# Am I missing someting



## rescueswimmer (Mar 28, 2013)

Just curious if I'm missing something.

Other than getting the nicer interior in the diesel, Why would one chose this over the ECO.

I just did some rough math with the cost of diesel vs gas and the cost of the 2 cars.

You can get an Eco Auto with all the Eco bells and whistles for about 20k, The diesel is going to set you back 25.7k and no incentives at this time.

Lets worse case hypothetical this. 15,000 Miles MPG ECO at 36 HWY and give the diesel at 46 mpg, The cost of Gas @ 3.79, diesel @ 4.09 You will save 245.00 a year with the diesel.

if the Eco gets 40 mpg then its only 88.00 a year. It would take you 23 years to recoup your fuel savings. Even if you say $2500.00 of that is for the upgraded interior then it still takes you 10 years to recoup the diesel upgraded cost. Not to mention any of the little extra maintenance the diesel has.


Can you guys help to see what I'm missing, Unless we should be comparing the LTZ.


----------



## springer64 (May 14, 2013)

i'm no help as i'm just gonna point out that you forgot the urea liquid cost for the noisy one. 

diesel guys like to rack up several hundred k miles and this diesel needs a new timing belt every 100k miles or so. and it doesn't look cheap to replace. i think i heard about replacing fuel filter every 30 k miles too.

do we have a belt or chain on the 1.4 and 1.8?

so unless any caveman can get 50 mpg with the diesel i'm gonna pass.


----------



## silverWS.6 (Jan 6, 2013)

Same thing I've always thought, IMO Diesel is only beneficial with towing and that's cause of the massive torque they can produce. Other than that it seems like a waste when its in a car. 


Then again I'm no Diesel guru so if anyone can enlighten me then go ahead.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

rescueswimmer said:


> Just curious if I'm missing something.
> 
> Other than getting the nicer interior in the diesel, Why would one chose this over the ECO.
> 
> ...


Put 4 adults in your eco with a trunk full of luggage , then take a trip in the mountains and you will see what you are missing.


----------



## brian v (Dec 25, 2011)

A new equation , diesel costs are stable 3.98 gl.
Petroleum fuel is unstable today 4.09 gl. And rising !
We need more vehicles that utilize alternative fuels to help offset the costs to the typical consumer in order to stabilize petroleum costs , to much demand exists for petroleum at present time . ,,,..,,,


----------



## Tlhfirelion (Feb 9, 2013)

It all depends on your situation. For ME the diesel makes a lot of sense. I have a 50 mile commute to work, 47 of that is hilly highway. Add to that the fact that my old Honda said 30 MPG on the freeway but as with most gas engines, I never saw that. That may be true driving across Kansas but not where I live. Diesels generally get BETTER MPG then advertised, especially when they break/settle in. I doubt 50 MPG will be difficult to achieve. Most of the TDI VW guys routinely get better MPG's then the 42 the EPA sticker says. 

Diesel fuel has been within a quarter of gas where I live for about 6 months, and 2 weeks ago gas 87 octane became more expensive. 

You don't have to sacrifice the driving experience as much to get Hybrid like MPG's. it can be more spirited and still return above average fuel economy. As stated above, load up a family with luggage and see what your gasser will get compared to the diesel. Your 39 MPG just became 34. 

If you only operate on the return on your investment of fuel, it'll never pay you back unless you drive 25,000 miles per year, 90% of it highway like I do. If you mostly drive in a city, get a hybrid or a Eco. If you live in hilly terrain and drive mostly highway, you'll be happier with a diesel. 

All that said, unless I see some decent incentives or a price reduction, I will not own one. Yes it comes with more bells and whistles but I never pay MSRP. Cars are a colossal rip off as it is. The dealers I've looked up online and contacted wont even talk price. It's the sticker and that's that. Out the door at 24 and well talk, but I won't pay almost 28 K for a small sedan unless there is a Porsche badge on it. Lol. 

Have you ever driven a diesel vehicle? I've had a few friends balk at diesel so I convinced them to test drive a TDI Golf. It's a different feel that most people don't realize they prefer. The old saying is you buy horsepower and drive torque, and torque is what a diesel provides. Before you write it off, at least go test drive one so you know if its right for you or not. You may not end up buying one but I bet you'll like it.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Not sure about your gas prices, my cruze runs like crap on anything other than premium, I paid $4.39 my last fill up while diesel was $3.99. Regular gas was $3.89. You also are not comparing apple to apples... with all the options the diesel has you have to compare price and options to a 2LT automatic. Once you are doing a fair comparison the price diff is only a couple thousand. 

Most people will not average 36mpg or 40mpg with an eco automatic(or any 1.4T auto), much much closer to 26-33mpg. With the diesel I would expect that number to be over 40mpg. The Urea tank is filled for free with every oil change the first two years(not sure the mileage limit). 

The price of Urea is all over the place, the cheapest local for me is under $2 a gallon on the pump at a local Kwik Trip, on the shelf at the parts store it was almost $10 for a few gallons.


----------



## Tlhfirelion (Feb 9, 2013)

springer64 said:


> i'm no help as i'm just gonna point out that you forgot the urea liquid cost for the noisy one. <br>
> <br>
> diesel guys like to rack up several hundred k miles and this diesel needs a new timing belt every 100k miles or so. and it doesn't look cheap to replace. i think i heard about replacing fuel filter every 30 k miles too.<br>
> <br>
> ...


<br><br>thats not really a fair comparison.  Every gas vehicle I've ever owned (Toyota, chevy, Subaru, Honda, ford) have all needed the timing belt changed out at or near 100,000 miles.  The range of my vehicles was anywhere from 95-120 thousand miles so the diesel cruze isn't any different there.  That job is always expensive unless you do it yourself which most do not.  Fuel filters are not expensive and even the most non-DIY can usually change that out.  Most folks will have to do that every 2 years at the most, which, your first two years of service is free with the diesel.  <br><br>Filling the urea tank once or twice a year hardly cost anything.  It's 5 cups of coffee at Starbucks.  Lol. You seem to be complaining about very minor issues or complaining about stuff that a gasser has to do as well.  If its not for you that's fine, but at least be objective when comparing. <br>
<br>


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

You never notice everyone on here saying when they run pure gas not that 10% ethanol crap they get 2-4mpg better? The BTU(energy content) between those fuels is only 114,500 vs 111,800. Diesel(B20) is 127,250 BTU. 

So every gallon has 15,450BTU more energy, with a 15.6gallon tank thats 241,020BTU. That extra energy is equal to 2.2gallons of 10% ethanol gas. 

All that extra energy per gallon means even driven a bit harder in the same environment the car will go much farther per gallon. Lets also not forget all diesel engines are considered lean burn, Unlike a gas engine it does not always have a 14:7.1 air/fuel ratio. Idling a diesel might be using 1/4 the fuel as a gas cruze because of this variable air fuel ratio.


----------



## springer64 (May 14, 2013)

Tlhfirelion said:


> <br><br>thats not really a fair comparison.  Every gas vehicle I've ever owned (Toyota, chevy, Subaru, Honda, ford) have all needed the timing belt changed out at or near 100,000 miles.  The range of my vehicles was anywhere from 95-120 thousand miles so the diesel cruze isn't any different there.  That job is always expensive unless you do it yourself which most do not.  Fuel filters are not expensive and even the most non-DIY can usually change that out.  Most folks will have to do that every 2 years at the most, which, your first two years of service is free with the diesel.  <br><br>Filling the urea tank once or twice a year hardly cost anything.  It's 5 cups of coffee at Starbucks.  Lol. You seem to be complaining about very minor issues or complaining about stuff that a gasser has to do as well.  If its not for you that's fine, but at least be objective when comparing. <br>
> <br>


found out the 1.4 has a timing chain; big plus. 

if pointing out the obvious is complaining then i'm guilty.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

The diesel will actually pull over 55 mpg on the highway. A hypermiler will have no trouble reaching 60mpg. It also has a lot more power than the 1.4T, stock. The interior and exterior is also upscale and is actually a combination of the Eco and 2LT. The transmission is far better than the ones in the gas auto Cruzes. It's completely different. The car is also much quieter; on the level of a Verano. 

The engine itself is, by definition of being a diesel, far more reliable if maintained. Expect 300k miles minimum. If the body doesn't rot out, it will go a million miles.

It's much cleaner than gas. It's even cleaner than a Prius. 

The turbo is much bigger, and more advanced.

There's more I'm sure I forgot. 

Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## Diesel Dan (May 18, 2013)

rescueswimmer said:


> Just curious if I'm missing something.
> 
> Other than getting the nicer interior in the diesel, Why would one chose this over the ECO.


Yes, see below. 



Aussie said:


> Put 4 adults in your eco with a trunk full of luggage , then take a trip in the mountains and you will see what you are missing.


As far as the fuel filter is concerned, I wish my Cruze had a serviceable fuel filter.

Does the Eco/auto have the Z-link rear suspension or was it dropped along with the 1LT?


----------



## BowtieGuy (Jan 4, 2013)

Idk, timing belt for the diesel. Thats the biggest killer of any interest for me.


----------



## Tlhfirelion (Feb 9, 2013)

springer64 said:


> found out the 1.4 has a timing chain; big plus.
> 
> if pointing out the obvious is complaining then i'm guilty.
> 
> The issue wasn't you pointing anything out, it was the blatant bias with which you did so.


----------



## springer64 (May 14, 2013)

Tlhfirelion said:


> springer64 said:
> 
> 
> > found out the 1.4 has a timing chain; big plus.
> ...


----------



## rescueswimmer (Mar 28, 2013)

Were debating the diesel here at home. The wife drives 60 miles 58 of it is Hwy to work so were thinking this may be the way to go. Were in the middle of a GM buy back on our Lovely LEMON ECO. The wife really likes the idea of the safety package etc. GM CS said it was an option, but when building this on line I don't see any options really available.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

BowtieGuy said:


> Idk, timing belt for the diesel. Thats the biggest killer of any interest for me.


Why? Most people change cars before a timing belt needs changing and if you keep it longer your car should be paid for by the time it needs a new belt and not cause any financial hardship. The timing belt is part of the reason it is so quiet for a diesel. The timing belt also looks, in a diagram, like it was designed for fairly easy changing anyway?


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

springer64 said:


> Tlhfirelion said:
> 
> 
> > omg supposed blatant bias on an internet forum! the world is ending... lmao
> ...


----------



## rescueswimmer (Mar 28, 2013)

Well It may help us out in the end who knows. I'm going to head to the dealer tomorrow and find out whats happening with the buy back. Anything you guys would like me to find out about on the Diesel, I believe they have 2 of them.


----------



## 2013Cruze (Aug 4, 2012)

I would just get an ECO and save the 5k.


----------



## 2013Cruze (Aug 4, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> springer64 said:
> 
> 
> > This isn't just any internet forum. This is CruzeTalk, and here at CruzeTalk, sarcasm has no purpose. I'm not saying you were wrong or right; just that sarcasm turns debates into flame wars.
> ...


----------



## springer64 (May 14, 2013)

rescueswimmer said:


> Well It may help us out in the end who knows. I'm going to head to the dealer tomorrow and find out whats happening with the buy back. Anything you guys would like me to find out about on the Diesel, I believe they have 2 of them.


take a look at the accessory drive end of the motor. from the video with the chief engineer it looks like the whole acc drive has to come off to even get to the timing belt cover. if it's not obvious [i know things are crowded under some hoods] please ask a mechanic.

btw you must have nerves of steel to consider another cruze after dealing with a lemon and buy back.


----------



## Eugene_C (Mar 15, 2012)

Just because. I mean, if you have to ask, I don't think there's any way to explain it. Why do people generally buy stuff? because they want to support the technology and they like to express their personality through their car.

Then there's this:



> USA TODAY -- Mich. -- Chevrolet says not only will the Cruze diesel be the most fuel-efficient version of the compact sedan, it's also the quickest -- something not normally associated with diesels.
> It will accelerate from standstill to 60 miles per hour in 8.6 seconds, says Gary Altman, chief engineer of the car. Gasoline models take longer, the slowest being the Cruze Eco, which burns up 10 seconds reaching 60 mph.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/05/23/chevrolet-cruze-diesel-vw-jetta/2356221/


----------



## rescueswimmer (Mar 28, 2013)

So I got to take it for a quick 10 mile test drive 8 miles of HWY with the cruise set at 70 and 2 miles getting to the hwy with that being said. The DIC gave me a read out of 49.9 Miles per hour and that was sitting at 2 stop lights for 5 minutes. Impressive. A couple of things I had noticed. The steering seems much more firm if that makes sense its not like the 80's Cadillac that you could turn with your pinky fingers. It felt much more secure when driving. I really enjoyed that aspect of it. It does not seem to have the initial get up and go like its gas counter parts, but then again that is part of the make up of a diesel. It shifted great up and down through the gearbox and runs at 2k on the tach at 70 MPH. From 40 MPH and mashing the gas pedal, It took off. No worries about passing or merging. It does have the active shutters that the eco uses, No spare tire, The engine is fairly quiet, not silent but at Hwy speeds with the radio off. You can hear the familiar diesel chatter, but not over powering at all. Overall I was impressed with how it drove, Inside its the same as any other Cruze. 

Like I had mentioned before. You don't gain any real money savings over the gas version. You do get more power, but if your just driving back and forth to work for the most part. What are you really gaining, Unless you live in mountains.

Its still going to take you well over 100K miles and about 10 years to get your initial return on Investment, but everybody is different needs for the car, Now if you can get the car for 2k under msrp then I think its an awesome value.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

rescueswimmer said:


> You don't gain any real money savings over the gas version. You do get more power, but if your just driving back and forth to work for the most part. What are you really gaining, Unless you live in mountains.
> 
> Its still going to take you well over 100K miles and about 10 years to get your initial return on Investment, but everybody is different needs for the car, Now if you can get the car for 2k under msrp then I think its an awesome value.


Again diesel prices are stable in my area and between stations. Premium gas is all over the board even at stations close to each other. In the last 6 months diesel fuel is cheaper than premium here. 

Also STOP COMPARING THE PRICE TO THE ECO MANUAL..... its a 2LT. The engine option alone then is less than $2500. That's great it does not make sense to you in your real world drive, but with my 70% hwy route I only manage 35.5mpg average with a 1.4T automatic. suspect I would be above 42mpg average with this car. 

I don't live in the mountains but do live in a very hilly area with lots of 6-12% grades. the 1.4T is great for what it is, but I would LOVE having double the torque.


----------



## rescueswimmer (Mar 28, 2013)

spacedout,

I'm comparing this to the 2LT, Today I can pick up a 13 2LT for 20,800 with the drivers convenience package. There are no incentives on the Diesel around 25K for the diesel. If your lucky enough to find a dealer willing to work with you. +4,200 for the diesel If were saying the cars are even and gas mileage is your deciding factor then you need to save 4200.00 in fuel to make it a purely economical decision. 

I'm not saying everybody makes economical decisions when buying a car. I'm just saying if your buying the diesel its for the engine/torque and enjoyment to drive, vs actual gas savings for the first 5 +years of ownership if you drive 28K miles a year if you drive 12-15 its more like 10-12 years.

My example. 

My wife drives 98% HWY miles 60 to and 60 back around 28K + a year.

diesel here is 4.09 and gas is 3.79 Say You average 50 MPG for 28,000 miles which your not, You save 740.00 a year vs the 2LT at 35 MPG over the same 28K miles. It would take us 6 years just to recoup the money savings in fuel costs. The the likely hood of us averaging 50 MPG for that 28k is slim to none. I'm guessing 40+ is more likely. I'm just trying to let people know if they are shopping strictly MPG that they need to really look into the numbers. 

I'm guessing you would not save any money either if you can get 35.5 average, and you were able to obtain 55 MPG on the diesel you would only save 900.00 over 28,000 Miles

I'm not bad mouthing the car. I actually thought it drives nicer than the gas versions with the tweak to the steering.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

There is one flaw in your logic, diesel is cheaper than premium gas where I live. Last fill up I paid $4.40 a gallon for premium, diesel was still $3.99 as usual. Yes the cruze can run on regular gas, but from my experience the car runs like crap(has no power, and is unresponsive, also gets worse MPG). 

There is also the trade in value to consider, the diesel will be worth thousands more than your typical cruze. Thats just looking at a few years down the road, now try 8-10years. Blue book value of a 2003 duramax diesel 3/4 silverado is more than $6,000 more than the gas version of the same truck. Engine/trans option on that was more than $8,000. 6.0L gas is lucky to get 12mpg hwy, the 6.6duramax can easily get 24mpg hwy. SO if the trade in is considered the option is only $2,000 in this case. 

Mark my words.... the 2LT diesel cruze will be worth more in 5 years than a 2year old LTZ 1.4T.


----------



## rescueswimmer (Mar 28, 2013)

Even at those prices, driving 20K a year your with 50 and 35 MPG's figured in. It will still take 3 years to see any ROI, but I would agree the diesel car should hold its value, not as much as the trucks, but like you I would agree its going to be 2500.00 difference. I buy and run it to the wheels fall off. So at that point the trade value is probably pretty small difference for me. Trust me I would rather have the diesel, and I was just pointing out to other readers, that just because it says 46 MPG does not mean you may be saving any money because you bought a diesel.


----------



## Eugene_C (Mar 15, 2012)

rescueswimmer said:


> Even at those prices, driving 20K a year your with 50 and 35 MPG's figured in. It will still take 3 years to see any ROI, but I would agree the diesel car should hold its value, not as much as the trucks, but like you I would agree its going to be 2500.00 difference. I buy and run it to the wheels fall off. So at that point the trade value is probably pretty small difference for me. Trust me I would rather have the diesel, and I was just pointing out to other readers, that just because it says 46 MPG does not mean you may be saving any money because you bought a diesel.


Interesting points. It has been my observation that diesels hold their gas mileage better at higher highway speeds than gasoline. But I have no science to back that up. It could just be because the previous diesels I drove were very low hp, but by the same token they weren't very aerodynamic cars, either.


----------



## Papachester (May 20, 2013)

Buying the clean diesel won't make sense for everyone. However, no one has mentioned the resale strength of diesels over gas engine cars. So any of that extra investment, you'll make back when you sell the car if they hold up like the VW TDIs.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Feb 16, 2013)

OP: Yes you are missing something. Although you are 100% right about cost per mile to operate you have failed to take in to account multiple other features.

First it's a premium engine for the customer that is buying the premium Cruze. Think of the motor as a V6 gasser equivalent. It wouldn't make sense to offer that in a manual or a stripped down version of the car.

Also, better range, better driving dynamics, better heater, better brakes, all means a lot to some people. 

And lastly if the VW tdi is an indication you will get about 130% return on the diesel engine when it comes time to resale.

I feel that 2 years of free maintenance more than offsets for the slightly larger service cost of the diesel engine.

DEF is basically a non expense in my eyes. I can buy it here at my office for about $3/ gallon so that $15 worth of DEF will get me about 10K miles of drive time, or at least half a year.

But if you are looking at your auto purchase purely as a cost to aquire and to operate, absolutely the Eco is the better option financially. For that matter so is a 2008 Impala that gets 24 mpg that you can buy for $3500. I don't care if your Eco gets 60 mpg, you'll never save the extra $20K you spent on a new car in fuel costs. Never.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Suns_PSD said:


> if you are looking at your auto purchase purely as a cost to aquire and to operate, absolutely the Eco is the better option financially. For that matter so is a 2008 Impala that gets 24 mpg that you can buy for $3500. I don't care if your Eco gets 60 mpg, you'll never save the extra $20K you spent on a new car in fuel costs. Never.


The cruze looks so **** cool the car payment alone is worth that much, right?


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

I just read through the whole thread wow.

First of all if you are worried about ROI, then don't buy a car (A car can't be a good investment with such a wack market). Unless you are coming from a big truck to a Cruze. Fuel cost is a variable. You can't base your math with what diesel price is where you are and where i am. Terrain is also variable, i have no hills here, just a lot of stop and go, if anything a hybrid would make sense to me! So a diesel, would not make much sense to me, since Regular fuel is WAY cheaper than diesel, so therefore i am better off with an ECO.

Maybe in your area it is cheaper, and it would make sense at that point to buy the Diesel, but 2 months down the road, maybe diesel cost goes up? Buying a diesel only makes sense for people who 1) Had a gas consuming car 2) ME who has the 1.8L and will still see more savings in an ECO or Diesel, 3) they want to be greener 4) Social status (why do we drink Starbucks anyway?!). There are more than just ROI's (which the younger crowd could careless about when they are coming out of college with no jobs and need a car).

What is it that your missing? A diesel Cruze in your driveway!


----------

