# Buying used Gen 1 diesel vs. new Gen 2?



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

One word: Warranty.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

Tomko said:


> One word: Warranty.


The 2014/2015 was sold with a 5 year/100,000 mile power train warranty. However I don't think it covers a number of the issues that have arisen. There's also a 3 year/36,000 mile bumper to bumper. If that's still in force, you just take the car to the dealer and tell them fix it.

Note that the clock starts with the initial sale, not when it was made.


----------



## Chris Tobin (Feb 23, 2016)

I bought mine back in April as a CPO with only 4100 miles on it so I have 4/48k bumper to bumper from the original sale date on the 2015. I have close to 20k on it now without any problems!


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

I would buy the gen 2 over a used gen 1. I have a gen 1 I bought with 3700 miles, never been serviced prior to me buying car. Hate to say but I just wouldn't buy a used gen 1. I have had ZERO problems and love the car, on a tank of fuel right now I think I could get very close to 1000 miles on. I love my car and I won't sell it while it performs like it has for last 24k miles. Only thing that would cause me to want to sell it is I am having problems. Maybe if you. Us a gen 2 get extended warranty but only if it covers everything on emission system. I wouldn't give a nickel for extended warranty if it doesn't cover emission related issues. Very few folks here have other problems other than emission related issues.


----------



## renaissanceman (Feb 23, 2017)

I'm in California, so I think the state mandates an extension on the emissions warranty past what is normally covered, but I could be wrong. I've always driven out of warranty vehicles and DIY all the repairs. The Gen 1 Cruze diesel seems to have a lot of hard to address issues for the DIY crowd (short of doing a full DPF delete to simplify the system...)

Being in CA this is not an option either, unfortunately.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Get the Generation 2. Gen 1 was very low production and only in the cruze for a couple of model years. The Generation 2 drivetrain will also be used in the Chevy Equinox and GMC Terrain so parts availability and mechanic familiarity with the new model should be higher. 

Lets not forget Gen 2 gets 3-4MPG higher city and 3-8mpg hwy better than the Gen1. Though Gen 2 is less powerful it actually makes more power per cubic inch than the Gen 1.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

renaissanceman said:


> I'm in California, so I think the state mandates an extension on the emissions warranty past what is normally covered, but I could be wrong. I've always driven out of warranty vehicles and DIY all the repairs. The Gen 1 Cruze diesel seems to have a lot of hard to address issues for the DIY crowd (short of doing a full DPF delete to simplify the system...)
> 
> Being in CA this is not an option either, unfortunately.


The problem is, the emissions warranty doesn't really apply to the DEF/SCR/DPF system. 

Personally, if I were to buy a used 1st gen, it would be with the sole intention of deleting it the second I had any issues. If I was buying one _with_ a CEL (assuming for a lot less), I'd be ordering the delete parts as I was buying the car.

I've considered it before - but I'd get a 2nd gen at this point, especially with the fuel economy figures.


----------



## oldestof11 (Apr 3, 2016)

The issue I see with gen 2: new chassis and new engine. 

You know what you're getting with a Gen 1 due to the resources on this board. 

DIY maintenance is a pain in these cars but I'm used to 1st Gen Cummins with a pool sized under hood room and an engine the size of a giant turd. 

The oil filter is best done with the passenger wheel off and the fuel filter needs the car jacked up enough for you to roll under it. 

Beyond that, most of it seems very straight forward

Sent from my ASUS_Z01BDC using Tapatalk


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

How long do you plan on keeping it? My gen 1 has been awesome. However the gen 2 is a nice car with better mpg and isn't that why you want a diesel anyway? Go with the gen 2 for a couple thousand more and definitely put some thought into the extended warranty. 

If you didn't live in California or another emissions state than I would suggest the gen 1 with delete.


----------



## CruzeDan (May 17, 2015)

Go gen 2 and hope they worked out some of the issues, which I am sure they at least tried to.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

I don't think this is the first year for that engine, and not really the first run for that chassis (2Gen Cruze) either. That should keep the risk down.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

oldestof11 said:


> The oil filter is best done with the passenger wheel off and the fuel filter needs the car jacked up enough for you to roll under it.


That's not been my experience. http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/169-...ibrary/40489-cruze-diesel-oil-change-diy.html

And to the OP: Here is a detailed account of mine with 200K miles. I still use it regularly and it runs great, fully stock. 
http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/64-g...91746-200k-miles-2014-chevy-cruze-diesel.html

That being said, it really depends on your budget. If you get a used gen 1, make sure it has a good track record first.


----------



## oldestof11 (Apr 3, 2016)

I said best done. I tried from the top, I had more area to lean on my wrench to break it loose from the wheel.area. 

Sent from my ASUS_Z01BDC using Tapatalk


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

I don't recall jacking the car up to change the fuel filter. Plenty of room underneath to reach it and remove/install it.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

I did my fuel filter on my hoist. 100% the easiest way. Also did the oil filter that way, also the easiest because the wheel can stay on.


----------



## EricSmit (Dec 21, 2016)

The 1.6 engine has been around in Opel vehicles since 2013, hardly unproven.


----------



## oldestof11 (Apr 3, 2016)

EricSmit said:


> The 1.6 engine has been around in Opel vehicles since 2013, hardly unproven.


US use may change that with additional/stricter emission guidelines. 

Sent from my ASUS_Z01BDC using Tapatalk


----------



## KpaxFAQ (Sep 1, 2013)

oldestof11 said:


> I said best done. I tried from the top, I had more area to lean on my wrench to break it loose from the wheel.area.
> 
> Sent from my ASUS_Z01BDC using Tapatalk


The oil filter comes off from the top so easy it's not even funny. Taking the wheel off to do it is nuts to me


----------



## renaissanceman (Feb 23, 2017)

To answer a few of the questions here -- I would plan to keep it for the long haul. I would like to see 300k out of it, honestly. My current DD has 233k and I plan to rack up at least that much on whatever vehicle I purchase to replace it. Budget is not as much of an issue as is availability at dealers and the dependability of the whole vehicle overall. 

I guess my reasoning for looking at diesels is is 1.) Better fuel economy and 2.) Increased vehicle life and lower maintenance costs over the lifetime of the vehicle. 

It's beginning to look like reason #2 may not be as valid now as it was in 20 years ago (without doing a delete...), however. I was more or less unfamiliar with all the issues with modern diesels until I started lurking here a year ago or so.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

renaissanceman said:


> I guess my reasoning for looking at diesels is is 1.) Better fuel economy and 2.) Increased vehicle life and lower maintenance costs over the lifetime of the vehicle.
> 
> It's beginning to look like reason #2 may not be as valid now as it was in 20 years ago (without doing a delete...), however. I was more or less unfamiliar with all the issues with modern diesels until I started lurking here a year ago or so.


Diesel engines have always cost more in maintenance, an example they require more frequent fuel filter changes and those filter always cost more than a gas model(besides the fuel costing more). That's not even getting into the really expensive things like injection pumps, injectors, or the emissions systems. Once you figure in all these costs, the gas model even at slightly lower MPG always comes out ahead. 

Only reason to buy a diesel is you need or want the extra low end torque, but that doesn't apply to the cruze. Why you ask? If you compare torque RPM, the diesel and gas models have all their torque available at a low 2,000RPM(no advantage for the diesel). Now if you compare the Gas and diesel model MPG, you will see these ultra efficient small gas turbo engines only average a few MPG less than the diesel(gen 1 diesel averaged only 2MPG better than the 1.4T automatic, gen 2 only 3MPG better). 

Now compare the power of the gen 2 1.4T gas and the 1.6L diesel, you only gain 59lb-ft of torque more with the diesel but it also has 16 less horsepower. 

In our fleet at work we used to have a few Duramax diesel trucks, it cost several thousands to replace bad injectors, If we had bought the $10,000 cheaper truck with the 6.0L gas engine, could get the entire engine at a salvage yard for $600, and get 300,000 miles out of it will very little maintenance(gas and oil only typically). 

Looking at all the facts, I see no reason what so ever to even consider the diesel cruze over the already super efficient and cheaper gas model(starting price is $6800 less). The only advantage the diesel used to have(low end torque) is already available with the much cheaper gas turbo model.


----------



## boraz (Aug 29, 2013)

spacedout said:


> (besides the fuel costing more)..


diesel has been less expensive than rug for the entire time ive owned the car.

plus, most cars of the cruze-type use higher than rug to get any good mpg


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

renaissanceman said:


> To answer a few of the questions here -- I would plan to keep it for the long haul. I would like to see 300k out of it, honestly. My current DD has 233k and I plan to rack up at least that much on whatever vehicle I purchase to replace it. Budget is not as much of an issue as is availability at dealers and the dependability of the whole vehicle overall.
> 
> I guess my reasoning for looking at diesels is is 1.) Better fuel economy and 2.) Increased vehicle life and lower maintenance costs over the lifetime of the vehicle.
> 
> It's beginning to look like reason #2 may not be as valid now as it was in 20 years ago (without doing a delete...), however. I was more or less unfamiliar with all the issues with modern diesels until I started lurking here a year ago or so.


I suppose my car is the counterpoint. I am still less out of pocket over 200K miles than if I'd had a delete done, and that includes about $500 in manual regens that can be avoided with prudent use of a Scangauge.


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

spacedout said:


> Diesel engines have always cost more in maintenance, an example they require more frequent fuel filter changes and those filter always cost more than a gas model(besides the fuel costing more). That's not even getting into the really expensive things like injection pumps, injectors, or the emissions systems. Once you figure in all these costs, the gas model even at slightly lower MPG always comes out ahead.
> 
> Only reason to buy a diesel is you need or want the extra low end torque, but that doesn't apply to the cruze. Why you ask? If you compare torque RPM, the diesel and gas models have all their torque available at a low 2,000RPM(no advantage for the diesel). Now if you compare the Gas and diesel model MPG, you will see these ultra efficient small gas turbo engines only average a few MPG less than the diesel(gen 1 diesel averaged only 2MPG better than the 1.4T automatic, gen 2 only 3MPG better).
> 
> ...


You have some valid points, some I may not totally agree with, which is fair. Being a ctd owner and having owned a gas eco manual Cruze. I will just add one thing. The Cruze with a Diesel engine is a pleasure to drive, not that my eco wasn't, but I really enjoy driving the diesel and that will have me drive the car longer. Last week for work I drove 550 miles in like two days, about 90% hwy and I got 49.9 mpg, fuel was 2.099 a gallon. The difference for me is not in dollars and sense, it is enjoying the driving of the CTD.


----------



## oldestof11 (Apr 3, 2016)

spacedout said:


> Diesel engines have always cost more in maintenance, an example they require more frequent fuel filter changes and those filter always cost more than a gas model(besides the fuel costing more). That's not even getting into the really expensive things like injection pumps, injectors, or the emissions systems. Once you figure in all these costs, the gas model even at slightly lower MPG always comes out ahead.
> 
> Only reason to buy a diesel is you need or want the extra low end torque, but that doesn't apply to the cruze. Why you ask? If you compare torque RPM, the diesel and gas models have all their torque available at a low 2,000RPM(no advantage for the diesel). Now if you compare the Gas and diesel model MPG, you will see these ultra efficient small gas turbo engines only average a few MPG less than the diesel(gen 1 diesel averaged only 2MPG better than the 1.4T automatic, gen 2 only 3MPG better).
> 
> ...


If you're comparing the ECO to the Diesel, stop. 

The Eco is something to the tune 500lbs less than other gas models, I'd venture to say 600-700lbs less than the Diesel after you factor in the DEF and DPF components along with the larger engine. 

And it feels 500lbs less. 

Numbers are a damming thing on paper but when I was comparing vehicles, the diesel moved the car better and more refined. Get the converter locked in 3rd gear, with 85% throttle, and the car just zips from 28mph to 50 in no time. The ECO was a wheezing high revving 4 banger that it is. Sure, it moved. But there was no refinement. 

Anyone have stock gasser 1/4 mile times? I'd like to pit that against my times because those are the real numbers. 

Sent from my ASUS_Z01BDC using Tapatalk


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

oldestof11 said:


> If you're comparing the ECO to the Diesel, stop.
> 
> The Eco is something to the tune 500lbs less than other gas models, I'd venture to say 600-700lbs less than the Diesel after you factor in the DEF and DPF components along with the larger engine.
> 
> And it feels 500lbs less.


What?

The (2014) Eco weighs 3011 (manual)/3102 (auto). The other (2014) gas Cruzes weighed 3093-3155. The Diesel weighed in at 3475 lbs.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> Anyone have stock gasser 1/4 mile times? I'd like to pit that against my times because those are the real numbers


2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco â€“ Review â€“ Car and Driver

16.3 @ 86 for Eco MT.
16.4 @ 85 for 2011 1LT auto.

2014 Chevrolet Cruze Diesel First Drive – Review – Car and Driver

16.4 for CTD

It's not a fast car anyway you look at it. Yes, the diesel has more torque and the abundance of torque and low revs make it "feel" like it's not working as hard. There's also a crap ton of noise insulation in the CTD.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

oldestof11 said:


> US use may change that with additional/stricter emission guidelines.
> 
> Sent from my ASUS_Z01BDC using Tapatalk


When the 2.0 was brought over:



> Chevrolet's turbo-diesel four-cylinder was conceived in Torino, Italy, and is created in Kaiserslautern, Germany, but it has been educated in the U.S. It's not a new engine, being already used in Opel Astras and various other GM vehicles around the world at a rate of 400,000 annually. Still, the U.S. version is unique, thanks to the varied driving conditions found in North America: 120-degree Fahrenheit Death Valley summer heat, minus-40-degree northern-Minnesota winters, and 14,000-foot Colorado mountain passes. And U.S. emissions rules require more tweaks, such as higher levels of exhaust-gas recirculation, and different exhaust after-treatment hardware.


The tricky/unreliable part on most North American diesels has always been the emissions systems. Unless, of course, you cheat.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

jblackburn said:


> Yes, the diesel has more torque and the abundance of torque and low revs make it "feel" like it's not working as hard.


From a roll, where you can best implement the CTD's torque, is definitely where it shines. Obviously, top-end is not a strong characteristic, but the significant amount of low end torque will get you going much quicker, before it trails off.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

MP81 said:


> From a roll, where you can best implement the CTD's torque, is definitely where it shines. Obviously, top-end is not a strong characteristic, but the significant amount of low end torque will get you going much quicker, before it trails off.


If I could find 30-50 or 50-70 MPH results that weren't done in top gear, I'm sure the CTD would be a bit quicker there.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

jblackburn said:


> If I could find 30-50 or 50-70 MPH results that weren't done in top gear, I'm sure the CTD would be a bit quicker there.


If it decided to downshift, that is. I swear, sometimes that transmission is legitimately stupid.


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

I don't think it is a speed thing, for me the diesel just hums along at 70-80 like a walk in the park, the gas version I had didn't feel that way. Passing at hwy speeds in the diesel can be done with ease, wasn't the case in the gas version, so maybe a little bit of the speed issue. It isn't everyone's cup of tea for sure, but dang so far I couldn't be happier with mine.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

IndyDiesel said:


> I don't think it is a speed thing, for me the diesel just hums along at 70-80 like a walk in the park, the gas version I had didn't feel that way. Passing at hwy speeds in the diesel can be done with ease, wasn't the case in the gas version, so maybe a little bit of the speed issue. It isn't everyone's cup of tea for sure, but dang so far I couldn't be happier with mine.


Having driven both from here to North Carolina (same route) - in the mountains, the 1.4 had to downshift a couple gears to maintain the 70 mph speed the cruise control was set to - whereas the Diesel stayed in 6th.


----------



## justin13703 (May 2, 2016)

I love how people come into the diesel section to try to tell people not to buy a diesel, when they own a gas car lol

The pros of the gen 1 are that there is now a good bit of information out there on them and they seem to be reliable, except for the emissions system.

The cons, are pretty much just the emissions system. Consider yourself extremely lucky if you don't have an issue with yours


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

boraz said:


> diesel has been less expensive than rug for the entire time ive owned the car.
> 
> plus, most cars of the cruze-type use higher than rug to get any good mpg


Diesel is 25-50 cents a gallon more than regular gasoline, and before the gas prices fell a few years ago, it was as much as premium fuel(about 80 cents more a gallon that regular). I've never heard the term RUG used for regular gasoline before. 



IndyDiesel said:


> You have some valid points, some I may not totally agree with, which is fair. Being a ctd owner and having owned a gas eco manual Cruze. I will just add one thing. The Cruze with a Diesel engine is a pleasure to drive, not that my eco wasn't, but I really enjoy driving the diesel and that will have me drive the car longer. Last week for work I drove 550 miles in like two days, about 90% hwy and I got 49.9 mpg, fuel was 2.099 a gallon. The difference for me is not in dollars and sense, it is enjoying the driving of the CTD.


Your gen 1 diesel made significantly more torque than the gas model, 148lb-ft vs 264lb-ft(280lb-ft in overboost) for the diesel. That's 116-132lb-ft of torque more than the 1.4T gas engine, not the measly 63lb-ft of torque of the new engine. The 1.6L engine makes even less sense when put in the Equinox/terrain, with its 1.5T gas engine making 170HP and 203lb-ft of torque, The 1.6L diesel only as 33lb-ft of torque more but also 33HP less than the gas engine. 



oldestof11 said:


> If you're comparing the ECO to the Diesel, stop.


No I was not comparing the diesel to the ECO, I was comparing the combined average MPG of the 1.4T automatic gas to the combined average of the diesel. The reason I use those numbers and not the hwy numbers you ask? The combined average is what most drivers will see in typical driving, not 100% hwy trips. With that said I stand by my statement, this car makes no sense when it only gets 3MPG better than the gas model. Yes it has more hwy potential than most other cars, but since the average driver will not benefit from this enough to get much higher than the combined average. GEN 2 numbers for the diesel are not up yet on fuelevonomy.gov, but I can show you the Gen 1 regular gas model averages only 2MPG lower than the diesel(gen 2 is only 1mpg improvement over this). Compare Side-by-Side


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

justin13703 said:


> I love how people come into the diesel section to try to tell people not to buy a diesel, when they own a gas car lol


I want the OP to have an informed decision, not think he will get some magical unicorn car that will cost less to drive and maintain than the much cheaper gas model. Again most people do not drive 70-100% hwy so those MPG numbers are irrelevant to most. Yes when I see those MPG numbers they are tempting, as was the power on the test drive I took of a used 2.0L cruze diesel with 30K on the clock when I was trading in my 12 cruze, with all the emissions issues though, I chose another gas turbo engine for a few thousand less and I certainly don't regret that decision.


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

spacedout said:


> I want the OP to have an informed decision, not think he will get some magical unicorn car that will cost less to drive and maintain than the much cheaper gas model. Again most people do not drive 70-100% hwy so those MPG numbers are irrelevant to most. Yes when I see those MPG numbers they are tempting, as was the power on the test drive I took of a used 2.0L cruze diesel with 30K on the clock when I was trading in my 12 cruze, with all the emissions issues though, I chose another gas turbo engine for a few thousand less and I certainly don't regret that decision.


I find your attitude about diesel to be pretty biased. The gas Cruze is a good choice, I had a good experience. I have a much better experience with the diesel. You have made your points, your on the diesel side of the forum. You own a gas Cruze and are liking that more. Please stop bashing the diesel. It isn't for everyone, it isn't perfect, but some of us love our diesels.


----------



## oldestof11 (Apr 3, 2016)

OP, what's your driving style?

Sent from my ASUS_Z01BDC using Tapatalk


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

spacedout said:


> Diesel is 25-50 cents a gallon more than regular gasoline, and before the gas prices fell a few years ago, it was as much as premium fuel(about 80 cents more a gallon that regular). I've never heard the term RUG used for regular gasoline before.


There have been _many_ instances where diesel prices have been _less_ than 87 since we've owned the car.



spacedout said:


> No I was not comparing the diesel to the ECO, I was comparing the combined average MPG of the 1.4T automatic gas to the combined average of the diesel. The reason I use those numbers and not the hwy numbers you ask? The combined average is what most drivers will see in typical driving, not 100% hwy trips. With that said I stand by my statement, this car makes no sense when it only gets 3MPG better than the gas model. Yes it has more hwy potential than most other cars, but since the average driver will not benefit from this enough to get much higher than the combined average. GEN 2 numbers for the diesel are not up yet on fuelevonomy.gov, but I can show you the Gen 1 regular gas model averages only 2MPG lower than the diesel(gen 2 is only 1mpg improvement over this).


Are you speaking of combined EPA numbers? The diesel well exceeds those. 

Driving in 85-100% city, in the winter, with an hour's use of the remote start in cold temps, on winter tires, we'll average in the mid-low-30s. Put it on the freeway once and you've just raised the average to 40 while still having a large majority of the driving be city. And that's with my wife's lead foot. 

We took a 1.4T Automatic and our 2.0TD down the same route to North Carolina - the 1.4 averaged 35 and the 2.0TD averaged 49.


----------



## oldestof11 (Apr 3, 2016)

MP81 said:


> There have been _many_ instances where diesel prices have been _less_ than 87 since we've owned the car.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It has also been my experience the diesel exceeds EPA from 2-7mpg. 

Sent from my ASUS_Z01BDC using Tapatalk


----------



## oldestof11 (Apr 3, 2016)

I also wanted to add. Diesel here is $.20 more than 87, same as 89, and $.65 cheaper than 93

Sent from my ASUS_Z01BDC using Tapatalk


----------



## renaissanceman (Feb 23, 2017)

oldestof11 said:


> OP, what's your driving style?
> 
> Sent from my ASUS_Z01BDC using Tapatalk


Pretty relaxed -- I usually exceed the EPA numbers in my gas vehicles by 15-25% highway, 30% or more on the combined number.


----------



## oldestof11 (Apr 3, 2016)

renaissanceman said:


> Pretty relaxed -- I usually exceed the EPA numbers in my gas vehicles by 15-25% highway, 30% or more on the combined number.


I meant city % and highway %.

One thing you'll have to do is occasionally drive the Gen 1 hard. I noticed I get CEL from light driving. 

Sent from my ASUS_Z01BDC using Tapatalk


----------



## renaissanceman (Feb 23, 2017)

Ah. I do about 40% city, 60% highway, but I would probably put my Suzuki into service for the city portion should I get a CTD. Come fall I will be doing a hot highway run between Fresno, CA and San Luis Obispo, CA once per week. 2.5 hours at 55-75mph with plenty of hills over the coastal range.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

If it were strictly about money, you could just buy a 10 year old Honda Civic for $2000 and have a cheap, reliable car. There is sooooo much more to the diesel experience. It's the intangibles that make it so satisfying to drive. It's the same argument for a luxury car. Why pay $70K when a $20K car will get you from point A to point B just the same? Again, the intangibles. Also personal preference.


----------



## oldestof11 (Apr 3, 2016)

diesel said:


> If it were strictly about money, you could just buy a 10 year old Honda Civic for $2000 and have a cheap, reliable car. There is sooooo much more to the diesel experience. It's the intangibles that make it so satisfying to drive. It's the same argument for a luxury car. Why py $70K when a $20K car will get you from point A to point B just the same? Again, the intangibles. Also personal preference.


Find me a 10 year old Honda in the rust belt worth $2k or priced down to $2k. LOL

OP, sounds like a diesel would be better than gas strictly on a economy of fuel basis. Drive them for an hour or so if you can. Get to highway speeds and see how seamlessly the diesel moved at 1/2 throttle. 

Sent from my ASUS_Z01BDC using Tapatalk


----------



## TDCruze (Sep 26, 2014)

spacedout said:


> No I was not comparing the diesel to the ECO, I was comparing the combined average MPG of the 1.4T automatic gas to the combined average of the diesel. The reason I use those numbers and not the hwy numbers you ask? The combined average is what most drivers will see in typical driving, not 100% hwy trips. With that said I stand by my statement, this car makes no sense when it only gets 3MPG better than the gas model. Yes it has more hwy potential than most other cars, but since the average driver will not benefit from this enough to get much higher than the combined average. GEN 2 numbers for the diesel are not up yet on fuelevonomy.gov, but I can show you the Gen 1 regular gas model averages only 2MPG lower than the diesel(gen 2 is only 1mpg improvement over this). Compare Side-by-Side


Most folks that are interested in buying a diesel car either drive mostly highway and/or are big diesel enthusiasts. 

I wanted the diesel because it gets great highway mileage, and it had way more torque than the gasser option Cruze's. My average speed over 40,000 miles is 55.9 MPH. That is mostly highway driving if you ask me. I am now at 46,200 miles with zero CEL's, the car has never been back to the dealer for anything in 2 1/2 years. 

Not to mention the superior Aisin-Warner auto trans with the Gen 1 Diesel. I still wish there was a manual option when I bought mine, now the Gen. 2 now has that option. 

I would not buy a diesel if I did not drive mostly highway miles, the new emissions systems do not operate efficiently with mostly city driving.


----------



## renaissanceman (Feb 23, 2017)

I'm a diesel enthusiast and drive a lot of highway. I love the large, flat torque curve of a well tuned diesel -- my Mercedes only has something on the tune of 200 ft-lb of torque pulling a 3500lb car, but it's a smooth push from 2,000 to 5,000 RPM (that plus the sweet music of a large displacement straight-6...)


----------



## TDCruze (Sep 26, 2014)

I would lean towards picking up a gen. 1 for a good price if I were you. Unless you really really want a standard transmission. The only issues there have been with the gen. 1's are with the emissions system. 

The jury is still out on the new gen. 2, it is very possible that they will have many of the same emissions system short comings that the gen. 1 diesel's have. Maybe the DEF tank will be less prone to failure, but the rest of it is likely pretty similar. Plus there could be a number of other unknown issues with the new platform?


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

TDCruze said:


> The jury is still out on the new gen. 2, it is very possible that they will have many of the same emissions system short comings that the gen. 1 diesel's have. Maybe the DEF tank will be less prone to failure, but the rest of it is likely pretty similar. Plus there could be a number of other unknown issues with the new platform?


One would hope they learned from the issues of the first gen. We'll see shortly!


----------



## mkohan (Dec 19, 2015)

Love my gen 1 2105 cruze. No problems to date with 40k in 18 month. But wouldn't by a used one. Never had any luck with used. Always seemed to get someone else's problems. That is definitely a possibility with the gen 1. Take the new one with warranty.


----------



## renaissanceman (Feb 23, 2017)

Appreciate the input guys. This vehicle will be a business car mostly. I'm taking a 10 hour round trip on Friday for business...I wish I had a 2017 CTD to do it in! First year cars make me nervous, though.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

renaissanceman said:


> Appreciate the input guys. This vehicle will be a business car mostly. I'm taking a 10 hour round trip on Friday for business...I wish I had a 2017 CTD to do it in! First year cars make me nervous, though.


I think odds are pretty good these gen 2 diesels will be good cars. but time will tell.


----------



## boraz (Aug 29, 2013)

diesel said:


> I think odds are pretty good these gen 2 diesels will be good cars. but time will tell.


based on what?


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

TDCruze said:


> I would lean towards picking up a gen. 1 for a good price if I were you. Unless you really really want a standard transmission. The only issues there have been with the gen. 1's are with the emissions system.
> 
> The jury is still out on the new gen. 2, it is very possible that they will have many of the same emissions system short comings that the gen. 1 diesel's have. Maybe the DEF tank will be less prone to failure, but the rest of it is likely pretty similar. Plus there could be a number of other unknown issues with the new platform?


I look at it a different way. The gen 1 isn't just last year's model, it's last last year's model - with a limited production run to boot. At this point, GM is going to be far more interested in fixing any problems that appear in the Gen 2 then anything in Gen 1. I think we've said Gen 2 is only a new engine for the US - not new to GM. As such, I'd think the only area of concern would be the US pollution controls - the same issue we *know* the Gen 1 has. 

If the car has be to kept by the dealer under warranty, you should be getting a loaner. I doubt if you can get that deal with a Gen 1.

If you can afford it, I say Gen 2. 
Gen 1, if you can get a good price that's worth the "used car" risk.

Since OP indicates this is for business, I think Gen 2 would be the safer choice.


----------



## boraz (Aug 29, 2013)

ChevyGuy said:


> I look at it a different way. The gen 1 isn't just last year's model, it's last last year's model - with a limited production run to boot. At this point, GM is going to be far more interested in fixing any problems that appear in the Gen 2 then anything in Gen 1. I think we've said Gen 2 is only a new engine for the US - not new to GM. As such, I'd think the only area of concern would be the US pollution controls - the same issue we *know* the Gen 1 has.


exactly how gen1 was introduced, known powertrain, unknown emissions.


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

One thing to keep in mind with gen 2 is the warranty is 60k miles. If you are driving for work, maybe you rack miles up quickly and warranty is up. If that happens and there are emission issues assuming your in a state with no inspections you could get rid of the stuff quicker. Just a thought.

I haven't had any issues at all with my gen 1. Hope it stays that way.


----------



## KpaxFAQ (Sep 1, 2013)

I'd buy a used gen 1 and immediately delete it if that's an option in your state. One of the best values you can buy IMO.

Ugh just saw CA. Nevermind....


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

IndyDiesel said:


> One thing to keep in mind with gen 2 is the warranty is 60k miles.


Good point. Depending on how many miles on the clock and how much CPO could add, that could shift the balance.

I'll change my advice to "follow the warranty". If you're driving for business, I'd think you'll want something to back you up until that particular car earns your trust.


----------



## izedaman (Jan 5, 2017)

I have been driving the D sedan and suv, and its not even close to the gas models.. I try to drive like grandma and barely get epa numbers in a gasser, but in the diesels I drive it like I stole it and exceed the numbers. And 500+ miles a tank is awesome. Switching to Chevy from VW has not been a fun experience. I opted for the gen1 for $14k it was a no brainier for me. A 2017 would cost double and it has a smaller 1.6TD. Im not sure about all the warranty talk. as mine is in the shop now for poor DEF cel.. they have given me a loaner and they are picking up the tab for it... its got 50k miles, and she said the emissions were covered under the 100k warranty. so I hear people talking about emissions not being under warranty is kinda odd to me, maybe YMMV but my dealer has been pretty good with it. so for the last 2 weeks I have been driving a 2017 4door silverado.. not bad for 14k, cant wait to get back into the D, this V8 has a drinking problem


----------



## KpaxFAQ (Sep 1, 2013)

Sounds like you have a great dealer.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

boraz said:


> based on what?


Well, it seems to me that GM has been studying the issues with the gen 1 and my theory is that they've been making corresponding improvements on the gen 2 (i.e. lessons learned). Plus, it seems like they want to roll the gen 2 out to a much bigger market, so it seems like they would have more at stake to get it right. But like I said, time will tell.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

diesel said:


> Well, it seems to me that GM has been studying the issues with the gen 1 and my theory is that they've been making corresponding improvements on the gen 2 (i.e. lessons learned). Plus, it seems like they want to roll the gen 2 out to a much bigger market, so it seems like they would have more at stake to get it right. But like I said, time will tell.


That's generally how things work in the engineering world, so I'd definitely expect that.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

diesel said:


> Well, it seems to me that GM has been studying the issues with the gen 1 and my theory is that they've been making corresponding improvements on the gen 2 (i.e. lessons learned). Plus, it seems like they want to roll the gen 2 out to a much bigger market, so it seems like they would have more at stake to get it right. But like I said, time will tell.


We've seen them address a lot of the complaints on the Gen 2 that people didn't like about the old cars. The new 1.4 takes a lot of the old 1.4 flaws into account as well. So, one would hope they're taking the time to do that on the diesel as well considering its late release.


----------



## boraz (Aug 29, 2013)

diesel said:


> Well, it seems to me that GM has been studying the issues with the gen 1 and my theory is that they've been making corresponding improvements on the gen 2 (i.e. lessons learned). Plus, it seems like they want to roll the gen 2 out to a much bigger market, so it seems like they would have more at stake to get it right. But like I said, time will tell.


that could hold water if any of the emissions is carried over on the gen2, which i doubt.

if its not carried over, who knows how many problems there will be...its not like the ctd was their first def/dpf product...all that duramax experience didnt help


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

boraz said:


> that could hold water if any of the emissions is carried over on the gen2, which i doubt.
> 
> if its not carried over, who knows how many problems there will be...its not like the ctd was their first def/dpf product...all that duramax experience didnt help


Hopefully we get a couple high mile drivers on the forum that get one and report details. If I end up buying a gen 2, I will most likely continue driving my gen 1 most of the time, so I probably won't be the pioneer this time.


----------

