handles said:


> Now if you want an automatic, leather, heated seats, etc and don't mind paying 40-50 cents more per gallon at the pump, I think the CTD is a great option especially vs it's other diesel competitors, and even vs. a Cruze with the same amenities and closer retail cost.


Price difference in fuel has dropped from 70 cents in Feb down to 20 cents this morning (Diesel $3.75 vs regular gas $3.55). Diesel in my area is not the cheapest(I am not in the south), however still matches midgrade fuel prices at this time(mid $3.75, premium $3.92). As summer progresses this will likely swing even further in favor of diesel. Note that any turbo'ed gasser will likely recommend premium fuels. Diesel fuel price difference for me (9-10 months out of the year) will actually be cheaper. $1500-2000 price difference could easily be justifiable just based on that, given everything else was equal.


----------



## Cruze2.0TD (Feb 12, 2014)

TheGov said:


> Price difference in fuel has dropped from 70 cents in Feb down to 20 cents this morning (Diesel $3.75 vs regular gas $3.55). Diesel in my area is not the cheapest(I am not in the south), however still matches midgrade fuel prices at this time(mid $3.75, premium $3.92). As summer progresses this will likely swing even further in favor of diesel. Note that any turbo'ed gasser will likely recommend premium fuels. Diesel fuel price difference for me (9-10 months out of the year) will actually be cheaper. $1500-2000 price difference is could easily be justifiable just based on that given everything else was equal.


I find diesel seems to be a lot more consistent in price than gas is and right now diesel is in between the price of mid-grade and premium. Regular right now is $1.129/L, mid-grade is $1.229/L, premium is $1.299/L, and diesel is $1.289/L. When regular was up to $1.289/L, diesel was still $1.279/L. So the price doesn't seem to change much on diesel. It is consistently $1.249/L to $1.299/L.


----------



## msav (Apr 24, 2014)

Funny thing is diesel prices change from city to city. 

I am in northern california. I drive from manteca to redwood city (central valley to Bay area) Cheapest Diesel is about 3.99 /gal in manteca and is 4.30 in redwood city area. 

As I am driving in to work i see the prices go up steadily and going home they drop. Also notice less truck stops and less stations that have diesel as I approach the bay area. Probably has something to do with the price.


----------

