# Not quite getting the MPG's that I expected.



## Richard (Dec 1, 2012)

I just got a new '13 Cruze about 2 weeks ago. I was very impressed with the advertised fuel mileage. So far, I'm getting anywhere between 25 - 28 MPG with mixed city (a lot of traffic lights) and highway driving. I thought I would do a little better - somewhere around 30. I had a '10 Malibu that did just a little worse - around 22-24 mixed driving and that's a much bigger and heavier car.

The car is still breaking in - only have about 350 miles, so I'm sure it will improve as time goes on. I remember it improved with my Malibu after it broke in.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

I wouldn't fret about it yet. The car's still breaking in, and with the cold weather that's finally made its appearance recently thrown in too, that's a recipe for lower than expected fuel economy.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

You may be able to average 28-29 mpg driving a Prius under those conditions, hybrids don't work in fast acceleration and stopping in city traffic. Even a lot worse in cold weather, battery efficiency drops to nothing. But at least you are not driving a large SUV or a pickup, would be lucky to get 6-7 mpg in that kind of traffic just carrying you as the only passenger.

Hate this winter gas, average mpg dropped down from 39 to 33 mpg with the same kind of driving.


----------



## Richard (Dec 1, 2012)

NickD said:


> You may be able to average 28-29 mpg driving a Prius under those conditions, hybrids don't work in fast acceleration and stopping in city traffic. Even a lot worse in cold weather, battery efficiency drops to nothing. But at least you are not driving a large SUV or a pickup, would be lucky to get 6-7 mpg in that kind of traffic just carrying you as the only passenger.
> 
> Hate this winter gas, average mpg dropped down from 39 to 33 mpg with the same kind of driving.


Yes, I heard that winter gas really hurts fuel economy. But I still thought that I would do a little better with fuel economy, but I guess I will need to have anywhere from 1,000 - 2,000 miles on the car before I'm getting the true MPG's that I expect. I like the feature where you can have 2 sets of fuel data in the DIC. I'm going to reset the DIC when I enter the highway to see what I get with just highway driving.

There's basically a traffic light on every corner where I live and they're long lights, so I do a lot of starting and stopping as well as idling before I hit the highway. I'm surprised I'm averaging as much as I am.


----------



## lilmrsyeti (Mar 3, 2012)

You will start seeing better MPG when you get more miles under the hood. Thinking I read it was between 2-3,000 miles is when it will level off. Remember...the car is still getting used to your driving and what not. Never fear though...by this Spring, you'll be doing lots of bragging about your MPG!


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

A few things to consider. 



As noted, your car is still breaking in. Give it a couple thousand miles.
The weather has cooled down. This means that it is now taking your car longer to warm up, during which time it is dumping fuel in open loop mode. EPA testing is not done at these kinds of temperatures, and the car warms up more quickly. This takes a significant hit on your fuel economy.
Your tire pressure may have dropped since you purchased the car due to a drop in outside temperatures. Even a few PSI will make the difference. Check those and make sure it's correct.
EPA testing is done with 100% pure (ethanol-free) 91 octane fuel. What are you using? We have proven here that there is considerable fuel economy to be gained by using high octane fuel (91/93). Furthermore, you are now on a winter blend fuel, which contains less total energy than a summer blend fuel, and chances are you are using some percentage of ethanol.
All of these factors combined will result in a fuel economy lower than what you may have expected or read about. See my article on getting better fuel economy if you want a few tips on improving this, but don't expect to be hitting over 30mpg if you're sitting at traffic lights most of the time. What's your average speed showing?


----------



## The_Madcat (Oct 6, 2012)

I'm getting about 37-39 consistently on the highway with less than 600 miles on mine so far. First fill up I put 91/no ethanol fuel in. I am pretty happy so far with mine, and it will only get better with break in wear.


----------



## Richard (Dec 1, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> A few things to consider.
> 
> 
> As noted, your car is still breaking in. Give it a couple thousand miles.
> ...


1. Yes, I only have 350 miles. I remember my Malibu started getting better MPG's when I hit over 1,000 miles. 
2. I did notice the Cruze takes a while to warm up. The temperature gauge stays on cold for about 4-5 minutes. With the Malibu, the temperature gauge started to rise within a minute. Once the Cruze warms up, the heat is great. It was really cold the other day and I didn't even have to set the thermostat all the way up. It got too warm. With the Malibu, I had to keep the thermostat all the way up to get good heat.
3. The tire pressure is where is should be. They're showing about 35-37 PSI in each tire, so that's plenty of pressure.
4. I'm actually using regular gas. Premium is so much more expensive where I live - about 40 cents per gallon. I know that turbos get better fuel economy with Premium, but the car runs fine on regular.

I'm actually seeing better MPG's already. Today, I got up to 30 MPG with mixed city and highway driving. Previously, I was getting 28-29, so it's already improving.

I'm going to reset the 2nd set of fuel data when I get on the highway. I'd like to see what I get with pure highway driving. If I'm getting 30 MPG with mixed driving, I'll probably get in the high 30's with pure highway driving.


----------



## iCruze2 (Dec 16, 2011)

People are always so quick to complain and point fingers...It's like a broken record on here.


----------



## bryanakron40 (Nov 8, 2012)

Honestly, if your in a lot of stop and go(stop lights) before you get on the highway, that is killing it. I would be getting over 40 mpg if I didn't have the little bit of city driving before getting on the highway. My highway has been 40-45 mpg at 70-74 mph and I'm not driving an eco model, just a 1LT manual trans car. I get between 31-35 mpg average with 50/50 highway/city. Your doing fine.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

I have experienced 17 mpg with my 04 Cavalier when I had no choice to fill up with ethanol gas in Milwaukee. Was a bad mix causing detonation, could only drive home at a maximum of 45 mph in third or forth gear to limit it. Even with a good mix, still get 20% lower fuel mileage with this ethanol crap.

The proponents of ethanol even say it may be slightly less. Paying 20 cents more per gallon, but even at 40 cents more per gallon, well worth it to use ethanol free gas. Not only in terms of far superior fuel economy, but far less corrosion in the fuel system components.

Not everybody hates ethanol like I do, spoke to many shops about ethanol, drastically increased their repair business. Land'O'Lakes loves it making a fortune both with non-documented workers farming their land, and a fortune on dairy products.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

NickD said:


> I have experienced 17 mpg with my 04 Cavalier when I had no choice to fill up with ethanol gas in Milwaukee. Was a bad mix causing detonation, could only drive home at a maximum of 45 mph in third or forth gear to limit it. Even with a good mix, still get 20% lower fuel mileage with this ethanol crap.
> 
> The proponents of ethanol even say it may be slightly less. Paying 20 cents more per gallon, but even at 40 cents more per gallon, well worth it to use ethanol free gas. Not only in terms of far superior fuel economy, but far less corrosion in the fuel system components.
> 
> Not everybody hates ethanol like I do, spoke to many shops about ethanol, drastically increased their repair business. Land'O'Lakes loves it making a fortune both with non-documented workers farming their land, and a fortune on dairy products.


Somehow I don't believe that. 10% Ethanol provides higher knock resistance and slightly less mileage than 100% gas. They use it to increase octane in the higher grades actually. 

You may have gotten bad gas, but it wasn't because of the ethanol. 


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com App


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

The Aussie V8 Supercars race using E85. They make more power but have to make twice as many fuel stops.


----------



## usernameerror (Nov 27, 2012)

Just passed the 1000 mile mark on my 2013 Cruze Eco. At first I was luck to be averaging 28MPG with mixed city and highway. After a few weeks of training myself to not drive aggressively, I am now averaging 37MPG on my daily commutes.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

NickD said:


> I have experienced 17 mpg with my 04 Cavalier when I had no choice to fill up with ethanol gas in Milwaukee. Was a bad mix causing detonation, could only drive home at a maximum of 45 mph in third or forth gear to limit it. Even with a good mix, still get 20% lower fuel mileage with this ethanol crap.
> 
> The proponents of ethanol even say it may be slightly less. Paying 20 cents more per gallon, but even at 40 cents more per gallon, well worth it to use ethanol free gas. Not only in terms of far superior fuel economy, but far less corrosion in the fuel system components.
> 
> Not everybody hates ethanol like I do, spoke to many shops about ethanol, drastically increased their repair business. Land'O'Lakes loves it making a fortune both with non-documented workers farming their land, and a fortune on dairy products.


Regardless of what you think about ethanol, it is not the culprit in your 20% reduction in fuel mileage.

To the OP, can you give us more details? What trim / transmission / year are you? What is the average speed of your commute? Average speed helps us calculate the % hwy / % city split.


----------



## tc_sting (Feb 23, 2012)

Richard said:


> I just got a new '13 Cruze about 2 weeks ago. I was very impressed with the advertised fuel mileage. So far, I'm getting anywhere between 25 - 28 MPG with mixed city (a lot of traffic lights) and highway driving. I thought I would do a little better - somewhere around 30. I had a '10 Malibu that did just a little worse - around 22-24 mixed driving and that's a much bigger and heavier car..


Given your driving conditions, the mileage you are getting is about right. It is nice to see someone being honest with mpg. With complete city driving in LA, stop and go with gridlock, I am happy to get 19mpg. This is actually pretty good for a gas powered car. Fossil fuels are so inefficient, it's embarrassing. Cheap though. Anyway, since you can mix up your driving with highway, your net will increase. I am surprised you are getting up to 28mpg really.

Note: mileage has nothing to do with a break in period. Degradation increases over time due to wear of components-- it doesn't magically vanish after 5000 miles for some optimal driving experience.

For average drivers, you can reasonably expect to get around 30mpg.

People like to come on this site and claim all kinds of great mileage. Generally it's a self induced lie to feel good about a purchase. But not even eco model owners get to break the law of conservation of energy so don't believe shockingly good mpg quotes. You will average 30 mpg if, and only if, you are able to avoid the city gridlock more. Recall that being stuck on a highway at rush hour is the same at gridlock in the city.

If GM could have advertised high 30s and 40s average for the Cruze or eco Cruze, then they would have. How odd, though, that they simply don't.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

tc_sting said:


> Given your driving conditions, the mileage you are getting is about right. It is nice to see someone being honest with mpg. With complete city driving in LA, stop and go with gridlock, I am happy to get 19mpg. This is actually pretty good for a gas powered car. Fossil fuels are so inefficient, it's embarrassing. Cheap though. Anyway, since you can mix up your driving with highway, your net will increase. I am surprised you are getting up to 28mpg really.
> 
> Note: mileage has nothing to do with a break in period. Degradation increases over time due to wear of components-- it doesn't magically vanish after 5000 miles for some optimal driving experience.
> 
> ...


Many of us track our fuel economy on fuelly.com, and those of us who have paid attention will note that fuel economy has gone up over the first few thousand miles. It's not an empty claim, and you're more than welcome to verify it by looking at their accounts. 

You are right in that stop and go/gridlock type driving will kill your fuel economy. You're basically sitting there burning away gas for absolutely no reason. 

As for the claims for great mileage; you need to consider the environment and the average speed of those drivers. Past that, you are more than welcome to visit their own fuelly accounts. Mine should be linked to in my signature and is regularly updated. I believe I'm to 39.2mpg as a lifetime average (~16,000 miles) with a 74% *city *driving split. My average speed is recorded in nearly every tank of gas that I've reported, from which my city/highway driving split is calculated. With 100% highway driving, I don't have any problems exceeding 50mpg.


----------



## titan2782 (Nov 4, 2011)

I have crappy 60 mile stop/go commute to drop off and pick up kids now that I work from home. Mileage went from 41 (all highway) to 30 (all city). 30 is with aggressive driving even. The winter grade fuel hasn't affected my mileage at all, but I use Chevron 91 only. My mileage went up from 23 to 41 over the course of 2 months after I got the car (100 miles daily commute). Also, what Cruze did you get and what numbers were you expecting? If you were going off the TV commercials which show an Eco, you're going to be really disappointed if you bought a different trim.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

titan2782 said:


> I have crappy 60 mile stop/go commute to drop off and pick up kids now that I work from home. Mileage went from 41 (all highway) to 30 (all city). 30 is with aggressive driving even. The winter grade fuel hasn't affected my mileage at all, but I use Chevron 91 only. My mileage went up from 23 to 41 over the course of 2 months after I got the car (100 miles daily commute). Also, what Cruze did you get and what numbers were you expecting? If you were going off the TV commercials which show an Eco, you're going to be really disappointed if you bought a different trim.


Eh...not really. Any of them get good gas mileage. I'm too lazy to try to get good mileage, and still got this at 72-75 mph. Before getting stuck in traffic at the end. It showed 47 before that.










The Eco has absolutely NO advantage in MPG before 45 mph. Zip. Nada. After that, the tall 6th gear helps. I do 75-100% city driving, aside from long trips, and still have never gotten under the window-sticker 28 mpg per tank.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> The Eco has absolutely NO advantage in MPG before 45 mph. Zip. Nada. After that, the tall 6th gear helps.


You sure? It does better at 45mph than it does at 55mph. It's not just about the aerodynamic improvements, but also about the gearing and the fact that the manual transmission doesn't absorb and waste as much power as the automatic does. My average speed is consistently at around 30-32mph at the end of a tank of gas, and my commute consists of over 75% driving in 40-50mph zones. 

For the record, if all I'm doing is cruising, I'll be in 6th gear by 35mph.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> You sure? It does better at 45mph than it does at 55mph. It's not just about the aerodynamic improvements, but also about the gearing and the fact that the manual transmission doesn't absorb and waste as much power as the automatic does. My average speed is consistently at around 30-32mph at the end of a tank of gas, and my commute consists of over 75% driving in 40-50mph zones.
> 
> For the record, if all I'm doing is cruising, I'll be in 6th gear by 35mph.


LT MT compared to Eco. 

Yeah, the automatics are different, but that's a whole other chapter. One of the worst automatics I've seen in a new car.

I'm in 5th at 35, 6th at 45. 6th at 35 feels terrible...it's around 1100 RPM.



> My average speed is consistently at around 30-32mph at the end of a tank of gas, and my commute consists of over 75% driving in 40-50mph zones.


That's the sweet spot for MPG on any car - country road speeds. Doesn't sound like you do a ton of stop and go. Heck, I got 40 mpg out of my S70 once at 55 mph, and it was a pig on gas.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> 10% Ethanol provides higher knock resistance and slightly less mileage than 100% gas. They use it to increase octane in the higher grades actually.


I noticed the shell stations around here premium that is 91 octane is listed as ethanol free 100% gas, bu the stations with 93 octane are listed as containing ethanol. I have always experienced some knock even with 91 octane, but when I have been running the 93 octane I have never had it. 

Some would say it was the cooler temps why I may be seeing a difference, I was in texas a few weeks back & used the AC 100% of the time, it was 80+ degrees out. On that trip I only filled at shell stations with 93 octane gas & experienced no knock for 3,000miles.


----------



## titan2782 (Nov 4, 2011)

spacedout said:


> I noticed the shell stations around here premium that is 91 octane is listed as ethanol free 100% gas, bu the stations with 93 octane are listed as containing ethanol. I have always experienced some knock even with 91 octane, but when I have been running the 93 octane I have never had it.
> 
> Some would say it was the cooler temps why I may be seeing a difference, I was in texas a few weeks back & used the AC 100% of the time, it was 80+ degrees out. On that trip I only filled at shell stations with 93 octane gas & experienced no knock for 3,000miles.



Did they actually have a sticker that said "ethanol free" or did they just not have a sticker? Stickers are not required by law (as I was told by the Fuel tech guy from Chevron's tech hotline) so they aren't required to post the ethanol content. Here in SoCal, Shell DOES post (10%) but Chevron does not (they are also 10%) and trying to get info about it from them was worse than pulling teeth!


----------



## MetallicaMatt (Mar 26, 2012)

I've got ~15k on my 2012 LTZ, the DIC says I'm only averaging 35mpg. 68mph highway driving to work, 84 miles per day.

I was expecting better.

DIC says 35mpg but I think actual is closer to 33mpg. Not too impressed.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

titan2782 said:


> Did they actually have a sticker that said "ethanol free" or did they just not have a sticker? Stickers are not required by law (as I was told by the Fuel tech guy from Chevron's tech hotline) so they aren't required to post the ethanol content. Here in SoCal, Shell DOES post (10%) but Chevron does not (they are also 10%) and trying to get info about it from them was worse than pulling teeth!


Wisconsin state law requires signage at the pump indicating if the fuel contains ethanol, usually it will show for each grade. They also will state if it is 100% gas or contains no ethanol with similar signage.


----------



## UpstateNYBill (Jan 14, 2012)

MetallicaMatt said:


> I've got ~15k on my 2012 LTZ, the DIC says I'm only averaging 35mpg. 68mph highway driving to work, 84 miles per day.
> 
> I was expecting better.
> 
> DIC says 35mpg but I think actual is closer to 33mpg. Not too impressed.


The 68 mph is your problem. Slow down about 5 mph and it should improve closer to 40 mpg.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> LT MT compared to Eco.
> 
> Yeah, the automatics are different, but that's a whole other chapter. One of the worst automatics I've seen in a new car.
> 
> ...


I don't like the automatic either, lol. 

6th at 35 feels terrible if you're accelerating, but under light power and cruising, I can't feel anything. It definitely helps to have your spark plugs gapped at or around .035". I tried lower gaps and the engine ran rougher. Unless I need to accelerate more quickly, I'm always in 6th by 40mph. 

I do a bit of stop and go driving on my way home. There's a 5 mile stretch of road that I run into a bit of traffic on, and 25 or so traffic lights each way. It depends on the day and week, but with summer blend fuel and conservative use of A/C, I'm typically between 39mpg and 44mpg.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

MetallicaMatt said:


> I've got ~15k on my 2012 LTZ, the DIC says I'm only averaging 35mpg. 68mph highway driving to work, 84 miles per day.
> 
> I was expecting better.
> 
> DIC says 35mpg but I think actual is closer to 33mpg. Not too impressed.


That does seem a little low but not uncommon. A lot of factors affect fuel economy. It could be cold, you could be into a headwind, your car could need some maintenance, you could be using bad gas, etc.

68 mph isn't too fast for this car's aerodynamics to take that much of a hit.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

MetallicaMatt - have you confirmed your spark plugs are gapped consistently and at 0.028"? For highway driving I think the consistency of the gap is more important than the actual gap, although the actual gap will have an impact as well. The ECU assumes the spark plugs are consistently gapped.


----------



## titan2782 (Nov 4, 2011)

UpstateNYBill said:


> The 68 mph is your problem. Slow down about 5 mph and it should improve closer to 40 mpg.


Um, or you can increase it by 12mph. I achieved 41mpg doing 80 MPH. Sorry but I cannot stand to drive 60-70. Considering no one else (at least on my route) drives < 75, 68 would be hazardous to my health.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

titan2782 said:


> Um, or you can increase it by 12mph. I achieved 41mpg doing 80 MPH. Sorry but I cannot stand to drive 60-70. Considering no one else (at least on my route) drives < 75, 68 would be hazardous to my health.


Maybe with a manual, but with the automatic you need to go less than 70MPH to get anything above 35MPG.

On a recent trip the section on the Kansas turnpike(75MPH speed limit) I set the cruise to 80MPH after filling up just to see what kind of MPG I would get. At those speeds in 20degree weather I got 27.8MPG over about 275miles(fill up numbers). That is the only time I have ever got below 30MPG with the cruze. 

Even at 80mph I was getting passed by cars, matter of fact one was a nice Cruze LTZ doing at least 90MPH. Wonder what kind of MPG he was getting?


----------



## bryanakron40 (Nov 8, 2012)

spacedout said:


> Maybe with a manual, but with the automatic you need to go less than 70MPH to get anything above 35MPG.
> 
> On a recent trip the section on the Kansas turnpike(75MPH speed limit) I set the cruise to 80MPH after filling up just to see what kind of MPG I would get. At those speeds in 20degree weather I got 27.8MPG over about 275miles(fill up numbers). That is the only time I have ever got below 30MPG with the cruze.
> 
> Even at 80mph I was getting passed by cars, matter of fact one was a nice Cruze LTZ doing at least 90MPH. Wonder what kind of MPG he was getting?


Sorry, I was getting about 24mpg. 












Just Kidding.:1poke:


----------



## UpstateNYBill (Jan 14, 2012)

titan2782 said:


> Um, or you can increase it by 12mph. I achieved 41mpg doing 80 MPH. Sorry but I cannot stand to drive 60-70. Considering no one else (at least on my route) drives < 75, 68 would be hazardous to my health.


You have an Eco, he has an LTZ. Apples to oranges when it comes to highway cruising for fuel economy. But yes, driving near or with the flow of traffic is safest. He will have to weigh safety vs. fuel economy.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Everyone around here drives at least 70 mph on the interstates, 72 mph is very common, more like 80 mph between Milwaukee and Chicago. 2012 2LT with a manual transmission was averaging 39.5 mpg using the miles driven divided by the number of gallons used after a fillup. But on recent trip to Chicago, that dropped to 34.4 mpg with winter gas as we call it.

I seem to be doing the best using Mobil ethanol free 91 octane fuel. Why not, using Mobile One oil.

This is what up to 10% ethanol gas did to my 88 Supra Turbo fuel pump and the fuel sender. Diaphragm in the regulator was also swelled up and had to be replaced. The brass jets in the start injector were corroded shut with green oxide. Still have the main injectors to clean or replace yet.

No signs nor nothing in the manual about NOT using ethanol, but is a big sign on my Volvo Chevy based 305 that says, DO NOT USE ETHANOL! Buried deep in the 04 Cavalier shop manual, said okay to use ethanol base fuels, up to 10%, BUT USE IT SPARINGLY, whatever in the **** that means. Mercury, based in Fond du Lac, sure had its share of problems.

At one time all gas stations in Central Wisconsin only sold ethanol based fuels, least most of them only sell it with 91 octane fuel. Since my stepdaughter moved to Milwaukee, only place she could find a job, did find one gas station for her that sells ethanol free gas.

So what's with the government, demanding we use fuels not intended for our vehicles. Did the same thing with that overnight change from R-12 to R-134a that to do it correctly, had to completely flush out the system, use R-134a compatible components, and even experience severe performance problems. Consumers were stuck with this expense, victims of the auto makers that put these CFC's in our cars. Were not held accountable unlike asbestos that almost bankrupted my company

Canada banned CFC's entirely, least in the USA, could still buy R-12, but instead of 80 cents a can, more like 80 bucks.

GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE!!!


----------



## MetallicaMatt (Mar 26, 2012)

speed limit is 65. No reason to go 63 to try and get the advertised highway mpg. Apparently "highway" speeds are 55mph
where ever they rated this thing...


As far as temperatures, headwind etc, I've gotten the same milage since picking up the car in April. I've lost a few mpg's
since the winter blend started, but I expected that. Bad gas isn't an issue, I'm picky where I fill up. No maintence needed. 
Not sure what could be needed with a brand new vehicle. My mpg used to be even lower, but I bumped the tire pressure to 38psi
so when the tires are warm, I'm around 40-41psi, and that's where I'm at. 


But my thoughts exactly...68mph isn't THAT fast....


I haven't confirmed the spark plug gap. Is it in my best interest to just do that myself? I'm assuming I would have
to go through the routine of explaining to the dealership why they need to regap for me. I haven't pulled the plugs to check.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

MetallicaMatt said:


> speed limit is 65. No reason to go 63 to try and get the advertised highway mpg. Apparently "highway" speeds are 55mph
> where ever they rated this thing...
> 
> 
> ...


Dealerships so far have been reluctant to check peoples' spark plug gaps. It's more like a good-will service than an issue. So long as the car runs and the claims for poor fuel economy are anecdotal, they won't go out of their way. 

It would be in your best interest to pull the plugs and check the gaps. It's a fairly simple and quick procedure, and we do have a write-up on it in the how-to section of the forum.


----------



## MetallicaMatt (Mar 26, 2012)

Found my Saturday morning project. Thanks! I'll report back if the plugs happen to be fine.


----------



## MetallicaMatt (Mar 26, 2012)

I jumped over to the "how-to".


I want 0.028", not 0.035", correct?
I didn't see anything mentioned about torque specs, so I'm assuming the calibrated hand is good enough?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

MetallicaMatt said:


> I jumped over to the "how-to".
> 
> 
> I want 0.028", not 0.035", correct?
> I didn't see anything mentioned about torque specs, so I'm assuming the calibrated hand is good enough?


"Official" is .028", but go with .035". HUUUUUUUUUUGE difference in drivability.

I doubt this will help you with highway MPG at all, but I could be wrong. It's more about low-RPM around-town power.


----------



## MetallicaMatt (Mar 26, 2012)

well, 90% or more of my driving is highway miles at ~68mph


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

MetallicaMatt said:


> I jumped over to the "how-to".
> 
> 
> I want 0.028", not 0.035", correct?
> I didn't see anything mentioned about torque specs, so I'm assuming the calibrated hand is good enough?


The original GM Spec for this engine was 0.033" to 0.037". The response XR got when GM Powertrain finally looked into this was 0.025" to 0.0275".


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

titan2782 said:


> Um, or you can increase it by 12mph. I achieved 41mpg doing 80 MPH. Sorry but I cannot stand to drive 60-70. Considering no one else (at least on my route) drives < 75, 68 would be hazardous to my health.


I wish I could drive that fast here.... wait? The New York State Troopers give people **** for going 65 mph in the 55 mph.

But seriously.. unless you are driving further than 30 miles (which most people aren't) you know only you save like 3-4 minutes by going that fast vs. the speed limit right? You are probably burning a good 20% more gas too.


----------



## titan2782 (Nov 4, 2011)

ErikBEggs said:


> I wish I could drive that fast here.... wait? The New York State Troopers give people **** for going 65 mph in the 55 mph.
> 
> But seriously.. unless you are driving further than 30 miles (which most people aren't) you know only you save like 3-4 minutes by going that fast vs. the speed limit right? You are probably burning a good 20% more gas too.


I just stated that I was getting 41 mpg commuting 102 miles per day @ 80mph. And I saved about 26 minutes of travel time which to me is a long freaking time when you're in the car for that much time per day. That's almost 30 minutes of driving time per day saved and not using fuel. And yes, I lived AND worked literally right off the freeway so no surface streets to deal with.

At 30 miles one way you save 7 minutes which is 14 round trip. Significant IMO. Then again, I have little patients and I have driving.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

titan2782 said:


> I just stated that I was getting 41 mpg commuting 102 miles per day @ 80mph. And I saved about 26 minutes of travel time which to me is a long freaking time when you're in the car for that much time per day. That's almost 30 minutes of driving time per day saved and not using fuel. And yes, I lived AND worked literally right off the freeway so no surface streets to deal with.
> 
> At 30 miles one way you save 7 minutes which is 14 round trip. Significant IMO. Then again, I have little patients and I have driving.



If you can do it then by all means. 102 miles is a lot of traveling!!! As many others have said as well, you have a manual transmission which responds better to higher speed than the automatics.

However, for the average person the math just doesn't check out.

Assuming you travel 30 miles on the highway at 65 mph speed limit. This is how constant speed equates to time:

60 mph - 30 minutes, 0 seconds.
65 mph - 27 minutes, 36 seconds.
70 mph - 25 minutes, 43 seconds.
75 mph - 24 minutes, 0 seconds.
80 mph - 22 minutes, 30 seconds.
85 mph - 21 minutes, 11 seconds.

So yeah, how much is your time worth? Since most people actually only drive 15-20 miles per day the actual timed saved by driving like a madman vs. obeying the speed limit is at most 2-3 minutes. It is up to you to determine if it is worth it.


----------



## titan2782 (Nov 4, 2011)

George Carlin said:


> Ever notice that people driving slower that you are idiots, and the people driving faster than you are freaking crazy!


Your post reminded me of this. I love this quote.


----------



## Smdqt (Sep 5, 2012)

9.2L/100KM (like ~25mpg?) 99% city driving on my 2012 LT 1.4L. It seems normal but I swear my gas just disappears over the weekend :s


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Intelligence was finally shown when the spark gap was specified at 0.028 inches, when some engineer specified a 0.060" gap, he didn't know the difference between voltage nor current, thinking a higher voltage would produce a hotter spark. When in fact its current that produces a far greater reliable spark. This greatly reduces the tension on the plug wires, prevents combustion chamber swirls that can literally blow the spark out, and in particular with a turbo engine.

In the typical distributorless ignition system, to save cost, one coil is used to fire two plugs, doubling the effective gap. Least the 1.4 L turbo has its own coil for each plug. If a plug does misfire, all the energy is absorbed by a zener diode located in the ignition module.

I installed Autolite double plantinum APP3923 spark plugs in my Cruze, gapped to 28 mils. Put a very thin coat of anti-seize on the the threads and torqued to 18 ft-lbs. Removed the boots from the coil pack and stretched out those spring contacts, they can bind on the inside of the boots leaving a very large gap. Coated the inside of those boots with dielectric grease so you can remove them down the road. Otherwise the bake on as hard as a rock and you will break them off.

What a huge difference that made in my Cruze in terms of engine load power and fuel economy. I don't go by myth, have been designing ignition systems for over 30 years. The size of the coil core its losses determine the energy of the spark in joules, the larger the better, but had budget considerations. Second most important factor is the fall time of that gated bipolar transistor so that little bit of energy stays in the coil and not dissipated by that transistor. Then getting that energy across the gap of that plug and not the interconnecting wires.

Really seen an improvement in the Cruze ignition system. Surprised they don't have a TSB on those springs, too short from the factory.

Still burning that filthy carbon gas that builds up on the center electrode, I blast mine with walnut shells every 20K miles and check the gap, that carbon is conductive and shunts out your spark. Spark plugs and gasoline is over a hundred years old now, but still have the same problems.

In theory, can't really increase the performance of an ignition system if you are getting good hot spark at the correct time. Carbon is one of the largest enemies.


----------



## titan2782 (Nov 4, 2011)

NickD said:


> What a huge difference that made in my Cruze in terms of engine load power and fuel economy.


What exactly was your setup before? Stock? What were your gaps? Why did you choose those plugs?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I've run Autolite Double Plats in a turbo car before - my experience is that they're unhappy with them after about 5K and start blowing out at high RPM at stock gaps. It misfired so bad on a hard 1-2 shift (though the car didn't show it was misfiring) that I thought the auto transmission was lurching and in its death throes. This is not just Autolites, but pretty much ALL platinum plugs.

Platinum plugs don't produce as strong of a spark - it always ran fine on regular copper plugs, which is a standard practice in most boosted applications. Iridium plugs have the advantage that they conduct a spark better (while also resisting erosion WAY better than copper), but they're also much more expensive than either platinum or copper plugs.


----------



## titan2782 (Nov 4, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> I've run Autolite Double Plats in a turbo car before - my experience is that they're unhappy with them after about 5K and start blowing out at high RPM at stock gaps. It misfired so bad on a hard 1-2 shift (though the car didn't show it was misfiring) that I thought the auto transmission was lurching and in its death throes. This is not just Autolites, but pretty much ALL platinum plugs.
> 
> Platinum plugs don't produce as strong of a spark - it always ran fine on regular copper plugs, which is a standard practice in most boosted applications. Iridium plugs have the advantage that they conduct a spark better (while also resisting erosion WAY better than copper), but they're also much more expensive than either platinum or copper plugs.


What turbo cars and what were their application? (DD, x-cross, etc?) Have you tried them in your Cruze?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

titan2782 said:


> What turbo cars and what were their application? (DD, x-cross, etc?) Have you tried them in your Cruze?


Volvo S70 T5 - 10 psi stock boost. Daily driver.
Saab 900 Turbo - 6 psi stock (these were Bosch, and it hated them)

Haven't bothered with the Cruze; the Iridiums gapped at .035" were a huge performance increase for me.


----------



## MetallicaMatt (Mar 26, 2012)

You saw a performance increase going to 0.035? And economy?

But I should still see an increase (in economy) by gaping at 0.028" then, correct?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

MetallicaMatt said:


> You saw a performance increase going to 0.035? And economy?
> 
> But I should still see an increase (in economy) by gaping at 0.028" then, correct?


Huge difference in performance. My car used to bog so bad off idle (especially with AC running) that it would feel like it was going to stall. Downright dangerous pulling out into intersections when even flooring it wouldn't get any response til above 1600 RPM. My plugs were all gapped around .02" I believe. You can try .028", but others have noticed that .035" on these NGK plugs are the sweet spot (I believe obermd and XtremeRev were those that I remember). 

The intake resonator delete made a huge advantage in power as well.

I really don't think either of these will help with highway MPG much, but my combined MPG hasn't gone under 30 since then - I'm stuck in stop-and-go traffic quite often and spend little time at sustained highway speeds.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I'm curious - is the automatic climate control on your LTZ running the AC whenever possible? I notice that my mom's Honda Accord with auto climate control will run the AC at 50 deg outside even though it's set to 70 deg and putting out a bit of heat. There's probably a manual override to force the AC off. I notice about a 4 mpg decrease on my Cruze at highway speeds with the AC on.


----------



## MetallicaMatt (Mar 26, 2012)

My thoughts are that yes, the auto climate control is kicking on the AC, instead of pulling in cold air from outside. I.e. I have it set to 68* inside, and it's 32* outside...eventually it senses that it is too warm in the vehicle, so to cool down, I believe it kicks on the AC instead of drawing outside air. You aren't able to manually override to force the AC off. If you have the auto set on, and turn off the AC (snowflake button) it will automatically kick out of automatic climate control....STUPID. My 2010 Silverado LTZ would allow me to do this. When I would shut off the AC, but still in auto, it would just compensate by increase the fan speed (makes sense) and is what I preferred.


This auto climate control on the Cruze is complete crap compared to my '10 Silverado LTZ. I am extremely disappointed. Also, if you have the climate control in manual, and it is muggy outside (which it always is where I am located) it will cycle the AC on and off every ~2 minutes incase the windshield would fog. This is extremely annoying. It's the middle of summer, windows down, muggy but I have the fan speed on high, no AC on and all of a sudden the humidity senor kicks on the AC and it gets to bone chilling temps and then kicks off....and repeat. 


I really do not enjoy this car now the more I think about it. I wish GM would buy this thing back.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

MetallicaMatt said:


> My thoughts are that yes, the auto climate control is kicking on the AC, instead of pulling in cold air from outside. I.e. I have it set to 68* inside, and it's 32* outside...eventually it senses that it is too warm in the vehicle, so to cool down, I believe it kicks on the AC instead of drawing outside air. You aren't able to manually override to force the AC off. If you have the auto set on, and turn off the AC (snowflake button) it will automatically kick out of automatic climate control....STUPID. My 2010 Silverado LTZ would allow me to do this. When I would shut off the AC, but still in auto, it would just compensate by increase the fan speed (makes sense) and is what I preferred.
> 
> 
> This auto climate control on the Cruze is complete crap compared to my '10 Silverado LTZ. I am extremely disappointed. Also, if you have the climate control in manual, and it is muggy outside (which it always is where I am located) it will cycle the AC on and off every ~2 minutes incase the windshield would fog. This is extremely annoying. It's the middle of summer, windows down, muggy but I have the fan speed on high, no AC on and all of a sudden the humidity senor kicks on the AC and it gets to bone chilling temps and then kicks off....and repeat.
> ...


There are reasons why GM did what they did with the Cruze, and I can't say I disagree with most of them. I presume you bought a 2LT or LTZ? 

The higher end models have an automatic climate control and an "air climate" sensor. You can turn this off, but it was turned on in the LTZ GM sent me for review. It did take me a little while to figure out exactly how it worked, but in the end, I came to appreciate it as an advanced air quality system. I hadn't driven a car with anything like this before, and to find it in a Cruze was pretty impressive. The system detects air quality and adjusts the humidity and temperature of the air inside the car accordingly in order to provide the most comfort, using the A/C compressor to keep those parameters under control. I stopped getting annoyed that the car was doing everything for me (like an Apple computer), and just drove it comfortably like a BMW, knowing the car maintains optimal interior conditions. 

Frankly, if you wanted a more basic car, you should have bought a more basic car. The Cruze is a lot of car for the money and this is one good example. Perhaps you should have bought a Cruze Eco like I did; with manual climate and driver controls, and no fancy bells and whistles.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> If you have the auto set on, and turn off the AC (snowflake button) it will automatically kick out of automatic climate control....STUPID. My 2010 Silverado LTZ would allow me to do this. When I would shut off the AC, but still in auto, it would just compensate by increase the fan speed (makes sense) and is what I preferred.


My Volvo's worked like your Silverado, and the Honda works like your Cruze. You can adjust the fan speed and it will maintain set temperature in the Honda, though. Annoyed me too at first, but it's just something different to get used to.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

One guess as to which trashcan my needle point NGK trashcan ended up in. Would think they would have learned something from Bosch that first came out with this design. Theory is by making that point super thin, it will always maintain a sharp edge to go along with the very basics of electrostatics. But it rounds off very quickly drastically increasing the ionization voltage required to fire it.

Yet another enemy to using ethanol is the EPA required fuel evaporative system. An effectively sealed system, somebody at the EPA was a tiny hole in the fuel cap to permit air to replace the consumed fuel in the tank. Had to do something about that.

Still have to have the tank vented or otherwise it will explode due to excessive pressure in the tank caused by the temperature rising during the day. 


That vent goes through a vent valve normally open through that carbon canister. With heat, gas fumes occur and that carbon is suppose to collect those fumes. When the vehicle runs, that vent valve closes and a purge valve opens connecting the tank to the air intake. But also sucking in moisture prone air into that carbon canister, but that doesn't filter out the moisture.

How this is different than the old vented tank, is that whenever you start and stop your engine, have many more moistue air cycles to deal with, instead of one with each fillup. With ethanol that loves that moisture just like a scotch and water, mixes beautifully, but deposits mainly in your injectors to create sticking problems.

Fuel evaporative problems were far more rare when they were mounting that vent solenioid and canister high up under the hood. But that added neoprene cost to the vehicle by doing that, so now these two components are mounted back by the tank.

Not only does that canister suck up air moisture, but debris from the road, rain water, and salted snow compounding severely fuel evaporative and ethanol corrosion problems.

One guess as to where these two vital components are mounted on the Cruze. If you do a net search on fuel evaporative problems 99.9% of the respondents will blame the gas cap. Just shows are ignorant they are.


----------



## MetallicaMatt (Mar 26, 2012)

I guess my 2010 Silverado was a Droid, since I could edit everything to how I wanted, to where the Cruze is an Iphone and have limited customizing options. I prefer my Droid...


----------



## jdubb11 (Mar 14, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> There are reasons why GM did what they did with the Cruze, and I can't say I disagree with most of them. I presume you bought a 2LT or LTZ?
> 
> The higher end models have an automatic climate control and an "air climate" sensor. You can turn this off, but it was turned on in the LTZ GM sent me for review. It did take me a little while to figure out exactly how it worked, but in the end, I came to appreciate it as an advanced air quality system. I hadn't driven a car with anything like this before, and to find it in a Cruze was pretty impressive. The system detects air quality and adjusts the humidity and temperature of the air inside the car accordingly in order to provide the most comfort, using the A/C compressor to keep those parameters under control. I stopped getting annoyed that the car was doing everything for me (like an Apple computer), and just drove it comfortably like a BMW, knowing the car maintains optimal interior conditions.
> 
> Frankly, if you wanted a more basic car, you should have bought a more basic car. The Cruze is a lot of car for the money and this is one good example. Perhaps you should have bought a Cruze Eco like I did; with manual climate and driver controls, and no fancy bells and whistles.


do you work for gm now?? since being moderator, getting to know the gm employees, and the free car for your viewing pleasure, you seem to defend gm in every comment where someone doesnt like something about them. just wondering how non biased your views are now days?? maybe i should have asked this in another place but im just wondering and no drama intended


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

jdubb11 said:


> do you work for gm now?? since being moderator, getting to know the gm employees, and the free car for your viewing pleasure, you seem to defend gm in every comment where someone doesnt like something about them. just wondering how non biased your views are now days?? maybe i should have asked this in another place but im just wondering and no drama intended


Nope, I don't work for GM. My contacts with GM had nothing to do with myself being a moderator; that decision was made and approved by the site owner before I even visited Detroit and Lordstown. 

I do defend them because I believe in them like many people on this board do. After all, it's a Cruze forum. Don't think that I don't put pressure on my contacts at GM behind the scenes when issues do come up though. More people in GM know my name than I'd care to mention here and I can assure you it's not for the praise I've given GM. I simply see two sides to the story. One person thinks the climate control system in the Cruze is crap, and I can't help but explain why it works the way it does and why it was designed that way. If at that point Matt still thinks it's crap, I won't sit around trying to change his mind. 

Now, there are instances where I've come off as the kind of guy who would work for GM based on my defense of their cars, but you have to remember that a lot of that comes from my defending of this forum and our mission here. There's a point when complaints turn to spam and trolling, and I generally step in a bit more strongly and forcefully, such was the case with ThaiCruze. 

Shortly after becoming Super Moderator, I nominated 3 additional moderators for the purpose of not only having a helping hand in managing the forums, but also for the purpose of keeping my own posting in check and calling me out when I get out of line. We have a system of accountability set up that is very effective. I can assure you that if I did become an employee of GM, I would have no choice but to step down from my position as moderator.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

All of my previous GM vehicles dating back to the mid 70's with automatic climate control had an Econ mode that switched off the AC compressor in all modes except defrost. Never played with ACC on a Cruze, but from the owner's manual, see that switch is missing. But can play with the modes with a single pushbutton if you want to.

Recir only occurs if the vehicle is too hot, one reason why I preferred the manual system, has a user controlled recir door switch plus an AC compressor switch that inhibits compressor operation in all modes except defrost.

Cruze is also using the V-5 variable displacement compressor, hardly pumps refrigerant all at cooler temperatures, so even wonder why they bother to kick it on in defrost. Similar to the POA valve system, those cars didn't have an Econ mode either, as very little engine load was placed on the engine in cool weather.

For me, preferring simplicity and reliability the 2LT is uncomfortably too close to the ACC system. No cheap resistors are used in the blower control, rather a 110 buck power MOSFET transistor fed by variable width pulses just like an ACC system. Except you have a servo controlling switch, that noting the differential between preset digital temperature controls and the reading from the in-car sensor thermistor to determine blower speed.

Both mode doors are controlled by servo motors, again very expensive to replace that follow BCM controlled pulses with soft touch push buttons. As is the mode door, following the temperature knob rather than the in-car thermistor for temperature control. Much preferred the cable operating system in our 04 Cavalier, was only 12 bucks to replace that cable and a five minute job. And when a power switch is off, its off. 

But at least I can close the recir door at will and switch off the AC compressor, I like having control. Have nothing else to play with except the temperature controls, strapped in that seat.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> I've run Autolite Double Plats in a turbo car before - my experience is that they're unhappy with them after about 5K and start blowing out at high RPM at stock gaps. It misfired so bad on a hard 1-2 shift (though the car didn't show it was misfiring) that I thought the auto transmission was lurching and in its death throes. This is not just Autolites, but pretty much ALL platinum plugs.
> 
> Platinum plugs don't produce as strong of a spark - it always ran fine on regular copper plugs, which is a standard practice in most boosted applications. Iridium plugs have the advantage that they conduct a spark better (while also resisting erosion WAY better than copper), but they're also much more expensive than either platinum or copper plugs.


You have answered a question that has puzzled me for 6 years. I had a V6 3.8L Commodore converted to duel fuel (LPG and Petrol) so I could drive on LPG which was about 40% of the price of petrol and used only 20% more fuel. The fitter told me to replace my plugs and leads but to only use standard plugs as Platinum would give me problems. Now I know why so thank you. By the way filling both tanks up gave me a range of 1,400+ KM before needing more fuel when touring.


----------



## Ru5ty (Jun 20, 2012)

bump it up to mid grade Richard , i saw a huge difference which in the long run is much better in my opinion  if your not satisfied with the results, go back to the way it was


----------



## StevenUnderwood (May 31, 2012)

Just to add my $.02. Keep an eye on your actual milage vs. what the car is telling you. The DIC numbers on my Cruze ECO AT have averaged 10% higher than I am actually getting. I have driven 9856 miles since March. In that time, the DIC says I have used 289.4 gallons (34.0 MPG) but I have purchased 320.4 gallons (30.8 MPG). Every fillup, I see the same 10% difference.
I asked the dealer about the difference (my other GM cars have been almost identical to calculated) and he said it was because of warming up (which I do not do with my garaged vehicle) and other differences. My feeling is the car should be able to calculate how much fuel is being used.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

StevenUnderwood said:


> Just to add my $.02. Keep an eye on your actual milage vs. what the car is telling you. The DIC numbers on my Cruze ECO AT have averaged 10% higher than I am actually getting. I have driven 9856 miles since March. In that time, the DIC says I have used 289.4 gallons (34.0 MPG) but I have purchased 320.4 gallons (30.8 MPG). Every fillup, I see the same 10% difference.
> I asked the dealer about the difference (my other GM cars have been almost identical to calculated) and he said it was because of warming up (which I do not do with my garaged vehicle) and other differences. My feeling is the car should be able to calculate how much fuel is being used.


GM's fuel used estimates have been low by an average of 10% since at least 2002. I could accurately predict first click off in my 2002 Montana by adding 10% to the vehicle's fuel consumed readout.


----------



## Kruzer (Dec 1, 2012)

The best I got over a 130 miles was from Pine Mountain Club ca to hiway 101, I averaged 53.3 mpg


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I managed 60.9 MPG (DIC) one morning driving from my house to our Ft Morgan office. There is a 1500 ft elevation drop on this route. My round trip MPG (again DIC) was 55.? MPG.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

NickD said:


> You may be able to average 28-29 mpg driving a Prius under those conditions, hybrids don't work in fast acceleration and stopping in city traffic. Even a lot worse in cold weather, battery efficiency drops to nothing.


I call BS on that estimate. It could be that low if one drove in conditions below freezing w/5 minute drives or less and the heater on the whole time (causing the engine to run the whole time to provide cabin heat).

Even in CR's very harsh city test due to its short duration (see last page of http://www.consumersunion.org/Oct_CR_Fuel_Economy.pdf) they attained 32 mpg on their city test. In comparison, the Cruzes they tested '11 LS w/6AT, '11 1LT w/6AT and '12 Eco w/6AT got 17 mpg on that test.

Hybrids work great when "stopping in city traffic". Some energy is recaptured during regen and the engine doesn't need to uselessly idle when stopped.

From http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20090325/OPINION03/903250326 


> The worst possible gas mileage you'll ever get in the 2010 Toyota Prius is 26.8 miles per gallon.
> 
> I know this because I did every thing humanly possible to beat this redesigned hybrid into submission.


which included:


> I rolled the windows down, turned the AC on high and gunned the 1.8-liter four-cylinder engine in the parking lot, hoping to spin the optional 17-inch low rolling resistant tires in defiance; let's put all 134 horses, a combined total from the engine and electric motor, to work.
> 
> 
> Clicking on the headlights and toying with the sunroof like a 6-year-old, I wanted to leave the car's batteries depleted by the time I returned. Thumping the accelerator harder than John Bonham thwacks the drums in the "Immigrant Song," I took off with a laugh.
> ...





MetallicaMatt said:


> speed limit is 65. No reason to go 63 to try and get the advertised highway mpg. *Apparently "highway" speeds are 55mph
> where ever they rated this thing..*.


No, the highest _average _speed of any of the EPA's test cycles (including "highway" and "high speed") is only 48.4 mph. Please see http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/27-f...uth-about-epa-city-highway-mpg-estimates.html to learn more about the EPA tests.


----------



## MetallicaMatt (Mar 26, 2012)

Wow that's low. Oddly, my average mph is around 46mph according to the DIC. Still don't understand my low mileage


----------



## Headbanger (Oct 21, 2012)

My 11 LTZ/RS didn't get over 30 on the road until I got alittle over 4000 miles on it. I now have 5500 and on a trip from FL to TN I got 35 on the road and 30 mpg around town in Cleveland, TN. I noticed that it did better at speeds below 70 mph. Above that the mileage started falling back into the 34 mpg range. The dealer told me that you won't get the advertised mileage until it gets some miles on the car. Which at first kinda had me upset since I had gotten 28.2 mpg with my 08 ZO6 corvette on the same trip and that was crusing at 77 mph.


----------



## MetallicaMatt (Mar 26, 2012)

I was hoping of the same results, but alas, I am at 17,000 miles (only had the car since April) and no mileage change. 

I regapped to 0.035 over the weekend, and I haven't noticed a change, if anything, a slight decrease in mileage. 

I also noticed that anything above 70 was a waste. I set the cruise at 68.


----------



## moegood3 (Aug 12, 2012)

My MPG was 32.5 now that has gotten cold dropped to 32.1


----------

