# 2017 Cruze Diesel Invoices



## EricSmit (Dec 21, 2016)

@MP81 Looks like your heated steering wheel can be had in a manual LT, with the leather package. I just confirmed that. Price on one like that would be $25,795 including destination.


----------



## EricSmit (Dec 21, 2016)

Apparently the diesel Cruze has extra room for transmissions. :th_SmlyROFL:


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

These shipping weights are very interesting and demonstrate that the gen2 CTD is ~500 lbs lighter.


----------



## EricSmit (Dec 21, 2016)

Tomko said:


> These shipping weights are very interesting and demonstrate that the gen2 CTD is ~500 lbs lighter.


Which is quite a big drop, considering the rest of the line. My manual hatch with convenience package shipped at 2845, which is not only over 200 pounds lighter than an equally equipped 2016 Cruze limited, but only 56 pounds heavier than an automatic Sonic hatch LT with the cruise and connect package.

A 2014 Diesel Cruze with 2LT package, enhanced safety package, and the pioneer sound system shipped at 3424.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

So the Tungsten Metallic 9-speed (third car in your list) is pretty close to a Premier, in terms of equipment (and thus, weight), with the exception of maybe just the Z-Link? A (base) Premier sedan has a listed curb weight of 2989, so it definitely is not that much heavier, especially since this one has some packages that are also optional on the Premier.


----------



## EricSmit (Dec 21, 2016)

MP81 said:


> So the Tungsten Metallic 9-speed (third car in your list) is pretty close to a Premier, in terms of equipment (and thus, weight), with the exception of maybe just the Z-Link? A (base) Premier sedan has a listed curb weight of 2989, so it definitely is not that much heavier, especially since this one has some packages that are also optional on the Premier.


A comparable LT sedan with a gas engine to that listed one ships at 2928, so you're looking about 71 pounds heavier for the premier, trim to trim. I believe one could safely assume that if they did an automatic diesel premier with no packages, that it would ship at 3,224.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

So we're looking at about a 225 lb weight premium for the Diesel, compared to the 300 lb difference between a Gen 1 Diesel and 2LT. Makes sense - that aluminum block helps a lot. The rest of the diesel emissions equipment likely isn't that much lighter that the Gen 1's, if at all.

So for '18, when the engine moves to all trim levels, the most basic Diesel sedan should weigh in at 3060 lbs. That's impressive.


----------



## EricSmit (Dec 21, 2016)

MP81 said:


> So we're looking at about a 225 lb weight premium for the Diesel, compared to the 300 lb difference between a Gen 1 Diesel and 2LT. Makes sense - that aluminum block helps a lot. The rest of the diesel emissions equipment likely isn't that much lighter that the Gen 1's, if at all.


I can't imagine emissions equipment making strides. haha. But it's significantly lighter than the first gen, that's for sure.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

EricSmit said:


> I can't imagine emissions equipment making strides. haha. But it's significantly lighter than the first gen, that's for sure.


Nope, it's still the same requirements, so the same equipment is necessary. Perhaps it got smaller/lighter here and there (75 lbs can't be all block - though very likely is mostly block). Any idea how much DEF the reservoir holds? That could factor in, as it weighs 9 lbs/gal.


----------



## EricSmit (Dec 21, 2016)

MP81 said:


> Nope, it's still the same requirements, so the same equipment is necessary. Perhaps it got smaller/lighter here and there (75 lbs can't be all block - though very likely is mostly block). Any idea how much DEF the reservoir holds? That could factor in, as it weighs 9 lbs/gal.


3.8 gallons/14.3 liters, per the owner's manual on page 366.


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

Displacement of the engine is appx 20% smaller as well


----------



## EricSmit (Dec 21, 2016)

IndyDiesel said:


> Displacement of the engine is appx 20% smaller as well


Yes indeed.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

EricSmit said:


> 3.8 gallons/14.3 liters, per the owner's manual on page 366.


So almost 3/4 of a gallon less. So the tank can be smaller as well.

And yes, the engine is slightly less displacement - but considering that displacement is (partially) due to the size of holes in the block, the surrounding material isn't always affected 1:1 - it might actually get a little bigger around the bores, since the biggest change is switching from iron to aluminum.


----------



## EricSmit (Dec 21, 2016)

Either way, it should be a brilliant car. The first gen diehards can get over the looks, the technological advances are impossible to ignore.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

I like the looks of our first gen, as well as the second gen (especially the hatch), so I'm good there. It's lighter, yet has more interior space, and the fuel economy with this diesel should be nothing short of stunning - especially when you consider how the first gen far surpassed the EPA ratings.

My wife just keeps trying to tell me that I can have hers and she can get the new one. Not going to fly.


----------



## EricSmit (Dec 21, 2016)

MP81 said:


> I like the looks of our first gen, as well as the second gen (especially the hatch), so I'm good there. It's lighter, yet has more interior space, and the fuel economy with this diesel should be nothing short of stunning - especially when you consider how the first gen far surpassed the EPA ratings.
> 
> My wife just keeps trying to tell me that I can have hers and she can get the new one. Not going to fly.


Yeah, it's going to be an absolute beast of a machine. I'm excited to get one in.


----------



## EricSmit (Dec 21, 2016)

@MP81 The capacity of the DEF tank is 14.25 L (3.76 gal). 

I did a little reading.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

Any idea when they hit the ground?


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

diesel said:


> Any idea when they hit the ground?


Probably when you take the wheels off and drop the jack.


----------



## EricSmit (Dec 21, 2016)

diesel said:


> Any idea when they hit the ground?


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

EricSmit said:


> View attachment 220402


Looks like they are planning to sell a bunch of them. Does this mean you have 3 on your lot now?


----------



## EricSmit (Dec 21, 2016)

diesel said:


> Looks like they are planning to sell a bunch of them. Does this mean you have 3 on your lot now?


Somewhere on the lot, yeah.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

EricSmit said:


> Somewhere on the lot, yeah.


Exciting!! Hopefully a dealer near me gets one soon. I can't wait to check one out.


----------



## EricSmit (Dec 21, 2016)

diesel said:


> Exciting!! Hopefully a dealer near me gets one soon. I can't wait to check one out.


Where are you, roughly?


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> I like the looks of our first gen, as well as the second gen (especially the hatch), so I'm good there. It's lighter, yet has more interior space, and the fuel economy with this diesel should be nothing short of stunning - especially when you consider how the first gen far surpassed the EPA ratings.
> 
> My wife just keeps trying to tell me that I can have hers and she can get the new one. Not going to fly.


down side is much more cramp engine bay, and i dont like downsizing to this point. 2.0l turbo diesel for me is the absolute perfect size for the car.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

I see no reason to have a giant heavy 2.0L in this car. It was perfect for the 1st gen CTD, which weighs almost 300-400 lbs more. The smaller engine makes about 12% less torque, and the car weighs about 13-14% less...so it's more than made up for by the weight decrease. Engine bay is not that cramped - I've dealt with worse (worked on enough LT1 4th gen Camaros).


----------



## EricSmit (Dec 21, 2016)

Realistically, the 2.0 wasn't perfect for the 1st gen. It's heavy and big. The 1.6T is much better, and considering it's in the new Equinox it should be plenty powerful. They've also got the 1.5T and 2.0T in the Equinox, to give it a fair reference point. It dropped 400 pounds as well.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I hope the very severe throttle lag/torque limiting is tuned better for the 1.6. The old one was annoying to scoot away from a stop in.


----------



## EricSmit (Dec 21, 2016)

jblackburn said:


> I hope the very severe throttle lag/torque limiting is tuned better for the 1.6. The old one was annoying to scoot away from a stop in.


I actually just aggressively compained to GM today, because they made the unfortunate choice of asking me what I thought of the manual Cruze hatch, since I bought the first one in Michigan. hahahahaha.


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

EricSmit said:


> Realistically, the 2.0 wasn't perfect for the 1st gen. It's heavy and big. The 1.6T is much better, and considering it's in the new Equinox it should be plenty powerful. They've also got the 1.5T and 2.0T in the Equinox, to give it a fair reference point. It dropped 400 pounds as well.


In my mind the true test for something isn't a spec sheet, it's real life use of the car by consumers. I hope the new diesel is better, it should be, but other than the emission issues which knock on wood I haven't had, I sure don't have anything bad to say about my 2.0 diesel. I don't mind the extra weight and the performance of the diesel has exceeded my expectations. A few more miles per gallon is great and welcomed, but it won't save much at current fuel prices. The real test is it durable and did they fix the emission issues, we don't have answers to that yet and won't for a year or more.


----------



## MOTO13 (Mar 26, 2014)

For me...a bit bigger diesel is always better than a smaller one. 3-4 extra mpg to me is a non-issue. If they have the emissions figured out it'll be a winner. That's my test. Not the mileage. I am never going to be another $30k guinea pig.


----------



## pacolino (Aug 1, 2015)

MOTO13 said:


> For me...a bit bigger diesel is always better than a smaller one. 3-4 extra mpg to me is a non-issue. If they have the emissions figured out it'll be a winner. That's my test. Not the mileage. I am never going to be another $30k guinea pig.


Although heavier, the 2.0 has more stability in winter, slippery or highway drive. 

Sent from my LGMS631 using Tapatalk


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

pacolino said:


> Although heavier, the 2.0 has more stability in winter, slippery or highway drive.
> 
> Sent from my LGMS631 using Tapatalk


Not with those Goodyears it doesn't!


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

jblackburn said:


> Not with those Goodyears it doesn't!


We haven't had much snow in Indy since I bought my diesel in Jan 16. What snow I drove in seemed fine with the tires. Only issue I have had with tires was with heavy braking on dry roads. Car always stops very well but makes weird noises.


----------



## pacolino (Aug 1, 2015)

jblackburn said:


> Not with those Goodyears it doesn't!


Not realy, past Sunday we had a big snowfall here in Toronto, I was passsing all big 4x4 suvs like a whisper in the wind, I'm pretty happy with my goodyears so far.

Sent from my LGMS631 using Tapatalk


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

I didn't even bother trying ours in the snow. My wife drove in the snow once with them (before I had put the snow tires on), and she said it was definitely no comparison to the winters. She did not like it at all.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> I see no reason to have a giant heavy 2.0L in this car. It was perfect for the 1st gen CTD, which weighs almost 300-400 lbs more. The smaller engine makes about 12% less torque, and the car weighs about 13-14% less...so it's more than made up for by the weight decrease. Engine bay is not that cramped - I've dealt with worse (worked on enough LT1 4th gen Camaros).


imagine the fun factor of the the 1.6 in a 2.0 form how zippy that would be, i think the 1.6 somehow is alum block but that in a 2.0 would be soo fun and the engine would be less tq per liter meaning less wear and less strain.. i refuse to buy a sedan with less then 2.0 in it. my suv no less then 4.0 my bikes less then 1.0

agreed way worse engine bays out there but its a huge buying point for me to be able to more or less get in there to work on it.


----------

