# LT vs Automatic ECO



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

Automatic Eco is basically the LT with the Eco wheels and aerodynamic things. Should be the same as the LT.


----------



## bh04 (Aug 5, 2011)

Eco has lighter aluminum wheels. Sits a little lower. Has a shutter behind the bumper that closes after 35mph (I think). Comes standard without spare tire. As well as low Rolling resistance tires. 


Sent from my iPhone using AG Free


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

bh04 said:


> Comes standard without spare tire.


The automatic Eco has a spare tire standard. 

Window sticker the Eco automatic is only good for 1MPG highway better than the 1LT. pretty much you better like the rims a whole lot because at that rate the MPG improvement will never pay for the extra cost of the Eco package. 

Real world MPG improvement might be higher, especially since most people drive faster than the EPA tests. With the limited user input on the site below it looks like about 3mpg higher than the 1LT. Compare Side-by-Side


----------



## Mattburgess (May 29, 2012)

I have the automatic eco and my car gets far better milage than what the sticker says.. try 47 on the highway.. my overall is 35-36mpg that's 50%city and 50%highway . The eco also has the springs from the LTZ which are lower and sportier, for looks and handling.


----------



## carbon419 (Aug 20, 2012)

Here are the main differences. 

Eco (auto):
-Has a air baffle behind the front bumper to increase air flow under the vehicle for improved MPG
-Has aluminum rims which are like 12 lbs lighter I think
-Harder rubber in the tires that help it roll longer, essentially less friction for increased MPG

The Eco Manual does not have the spare tire to save weight, the Auto comes with the spare tire. As for appearance, the Eco obviously has the rims and the from bumper baffles as well as the rear spoiler for aerodynamics unless of course you get the RS kit on either the 1 or 2Lt package. 

Also, the main reason people are getting the Eco's is that if you have a credit score above an 800 you get another increased incentive through the dealership so it ends up costing less to own in the long run. If you dont have a credit score over the 800 mark, it costs about the same as a loaded 1LT or lower end 2LT. My Eco has the Pioneer system and the two tone black/red interior and that pushes it close to what a basic 2LT goes for but my payment is about 30 bucks a month lower because of that incentive.


----------



## MyShibbyEco (Jan 21, 2012)

I could be wrong but I believe the manual Eco gear ratios are different also.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

MyShibbyEco said:


> I could be wrong but I believe the manual Eco gear ratios are different also.


Yes, they are quite different. The Eco AT has the same ratios as the rest of the 1.4T/AT Cruzes. The Eco MT has a taller final drive ratio, shorter gears 1-3, and taller gears 4-6. The MT Cruze is at 2000 RPM at 65 mph.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

spacedout said:


> The automatic Eco has a spare tire standard.
> 
> Window sticker the Eco automatic is only good for 1MPG highway better than the 1LT. pretty much you better like the rims a whole lot because at that rate the MPG improvement will never pay for the extra cost of the Eco package.
> 
> Real world MPG improvement might be higher, especially since most people drive faster than the EPA tests. With the limited user input on the site below it looks like about 3mpg higher than the 1LT. Compare Side-by-Side


Finally, someone who acknowledges that the Eco's ratings are extremely conservative for highway driving. All of those aerodynamic improvements should make a whole lot more than just 1mpg difference. 

Now, I do know that the Eco MT is supposed to weigh less, partially due to weight reductions in some areas of the sheet metal (I forgot exactly where). Does the Eco Auto have those weight reductions as well?


----------



## carbon419 (Aug 20, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Finally, someone who acknowledges that the Eco's ratings are extremely conservative for highway driving. All of those aerodynamic improvements should make a whole lot more than just 1mpg difference.
> 
> Now, I do know that the Eco MT is supposed to weigh less, partially due to weight reductions in some areas of the sheet metal (I forgot exactly where). Does the Eco Auto have those weight reductions as well?


As far as I know, the manual has weight reductions in terms of the spare tire being removed, as well as the rear seats have been adjusted to remove the cup holders/arm rest from what I have been hearing. Of course the rims are the same for both models. But I cant be for certain any other weight reductions. They both include 10 airbags and the front baffles and spoiler and tire compound.


----------



## carbon419 (Aug 20, 2012)

I totally looked over the fact that you were talking about sheet metal there Xtreme. Here, I found a nice article highlighting the differences between the Eco compared to the regular Cruze models. Then, between the auto and the manual, I think the spare tire is the only difference.

5 main differences between the Chevy Cruze Eco and the Chevy Cruze | Gastorf Chevrolet Blog


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

carbon419 said:


> I totally looked over the fact that you were talking about sheet metal there Xtreme. Here, I found a nice article highlighting the differences between the Eco compared to the regular Cruze models. Then, between the auto and the manual, I think the spare tire is the only difference.
> 
> 5 main differences between the Chevy Cruze Eco and the Chevy Cruze | Gastorf Chevrolet Blog


Keep in mind, the automatic transmission weighs 80 pounds more (curb weight) over the manual transmission, so a significant portion of that advantage is lost. 

If I were to calculate it...

3 gallons of fuel = 18 pounds
Spare tire, jack, and wrench = ~26 pounds
Auto transmission = 80 pounds (curb weight)
Wheels: 21.2lbs (over the 16" alloys)

Total for above: 145lbs

However, Chevy also reduced weight with the following:
Rear center headrest removal
Rear center armrest removal
Z-link rear suspension removal
Thinner sheet metal

If we knew exactly how much weight was shaved with the above, we'd have a more accurate number.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Finally, someone who acknowledges that the Eco's ratings are extremely conservative for highway driving. All of those aerodynamic improvements should make a whole lot more than just 1mpg difference.
> 
> Now, I do know that the Eco MT is supposed to weigh less, partially due to weight reductions in some areas of the sheet metal (I forgot exactly where). Does the Eco Auto have those weight reductions as well?


I actually kick myself every day for not getting the Eco automatic. Don't get me wrong I get great MPG with my 1LT auto with the RS package, I just wonder what could I have been getting? 

This is just a guess but since the eco automatic has the spare tire & 15.6gallon gas tank I would suspect it does not get the same weight savings, even the welds part.

I remember seeing some photos you posted of the sound dampening glue strips in the trunk of the car, my RS has twice as much of that crap as you photo did.... wonder what the eco auto under trunk looks like? seems that less glue might be part of the weight savings & might indicate if it gets any of the other hidden weight savings.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

spacedout said:


> I actually kick myself every day for not getting the Eco automatic. Don't get me wrong I get great MPG with my 1LT auto with the RS package, I just wonder what could I have been getting?
> 
> This is just a guess but since the eco automatic has the spare tire & 15.6gallon gas tank I would suspect it does not get the same weight savings, even the welds part.
> 
> I remember seeing some photos you posted of the sound dampening glue strips in the trunk of the car, my RS has twice as much of that crap as you photo did.... wonder what the eco auto under trunk looks like? seems that less glue might be part of the weight savings & might indicate if it gets any of the other hidden weight savings.


Those strips of sound deadening foam don't weigh a whole lot. Between the two cars, you're looking at maybe half a pound. I'd be more worried about how much I had for breakfast the day before the race. 

It does make one think though about whether or not all of the weight savings are applied. Does the Eco Auto have the rear center headrest and armrest?


----------



## Mattburgess (May 29, 2012)

Mine has the armrest but no headrest, and also the z-link suspension..


----------



## Mattburgess (May 29, 2012)

Where they should of saved some weight should of been the hood.. lol dam thing weighs alot.. Maybe for accidents or safety reasons but still.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

sciphi said:


> The MT Cruze is at 2000 RPM at 65 mph.


The automatic final drive changed on the 2012 models to 3.53:1 axle-ratio (vs. 3.87:1 for the 2011). This not only lowered the RPM on the highway getting 2MPG better, but changed the transmission shifting points too. The 2012 can't shift into 6th gear until above 40MPH, the 2011 can be in 6th gear just above 30MPH. 

I will have to verify the RPM at 65MPH for my 2012 automatic, but think 2000RPM is something like 58-60MPH. Think I read on here the 2011 automatic runs 2500RPM at 65MPH.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Those strips of sound deadening foam don't weigh a whole lot. Between the two cars, you're looking at maybe half a pound. I'd be more worried about how much I had for breakfast the day before the race.
> 
> It does make one think though about whether or not all of the weight savings are applied. Does the Eco Auto have the rear center headrest and armrest?


I think that is the the whole point of the eco manual, all those small weight savings adding up, even some that seem insignificant. I think I even read on here that the Eco manual gets a cheaper lighter horn(Here is a thread mentioning the horn). No idea what an eco horn sounds like but the 1LT one is very loud. If this is true I can't imagine the weight between the two being that significant.

Think all 2012 cars don't have the rear center headrest. The eco automatic comes with rear arm rest & zlink.


----------



## carbon419 (Aug 20, 2012)

I just drove about 400 miles this weekend on vacation with my Cruze. Cruising speed at 2000 rpm was about 58 miles per hour getting roughly like 45-50 mpg depending on flat surfaces which is incredible. 

I looked into it a little more as well. Apparently the Auto does have the 15.6 gallon tank, but from what I am told it only uses 12+ gallons of that until it reaches empty (the light pops on) and then it uses the remaining couple gallons or so as a reserve and it will get you about 60 more miles. I was able to get almost 450 miles on one tank once the low gas light came on. I just kept driving to see how long it would last.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

One tank I got 500+ miles, the low fuel warning came on right as I pulled up to the pump(think the gauge still indicated 1/8 tank). When I filled up it was 13.1gallons, since I have a 1LT with 15.6gallon tank thats a 2.5gallon reserve when the low fuel warning came on. 

Wonder how little gas is left in the eco manual 12 gallon tank when the low fuel warning goes off or is it the same amount of gallons reserve?


----------

