# 2014 ECO-D Cruze will use UREA to meet EPA emissions



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...the new 2014 ECO-D 2.0L turbo diesel will use Adblue™ UREA to meet emission requirements:

2014 Chevrolet Cruze Diesel Preview - The Washington Post


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

Might not be to bad if the MPGs are right.


----------



## amalmer71 (Apr 5, 2012)

Why do journalists always put Americans on the "snob" list?

He states "European buyers, Federico said candidly, tolerate more engine and mechanical noise than do U.S. buyers."

That may have been true 20 yrs ago, but the target consumer for the Cruze is not the middle aged or the "nearly-deads". They're the ones who care about how "quiet" their car is. The only thing I want quiet in my car is my wife and kids. When they figure out how to accomplish that, I'll tolerate an open exhaust on a diesel.


----------



## Sunline Fan (Jul 29, 2012)

I like diesels and the prospect of a Cruze diesel coming to the US is what originally lured me to the 'dark side'. At the time, it seemed like the timeline would work well, to have delivery right about now. Well, as we've seen, that didn't quite work out as planned.

I'd be more than thrilled to open it up with an intake and exhaust, and do tuning to get rid of the need for urea. Urea is nothing to be scared of- at first it seemed a little intimidating in the 2011 Super Duty, but now they've got tuning to go around all that I believe. I'm glad I don't have all that added 'technology' to my engine, though. I convinced my dad to get his 2010 SD with the old diesel just for that reason. Intake+tune+exhaust=about 600 hp in a dual rear wheel truck!

In the end, I'm glad I went with the 1.4T. Besides that I don't care for the new body style that will no doubt be attached to EcoD, I think it will be cheaper and less maintenance to stick with the 1.4T. I'll just sacrifice that wonderful smell and sound.

I guess it just gives me even more motivation to get that diesel sitting into the garage swapped into the Excursion!


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...rumor has it that the "new" Cruze body doesn't happen until the 2015 model year, so the mid-year 2014 ECO-D shouldn't be too much different than the 2011-2013 models.


----------



## Beaker (Mar 21, 2012)

I'd say this crap pisses me off but its more this piss craps me off.

It's absolutely ridiculous that we need stuff like urea injection to meet the EPA emissions standards. Our emissions standards are even higher than Europe's.

If I was getting a diesel Cruze the first thing I'd do is tune it out.


----------



## Dale_K (Jul 16, 2011)

The urea system will be a positive IMO. I had a Cummins that used agressive exhaust recirculation instead of urea and it was a disaster. Excessive soot would build up in the turbo and make the variable geometry mechanism stick. I had 14 CEL's on my truck before Chrysler bought it back. I think Cummins abandoned their method and adopted urea in later models.

I still don't see the Cruze diesel working out very well from an economics standpoint since diesel costs so much more than regular gas.


----------



## Beaker (Mar 21, 2012)

Considering many of us run premium in our Cruze's it's not that big a jump to diesel from there.

And how about just not using either one.


----------



## coinneach (Apr 10, 2012)

> I still don't see the Cruze diesel working out very well from an economics standpoint since diesel costs so much more than regular gas.


Diesel in Phoenix costs about 14 cents more than premium unleaded. A gain of 10 mpg more than makes up for the cost difference.



> European buyers, Federico said candidly, tolerate more engine and mechanical noise than do U.S. buyers.


*sigh* This bovine exhaust again? None of the diesels I drove in Austria were noisy, even by US standards. American diesels (like the late, unlamented Jeep Liberty) are noisy because American manufacturers are unwilling to design quiet engines: keep 'em noisy and keep people sucking on the dino juice.

As for the main topic: MB has been using urea in their diesels for years. It's simply not an issue from a performance, maintenance, or environmental aspect.


----------



## Skraeling (May 30, 2012)

diesel here in MO, costs about the same or less than premium.. usually runs anywhere from a few cents above regular to about what premium does.


----------



## horsehaulin (Oct 1, 2011)

Skraeling said:


> diesel here in MO, costs about the same or less than premium.. usually runs anywhere from a few cents above regular to about what premium does.


About the same here in Indiana.


Sent from my iPhone using Autoguide


----------



## Drewsiph87 (Feb 17, 2011)

Dale_K said:


> I still don't see the Cruze diesel working out very well from an economics standpoint since diesel costs so much more than regular gas.


Gas station up the street from my house in Glen Burnie, MD sells Diesel about 10 cents cheaper than 93 and only like 20 cents more than regular.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

Drewsiph87 said:


> Gas station up the street from my house in Glen Burnie, MD sells Diesel about 10 cents cheaper than 93 and only like 20 cents more than regular.


Yeah just put diesel in our work truck and it was close to $0.15 cheaper per gallon than the 93 I put in my car.


----------

