# Cruze Diesel Tops Jetta TDI With 46 MPG



## AutoGuide.com (Jul 26, 2010)

> Set to launch this year, the diesel powered Chevrolet Cruze will offer better highway mileage than any non-hybrid passenger car in America, with a rating of 46 mpg.
> 
> Chevy says that rating will deliver up to 700 miles of range or roughly 10 hours of driving.
> 
> ...


Read the complete story on the Chevy Cruze Diesel at AutoGuide.com


----------



## bbdhomer (Jun 20, 2012)

they never explain the other factors like.. weather conditions, speed, road-type, sigh. 

But anyway... good for future Cruze owners:eusa_clap:!


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

The conditions are the same as in any other EPA driving cycle test. 

Impressive no doubt. Now about the price...


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## Poje (Aug 2, 2012)

AutoGuide.com said:


> Read the complete story on the Chevy Cruze Diesel at AutoGuide.com


They made an error, its 17" wheels...

GJ GM on bringing the Diesel !

Normaly a diesel always get its posted mpg numbers and often exceeds it.

Now a Tuned 2.0 diesel could be fun...


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Considering even the automatic drivers can beat there window sticker highway number, I wonder what I can get with this? I can easily get 42mpg highway(38hwy rated) if on mostly flat roads with few stops, so that would put me at 50mpg in this. 

I do want one but will probably wait a few years to get one.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

Very nice Hwy number! 10% mileage increase over the Eco is great news - with an automatic! Now, if they would only put the Eco's 6 spd manual in it and see what that 2.0 can REALLY do for fuel economy. Upgraded clutch required. 

I still think the price is $2-3k too high, but at least it can claim to be the stingiest Hwy cruiser sold in North America.


----------



## woody13eco (Jan 20, 2013)

They need to offer this car with a manual. When they do, I have an Eco to trade in. haha


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Just think by not releasing a manual trans initially they get to have people talk about this car again when they release a manual. Free advertizing! 

My automatic gets 38hwy rating, so 46hwy is a great improvement. using the window sticker numbers the ECO gets 4mpg better than mine, so the diesel would more than likely have a 50MPG rating with a manual trans. 

GM-opel has a all new 1.6L diesel with 136hp and 236lb-ft. being almost a half liter smaller should see an improvement in fuel economy over the 2.0L engine. This is the engine they should use in an ECO model diesel. 
New Opel-GM 1.6 Liter Turbo Diesel Engine Excels In All Categories | GM Authority


----------



## N519AT (Aug 23, 2012)

When they get a manual in this car, I will be all over it.


----------



## coinneach (Apr 10, 2012)

N519AT said:


> When they get a manual in this car, I will be all over it.


Roger that, niner alpha tango.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

There has been a Honda 1.6TD released in Australia with a manual only and everybody is complaining because there is no auto saying it won't sell. By the way the new Holden Cruze diesel now comes with auto only.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Aussie said:


> There has been a Honda 1.6TD released in Australia with a manual only and everybody is complaining because there is no auto saying it won't sell. By the way the new Holden Cruze diesel now comes with auto only.


In the US typically its about 10% of every model sold has a manual transmission. The cruze ECO did seem to cause increased interest in manual trans, but not more than 30% of sales as far as I have seen. As a business standpoint when 70-90% of your buyers want automatics why spend extra money developing a manual? Seems that extra savings can be used to make an even better automatic and a larger number of your customers & potential customers are happy.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

spacedout said:


> In the US typically its about 10% of every model sold has a manual transmission. The cruze ECO did seem to cause increased interest in manual trans, but not more than 30% of sales as far as I have seen. As a business standpoint when 70-90% of your buyers want automatics why spend extra money developing a manual? Seems that extra savings can be used to make an even better automatic and a larger number of your customers & potential customers are happy.


VW's DSG is one of the best autos I've driven (although they are terribly unreliable), but even the best automatics are really no replacement for the driving enjoyment you get from a good old clutch pedal.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> ...even the best automatics are really no replacement for the driving enjoyment you get from a good old clutch pedal.


THIS.

Automatics are boring and for people who generally don't like being involved in their driving. If the Cruze Eco didn't offer a manual I wouldn't be on this forum as I would not be a Cruze owner.


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Blue Angel said:


> THIS.
> 
> Automatics are boring and for people who generally don't like being involved in their driving. If the Cruze Eco didn't offer a manual I wouldn't be on this forum as I would not be a Cruze owner.
> 
> ...


Me too, but no Eco


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

> If the Cruze Eco didn't offer a manual I wouldn't be on this forum as I would not be a Cruze owner.


Same here. This is one of three MT cars I own. The others being a 2004 GTO and a 1988 Alfa Romeo. Drive involvement is important to me.


----------



## NYCruze2012 (Jan 16, 2012)

Believe it or not my defining choice on my Cruze Eco was not dependent on it being standard or automatic. It just so happens that the only Chevy Cruze Eco they had when I was looking to buy a new car was the very car I have now with the manual transmission. Had it been an automatic that is probably what I would be driving today. Initially I was looking at a Cruze LT but my salesperson reminded me that I do a lot of commuting and suggested the Eco package and then showed me my future car. I really do love the manual transmission and having more control over my car but some days when I am coming home from work and I am really tired I really do not feel like shifting gears an automatic would be nice.

Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

> *blk88verde* "Same here. This is one of three MT cars I own. The others being a 2004 GTO and a 1988 Alfa Romeo. Drive involvement is important to me".


My son has a Station Wagon version of your GTO with the 5.7 V8 with 6 speed manual and recently his standard 3.45 Diff started to growl so he replaced with a 4.i and now 6th gear is actually useable and pick up greatly improved without hurting fuel economy. It is a 1999 model and is the series II version of the VT Commodore which first came out in 1997.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Feb 16, 2013)

The cost of the new D is fine. The engine is only a small part of that cost increase as it's a loaded car.

The thing is the diesel engine, assuming that option alone cost about $2K (just a guess at this time) is not an option that will really ever pay back in lower operating costs. Sure at 120K miles your technically operating in the black w/ the diesel engine option as it takes that much in fuel savings to pay for the engine itself at the current RUG/ #2 spread. But you would have to be a fool to invest $2K now to possibly begin saving $50/ month in 6 years. That's just bad math.

A guy or gal buying a car on operating costs alone will never find the needed savings in the diesel engine and in the end very few will sell if they bring out a stripped down version.

The diesel is for people like my wife. She despises the rental car slow feel of the 1.4T. If we can get similiar operating costs per mile but w/ V6 like engine performance, it's a win-win for us and worth a $2K premium. Also, she is terrible about filling up her car and runs out of fuel monthly. The 700 mile range, even if it isn't a cost savings is much more convienent because I can fill the car up every weekend for her so she can just drive.

If the diesel brings back an additional $2K in resale value some day, where that is where the real cost savings comes from but you can't count on that in 5-7 years or whatever.

I'll order one of these cars for my wife as soon as they are available to spec and order.

Lastly, you have to be careful when comparing mpg. In my wife's case, because of her duty cycle her rides always get terrible mpg. Her current Murano gets about 16mpg every tank for instance.

In a 1.4T Cruze, I'd expect my wife to get around 26-28 mpg in her real world driving entire tank average. But my experience w/ my tdis has shown me that the diesels can quite easily, even when driven very hard and idled a lot, get very close to the EPA #. I expect my wife to average about 38mpg in the Cruze-D. These estimates are what I have used to estimate my pay back time for the diesel engine.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

Suns_PSD said:


> The cost of the new D is fine. The engine is only a small part of that cost increase as it's a loaded car.
> 
> The diesel is for people like my wife. She despises the rental car slow feel of the 1.4T. If we can get similiar operating costs per mile but w/ V6 like engine performance, it's a win-win for us and worth a $2K premium. Also, she is terrible about filling up her car and runs out of fuel monthly. The 700 mile range, even if it isn't a cost savings is much more convienent because I can fill the car up every weekend for her so she can just drive..


Running out of fuel in a diesel is a big problem compared to running out in a petrol car. The fuel has to be primed before the engine will start.


----------



## woody13eco (Jan 20, 2013)

Blue Angel said:


> THIS.
> 
> Automatics are boring and for people who generally don't like being involved in their driving. If the Cruze Eco didn't offer a manual I wouldn't be on this forum as I would not be a Cruze owner.


Yup. Don't own a single automatic and don't plan to. The Automatic trans purchase rate is another example of how lazy we are getting.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

How about we stop b**ching about the transmission and talk about how nice of an accomplishment this is!


----------



## Camcruse (Oct 4, 2011)

Still priced way to high to make it worth it over a gasser.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

Camcruse said:


> Still priced way to high to make it worth it over a gasser.


Not if you already own an LTZ or 2LT, or if they are on your radar.

Its price is comparable to those, but you will get better fuel economy, longevity, and power. Additionally, you don't lose a single feature, and actually gain features if you were a 2011 or 2012. If you can stomach the loss of RS package, it is certainly worth looking at.

In fact... I am considering one.. this is so frigging enticing. Hate to be all aftermarket but if a good tune comes out to beef the power up to what my 1.4T is (I'm sure the power potential is far greater in the diesel), I'm **** near ready to sign on the dotted line!


----------



## Snazzy (May 17, 2011)

46 mpg nice accomplishment ?

When I drive to germany for goods (700 kilos + 2 passengers and me - About 1000 kilos load on the way back) I go 22,22 KM/L That's not the board computer, that's meassured by fuel usage when I fill it up (same spot as when I did before I went) - That's 51,75 MPG on highway.

Then again.. I'm having 6 speed manual gearbox aswel ;-)

I get higher MPG than promised when I got it delivered.


Anyhow how come you get the "Old" one with 150 hp? Mine is 163 HP which is already 2 years old now..


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

Snazzy said:


> 46 mpg nice accomplishment ?
> 
> When I drive to germany for goods (700 kilos + 2 passengers and me - About 1000 kilos load on the way back) I go 22,22 KM/L That's not the board computer, that's meassured by fuel usage when I fill it up (same spot as when I did before I went) - That's 51,75 MPG on highway.
> 
> ...


It is a different engine to what is in your Cruze and the one we have in Australia.


----------



## Snazzy (May 17, 2011)

As far as I'm concerned, the engine in the 125 HP diesel cruze is different to 150 and 163 ones we have in Denmark. But 150, and 163 is the same motor. I think the mpg is about the same if I compare with a automatic transmission from Denmark?


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

Snazzy said:


> As far as I'm concerned, the engine in the 125 HP diesel cruze is different to 150 and 163 ones we have in Denmark. But 150, and 163 is the same motor. I think the mpg is about the same if I compare with a automatic transmission from Denmark?


The engine in the US Cruze is a newer design German I believe and uses urea injection which takes up the space where the spare tyre should be. It also has a 10 second over boost function. They also use a different 6 speed auto to everyone else. 

If I could not carry a spare I would not have the car I have.

The engines used in Australia are 110kw (150hp) single ohc, 120kw (161hp) dohc.


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

Not sure if it's been mentioned but 2014 Chevrolet Cruze Diesel EPA-Rated at 46-mpg Highway mentions 26 mpg city. 2014 Chevrolet Cruze Diesel EPA-Rated 46 MPG Highway - WOT on Motor Trend mentions "The 2014 Chevrolet Cruze Diesel will return fuel economy of 27/33/46 mpg (city/combined/highway) in EPA testing.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

cwerdna said:


> ...The 2014 Chevrolet Cruze Diesel will return fuel economy of 27/33/46 mpg (city/combined/highway) in EPA testing.


Hmmm... 33 combined is what the Eco MT is rated at.


----------



## Cruz3r (Jul 13, 2011)

I'm gonna upgrade when they come out with a hatchback diesel (if that ever comes out) if not ill have to settle for one or the other. Definitely excited to see chevrolet come out with a diesel car.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

cwerdna said:


> Not sure if it's been mentioned but 2014 Chevrolet Cruze Diesel EPA-Rated at 46-mpg Highway mentions 26 mpg city. 2014 Chevrolet Cruze Diesel EPA-Rated 46 MPG Highway - WOT on Motor Trend mentions "The 2014 Chevrolet Cruze Diesel will return fuel economy of 27/33/46 mpg (city/combined/highway) in EPA testing.


I've seen both 26 and 27 city ratings mentioned too. That combined rating isn't that great of a MPG improvement. My 1LT auto is rated at 26/30/38, the eco manual 28/33/42. So the diesel only averages 3MPG better than my automatic? only manages to match the eco manuals rating? 

Real world is a different story possibly. Over the last year my average with the 1LT automatic is 35MPG, 5mpg better than the combined rating of 30mpg(or 3mpg less than the 38mpg highway rating). Using those numbers with the diesels combined/hwy rating I would be in the 38-43mpg range.

At that slight increase I would save about $2500 over 5years in fuel costs, so most of the initial cost is offset. I would also gain a ton of fun with the extra power on tap.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

The engine still has to move a heavy-as-heck car from a stop, and that's what kills city fuel economy. Most 4-cylinders around a similar curb weight to the Cruze, with 5- and 6-speed transmissions, get right around 25-27 MPG city for that reason alone.

It doesn't help that the diesel is freaking fat at 3.500 lbs for a small car.

I'd rather wait for a more powerful gasoline-powered Cruze than waste my money on the diesel with 10 more HP. Torque is more, sure, but it doesn't really make the car any faster when you floor it.

BTW, fuel economy is on my list below the fun-to-drive factor.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Gm should put this 2.0L diesel in the Chevy Equinox and GMC Terrain. Instead of 32mpg highway with a 2.4ecotec front wheel drive model it would have a 40mpg rating! 

I'm basing this 40MPG possibility on all cars being EPA tested in the same way and the cruze auto 1.4T getting 38mpg and the diesel auto 46mpg, a 8mpg increase.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

spacedout said:


> Gm should put this 2.0L diesel in the Chevy Equinox and GMC Terrain. Instead of 32mpg highway with a 2.4ecotec front wheel drive model it would have a 40mpg rating!
> 
> I'm basing this 40MPG possibility on all cars being EPA tested in the same way and the cruze auto 1.4T getting 38mpg and the diesel auto 46mpg, a 8mpg increase.


This I agree with. I like the Terrain quite a bit, and would like to see it with a better tow rating from the diesel as well. Maybe 36-38 highway is realistic, and great for a boxy SUV. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

There is a lot of talk about a couple of MPG but having a diesel these past 8 months I find going back to a petrol engine, even for a short drive, leaves me frustrated with the engines lack of in gear pick up without having to go down a gear or 2.


----------



## brian v (Dec 25, 2011)

Quick ? Aussie , How much is the equivalent to a gallon of diesel in Australia if you do not mind me asking .
Good Day , Now today a gallon of diesel is 3..99 US Dollars . 
Do You think your cruze will get over 200.000 miles with that engine ?



I am a big Australian Rugby Fan . I have even played in my youth , Wing 
I really did not like having to tackle those fast 58


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

brian v said:


> Quick ? Aussie , How much is the equivalent to a gallon of diesel in Australia if you do not mind me asking .
> Good Day , Now today a gallon of diesel is 3..99 US Dollars .
> Do You think your cruze will get over 200.000 miles with that engine ?


I filled up a couple of days ago and it cost close to $6 US. Premium 98 petrol was about 40 cents more. A diesel engine should last about double what a petrol driven the same way would. As you know some people will kill any engine in a short time so nobody can say how long an engine will last. History shows that diesel engines last longer in most cases.


----------



## brian v (Dec 25, 2011)

Yes sir . Diesel here is a pretty constant price not much fluctuation in the cost which can be a good thing ..
Petrol fluctuates a lot here it has been hovering around 3.85 as of late .

I agree the diesel should last a long time very durable engine ,But like you say some people can kill any engine in a short time .


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

Fuel here would be quite a lot cheaper if taxes were not so high on fuel. About half of what we pay is tax.


----------



## brian v (Dec 25, 2011)

Monarchy's


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

Aussie said:


> Fuel here would be quite a lot cheaper if taxes were not so high on fuel. About half of what we pay is tax.


We're not quite that high here in Canada, but not too far off. According to this page from 2007, we pay about 32% tax on our gas here. This is probably still accurate today as I have not heard any announcements about reducing gasoline taxes.

Having said that, our fuel is significantly cheaper than you have it "down under", yet we still pay quite a bit more than our US neighbors who live about 1 hour south of where I am...


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

When I say half I am being generous to our Government.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

The current fuel tax in Australia is A$0.7188 per litre for petrol and ultra-low sulphur diesel (conventional diesel being taxed at A$0.60143 per litre). Add to this a  GST which includes the tax already paid and you get a double dip. So after paying $1.46 per litre for diesel nearly $0.80 is in tax. Now fuel is cheaper than in Europe so what do they pay in tax?


----------



## cwerdna (Mar 10, 2011)

I wonder if VW is going to hit back by pointing out some of their vehicles w/higher combined EPA mileage (33 mpg combined for the Cruze diesel, as I reported earlier). There are also a # of gasoline powered non-hybrids which have 33+ mpg combined on the EPA test.

See http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Powe...p=0&maxmsrp=0&minmpg=33&maxmpg=99&rowLimit=10.

Not everyone lives and works on a highway and is able to do highway commutes at highway speeds.


----------



## kb0sdq (Feb 17, 2013)

Howdy, My question, is with the above average cost of diesel is it still more cost effective compared to gas?


----------



## H3LLON3ARTH (Dec 16, 2011)

kb0sdq said:


> Howdy, My question, is with the above average cost of diesel is it still more cost effective compared to gas?


It all depends on your commute the diesel can go 700 miles on a tank eco can go about 500 depending on how you drive them of course

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Suns_PSD (Feb 16, 2013)

kb0sdq said:


> Howdy, My question, is with the above average cost of diesel is it still more cost effective compared to gas?



On the cost per mile basis, yes. Enough to overcome the additional expense of the engine option itself, that depends.

My basic calculation was this. My wife traditionally gets poor mpg in her vehicles because of her duty cycle. Based on past experiences w/ energy efficient gas motor and tdi's I felt pretty confident that a 1.4T would get about 28mpg overall for my wife (her last 4 cylinder lightweight car, a VW, averaged 23mpg every tank) and about 40mpg in the Cruze D. My experience has been that people w/ a lead foot don't take nearly the hit w/ the diesel for their driving conditions just because the diesel responds so well.

Anyways, I'm going to use an average price of $3.50/ gallon for RUG and $3.90/ gallon for #2. Keep in mind that using today's prices might not be very accurate over the lifetime of the car and infact fuel cost will likely rise.

So at $3.50 gallon/ 28 mpg I get a RUG cost per mile of 12.5 cents/ mile. At $3.90 gallon/ 40 mpg I get the #2 cost per mile as 9.75.

If you run the car for 100K miles at this pricing you end up w/ $12,500 fuel cost for RUG and $9,750 fuel costs for the diesel. That's $2,750 in fuel cost savings every $100K w/ the diesel.

Now much moch does the diesel option cost? I have one ordered and MSRP (before destination and advert) is $26,730. Well since I can't spec a '14 Cruze 2LT 1.4T yet it's hard to know for certain. But what I can do is spec a 2013 2LT w/ the identical options to my diesel and compare MSRP. Using this method assumes no price increase for 2014 nor any rebates at this time on a 2014. The gas version of the Cruze comes out to $24,865. Or an $1,865 cost premium for the diesel engine. Add 6.25% TX state sales tax to that difference and you get a true cost difference for the diesel of $1,982. 

So it looks like financial payback for the diesel occurs at around 72K miles. From there on out you are in the black. 

But wait, there is more! The diesel comes w/ 2 years of free maintenance. How much is that worth? Diesel's cost less to inspect here in TX as there is no emissions test on them. Diesels require no spark plug or general tune up items, ever. But generally w/ the small cost of DEF, fuel filters, a large capacity oil pan, and a specialty oil. You generally pay a bit more for maintenance on a diesel. So for the first 2 years that is all positive but then after it's probably a loss compared to a gasser.

The Diesel really pulls ahead when you look at resale. When you compare to some other diesel powered cars compared to their gas counterparts you commonly see a $2,500-$3,000 premium paid for the diesel variant. Suddenly putting you way ahead in the diesel. If the Cruze diesel proves to be reliable expect to pay a $2K premium, even at 100K miles, for a used Cruze Diesel over it's gasser counterpart.

Lastly I would add that to my wife, fill ups only every 700 miles conbined w/ great passing power makes the diesel the premium engine choice either way. Screw the cost savings cause she wanted a V6 and the I4 gasser definitely wasn't cutting it on our test drive. But w/ the diesel we get the V6 powerband w/ the fuel costs of a small 4 cylinder. The reality is if the Cruze didn't have a Diesel engine, we would have ordered a car w/ considerably more power than the Cruze gassers offer.

I hope that helps.


----------



## gulfcoastguy (Feb 21, 2013)

You also have to consider that a lot of the high mpg turbocharged direct injected gas burners require premium fuel. A couple of weeks ago I found diesel cheaper than premium. The interesting thing will be what is the cost to change the transmission fluid on the Cruze D. On the VW DSG autos that charge(every 40,000 miles) is $400.00 alone not counting the other required maintenance. Now I have a manual myself and I figure that alone saved me the diesel motor markup. Also will the Cruze D have a tow rating and if so what is it?


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

gulfcoastguy said:


> You also have to consider that a lot of the high mpg turbocharged direct injected gas burners require premium fuel. A couple of weeks ago I found diesel cheaper than premium.


Noticed the same thing today, Mobil gas station premium was $4.07 a gallon, diesel was $3.94. 

In my area preimum prices are up to 60cents a gallon more between stations even when regular 87 octane is usually with a few cents between the same stations. This is comparing stations on the same street, but you can see this everywhere. Diesel on the other hand seems at a much more stable price between stations the same as regular 87octane gas.


----------



## tndk (Apr 2, 2013)

Actually I'm happy about the 17" wheels, the tires are significantly cheaper to replace and plenty more stock to choose from.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Feb 16, 2013)

cwerdna said:


> I wonder if VW is going to hit back by pointing out some of their vehicles w/higher combined EPA mileage (*33 mpg combined for the Cruze diesel, as I reported earlier*). There are also a # of gasoline powered non-hybrids which have 33+ mpg combined on the EPA test.
> 
> See Fuel Economy.
> 
> Not everyone lives and works on a highway and is able to do highway commutes at highway speeds.


I don't really buy that number of 33mpg combined based on past experience w/ small diesels. I'd bet that 33mpg would be city fuel economy and in the real world it will do better than that.

My 2005.5 VW tdi got 42mpg every tank and I drove it hard and it only had a 5 speed manual, a real problem when you drive as fast as I do everywhere. It was programmed though and had the EGR blocked off. It got around 38-40mpg completely stock.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Feb 16, 2013)

tndk said:


> Actually I'm happy about the 17" wheels, the tires are significantly cheaper to replace and plenty more stock to choose from.


I would have liked the 18s but only if they were forged. Cast 18s are just too much of a performance penalty for my tastes. Not sure if I'll spring for some lightweight wheels or not for what is basically our family economy car.

Tire expense comes up so rarely and is such a small difference that it's not part of my consideration.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Feb 16, 2013)

gulfcoastguy said:


> You also have to consider that a lot of the high mpg turbocharged direct injected gas burners require premium fuel. A couple of weeks ago I found diesel cheaper than premium. The interesting thing will be what is the cost to change the transmission fluid on the Cruze D. On the VW DSG autos that charge(every 40,000 miles) is $400.00 alone not counting the other required maintenance. Now I have a manual myself and I figure that alone saved me the diesel motor markup. Also will the Cruze D have a tow rating and if so what is it?


Direct Injection can typically run a lower grade of fuel than the same motor would otherwise because of the cooling effect in the combustion chamber. That said Turbos like Octane. And the engine manufacturers are probably going to begin requiring Premium fuel because they need the additional MPG that it provides for CAFE.

I do run most of my gassers on 93 Octane as long as I can see some measurable improvement in mpg in doing so. Some engines adjust and improve while others do not. If apply that same rule to a gas Cruze, well I will make the money back from the Diesel option much faster.

Either way, I'm all in on the Diesel. I've crunched the numbers enough and put a dollar value on the power and range benefits offered by the diesel and I have no interest at all in the gassers.

My dealer here in TX already had been alloted 2 Diesel Cruzes but I don't have a deliver date just yet but the first one is mine.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

I saw somebody ask about towing in the Diesel, here is what my Holden Cruze manual says.
For a trailer with brakes 1200kg (2645lbs) all engines.
For a trailer without brakes 695kg (1500lbs) petrol models, 750kg (1650lbs) diesel. 
Holden wants you to buy the tow bar from them or they may not cover warranty but any recognized supplier doing a correct job should be acceptable.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

I still can't figure out why so many reviews are comparing the Cruze Eco and the Cruze diesel, or the Cruze diesel and a Hybrid.

The Cruze diesel is NOT an eco with a diesel engine, it is a 2LT with a diesel engine. That is why the starting price is so high, dammit. I've read at least a half dozen reviews already about "you need 800,000+ miles to recoup the difference!!"

Chevy was NOT going for "lets just make the most fuel efficient thing we can.." They wanted to test the diesel as a premium compact car with super high fuel economy and see if that 280 lb-ft of torque, leather interior, and full loaded feature list could appeal to people


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

ErikBEggs said:


> I still can't figure out why so many reviews are comparing the Cruze Eco and the Cruze diesel... ...The Cruze diesel is NOT an eco with a diesel engine, it is a 2LT with a diesel engine. That is why the starting price is so high, dammit. I've read at least a half dozen reviews already about "you need 800,000+ miles to recoup the difference!!"


The reason for the comparison is very clear... GM is trumpeting the TD's mileage and emissions, not its "luxury" appointments. So if all of their marketing material puts mileage first, why wouldn't you compare it's mileage to the next most efficient model in the lineup? Check out the Cruze TD page:

2014 Chevy Cruze Diesel | Clean Diesel Car | Chevrolet

If GM's advertising was centered around "Raising the luxury bar in the compact sedan segment" touting the drivetrain's "Luxury car torque and effortless drivability" (or something else creative along those lines) then you would be right, and a price/mileage/payback comparison to the $22,325 2LT would make more sense. But since they are pushing its fuel efficiency above all else, it would seem they are thinking that's the prime motive for buying the car over an Eco ($20,875 auto, $19,680 manual). Nowhere on that page does it mention luxury, high end features other than the improved power/torque and lower emissions.

The TD is priced from $24,885, making it $2,560 more than a 2LT, $4,010 more than an Eco Auto, and $5,205 more than an Eco Manual. Assuming a pessimistic (by today's standard anyway) $5/gallon fuel price, 15,000 mi/yr, and based on EPA combined mileage ratings, payback would be $225/yr (11.4 years) for a 2LT, $145/yr (27.7 years) for an Eco Auto, and $0.00/yr (Infinite years) for an Eco MT.

You could argue that the TD could be hyper-miled to higher numbers, but so could the other cars. You could argue that the driver who spends most of his time on the highway will see more fuel savings, but at that point you're pretty much splitting hairs.

If they offered the diesel as an option on the Eco and the 2LT in both manual and auto at a $1k premium (reasonable, I think) this confusion wouldn't be taking place. Instead they made it its own model at the top of the price list (by a looooong shot), and then styled it the same as a 2LT but without the option to add the RS package!?!

We Cruzetalk members can easily understand what the car is and how it's pricing is/isn't justified, that's not the issue. The issue is how GM is marketing the car to the general public who know nothing about the Cruze.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the TD... I'm glad GM is (finally) offering one for sale. It is their decision to offer it only as a top of the line, uber-$$$ model that confuses and upsets me. IMO, they should be offering the TD in the Eco manual with even taller gearing for a $1k price jump and an EPA Highway number around 48 MPG. If that car existed I would be pissed I didn't wait for it instead of buying a 2012 Eco. Now that the TD is released in this form only, man, am I glad I didn't wait for it.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Feb 16, 2013)

Blue Angel said:


> The reason for the comparison is very clear... GM is trumpeting the TD's mileage and emissions, not its "luxury" appointments. So if all of their marketing material puts mileage first, why wouldn't you compare it's mileage to the next most efficient model in the lineup? Check out the Cruze TD page:
> 
> 2014 Chevy Cruze Diesel | Clean Diesel Car | Chevrolet
> 
> ...


You have completely and totally missed the point of the Cruze Diesel.

First, on pricing. A diesel motor and it's associated systems cost more to manufacturer than a like gas engine. Much more in fact. I'm quite surprised that GM is able to offer it at such an affordable upcharge. I can only surmise that they are making little to no money on the diesel option and to make it more palatable they are requiring the addition of several good money making options to offset the difference. Furthermore the additional torque requires several other components to be upgraded as well, like the transmission and differential.
So your entire idea of pricing is simply invalid.

Secondly, the actual cost of the diesel engine appears to be about $1800. I speced out a '13 2LT w/ the same options as my already ordered '14 Cruze-D and the MSRP difference was $1800. 

Third, there is nothing wrong w/ people that prioritize cost per mile over driving pleasure as you do. But here is the thing, if you did the math you would discover that it takes too long, if ever to get payback on the Diesel option. And once the number crunchers, crunched, they would determine that the Diesel engine is generally more expensive to operate over their intended life cycle. So you see, if GM offered just the diesel in the stripper car, the guys that buy stripper cars would realize that's it's a bad deal for them. I'd guess that if GM couldn't hide some of the true cost of manufacturing and installing the diesel in several luxury options, that the cost of the motor alone would be in the $2.5K-$3K range.

Fourth, those of us that prioritize passing power and effortless driving while still enjoying excellent operating cost per mile, have the diesel option instead of a comparable V6 gasser which would get only like 25mpg. And those people, such as myself, are prioritizing drivability over absolute cost per mile and are willing to spend some more for some luxury.

If the diesel Cruze didn't come along, I'd probably have bought a loaded VW Passat Diesel for about $31K. That is a comparable car. The gasoline stripped down Cruze, is not.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

Suns_PSD said:


> You have completely and totally missed the point of the Cruze Diesel.


Me, as well as many others, apparently. If it was cheaper and available on other models, there would be no point to miss...

The main reason diesel engines cost significantly more to build is simply because they build significantly less of them. If the gas/diesel engine production volume ratio was reversed it would cost more to build the gas engine. An engine block is an engine block, a crankshaft is a crankshaft... the more you build the cheaper they get. The emissions systems on today's diesels add significant cost/complexity, not the engine. Yes the fuel system on a diesel has expensive injectors and a high pressure pump, both of which become cheap with mass production and are a tiny % of the drivetrain cost.

I guarantee you it doesn't cost GM $1800 _more_ to build a diesel Cruze drivetrain than a gas one. There's a healthy markup there... a healthy markup that is also present on just about every diesel sold in North America. Because there are so few of them built.

In Europe they build far more diesels so they are not only cheaper to buy (smaller premium over a gas engine), but cheaper to run as well given the much higher fuel prices. In Europe they make more financial sense and are therefore more popular.

GM could offer you the exact same drivability in the Cruze with a gas engine; they could take the 2.0T from the Verano, stick a slightly smaller turbo on it so boost and torque came in a little sooner, and stick a restrictor plate on it so it ran out of breath at 3500 RPM and only made 148 hp. Sure, it wouldn't get the same mileage as the diesel but it would drive about the same. It would also cost them less to develop and build. BUT, they couldn't charge you much more for it because it doesn't say diesel on the back.

PLEASE don't get me wrong, I like the fact that GM is offering the Cruze TD! It's about time one of the Big Three stepped it up and brought a diesel over the pond. I'm sure it is going to be a great car and I'm sure you are going to love owning it. I also hope this starts a fire in the industry that spreads and everyone starts offering diesels here... customers want them and the OEMs need them with the up-coming CAFE regulations looming.

But why not broaden the car's appeal? Why not increase its mileage and decrease its cost? Offering it with MUCH taller gearing would increase its fuel efficiency instead of bragging about a "vast reserve of torque for downshift-free driving"... that just tells me there's wasted engine capacity there using extra fuel.

*The Cruze diesel is a great thing overall, I just wish GM wasn't doing such a narrow-focus implementation of an otherwise great drivetrain. *Maybe the next generation Cruze will offer the new 1.6 TD in more models and make it more accessible? I guess we'll find out late next year.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

There are many components in a diesel that are unique to a diesel including a much stronger engine to handle high compression, a really high pressure fuel pump and direct injection. The way the engine operates is different as it is self firing via high compression. The turbo is a bigger stronger unit as well. Build numbers is not an issue as the engine used is from overseas and already has a large usage. You either want to drive a diesel or you don't. If ultimate fuel economy is your aim, buy a Fiat 500 or a Lambretta.


----------



## Beachernaut (Mar 27, 2012)

I like nearly everything about the Cruze diesel except the trans. I don't have the Eco manual because it's funner to drive and gets better mileage (although both are true). My primary reason for getting a manual is because I've replaced to **** many auto transmissions. I generally keep my cars/trucks for 200k+ miles and the only auto that made 200k without a trans replacement is our 03 Seville. I've never had to replace a standard trans. I've replaced quite a few clutches, but never the trans itself. I'll happily spend $300 on a clutch, rather than $1400 (minimum) replacing an auto trans.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Beachernaut said:


> I like nearly everything about the Cruze diesel except the trans. I don't have the Eco manual because it's funner to drive and gets better mileage (although both are true). My primary reason for getting a manual is because I've replaced to **** many auto transmissions. I generally keep my cars/trucks for 200k+ miles and the only auto that made 200k without a trans replacement is our 03 Seville. I've never had to replace a standard trans. I've replaced quite a few clutches, but never the trans itself. I'll happily spend $300 on a clutch, rather than $1400 (minimum) replacing an auto trans.


Never heard of a clutch or automatic costing so little to replace. $1200-1800 Clutch, $2500-3500 automatic. 

With automatics the main reason most need to ever be replaced is complete lack of maintenance, no one ever changes the fluid and then they complain when the trans fails. I have never had a GM car with a bad trans, though most of them I have changed the fluid at least every other year. 

When I bought my 1991 lesabre the original owner had the trans fluid changed every year. I bought the car in 2001 with 140,000miles and drove until 2009 when the car had 265,000miles. I never changed the fluid in that car the whole time I drove it.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

spacedout said:


> Never heard of a clutch or automatic costing so little to replace. $1200-1800 Clutch, $2500-3500 automatic.
> 
> With automatics the main reason most need to ever be replaced is complete lack of maintenance, no one ever changes the fluid and then they complain when the trans fails. I have never had a GM car with a bad trans, though most of them I have changed the fluid at least every other year.
> 
> When I bought my 1991 lesabre the original owner had the trans fluid changed every year. I bought the car in 2001 with 140,000miles and drove until 2009 when the car had 265,000miles. I never changed the fluid in that car the whole time I drove it.


DIY FTW! Replacing a clutch/transmission isn't fun, but not paying to be bent over backwards by a shop makes it worth it. 

I wouldn't try the not changing fluid thing on the Cruze. Aside from the 4T60, most GM auto transmissions are not known to last long. A fluid change at 30-40000 would be well worth the time/money invested. 




Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## Bohdan (Apr 28, 2012)

The fun part with the Cruze auto-trans is not knowing how the fluid level is doing. Was it properly filled at the factory or a little less and after 30,000 how is it looking. That important oil stick would have been great to see.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Bohdan said:


> The fun part with the Cruze auto-trans is not knowing how the fluid level is doing. Was it properly filled at the factory or a little less and after 30,000 how is it looking. That important oil stick would have been great to see.


That's common across the board these days, unfortunately. The Aisin 6-speed in our Toyota doesn't have one either. And how the heck are you supposed to check the color of the fluid?!

It's a scam. They get more money out of the typical consumer that keeps the car more than 3-5 years by either a) recommending a fluid change as part of a regular maintenance package or b) replacing failed transmissions that use "lifetime" fluid.

Low fluid level could easily account for some of the crappy shifting some people experience with these transmissions.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

Aussie said:


> There are many components in a diesel that are unique to a diesel including a much stronger engine to handle high compression, a really high pressure fuel pump and direct injection. The way the engine operates is different as it is self firing via high compression. The turbo is a bigger stronger unit as well.


In most cases, making parts stronger is just a matter of using more material. Stronger block and head, just a little more material in high stress areas does the trick. The material cost increase is almost negligible when you consider the cost of the development, tooling, machining and assembly. Basically, a block is a block, a head is a head, a crank is a crank (both the 1.4T and diesel feature forged cranks). I don't think the turbo is much bigger if at all... it's only pushing 10hp more air than the 1.4T (maybe less since diesel has more heat/power than gas), and the turbo doesn't have a water cooling circuit like the gas engine's turbo does.

A diesel engine's fuel injection system is more complicated based on it's extremely high operating pressure and advanced injectors. BUT, a diesel engine has no ignition system - no coils, no plugs, no added electronics... yes it has glow plugs for cold weather starts but that's a far simpler system than the ignition system on a gas engine.

I'm not sure about the diesel, but the 1.4T has an electronic thermostat that varies the engine temperature with load. The 1.4T also has a fly-by-wire electronic throttle body, where the diesel has no throttle body at all (as far as I know). The exhaust systems are likely a wash; the diesel having urea injection, the gas having catalytic converters.

If you were to boil it right down to the fine details, it wouldn't surprise me if the diesel engine did actually cost more to build, even if they made equal amounts of both, but the difference would be very small compared to the premium GM (and all other companies) are charging for the upgrade.



Aussie said:


> Build numbers is not an issue as the engine used is from overseas and already has a large usage. You either want to drive a diesel or you don't. If ultimate fuel economy is your aim, buy a Fiat 500 or a Lambretta.


I was under the impression the North American Cruze TD has a newly developed engine, or at least mostly new, that hasn't been used elsewhere?

You are 100% right... if fuel economy is your ultimate goal, get a tiny car. Or a motorcycle.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> DIY FTW! Replacing a clutch/transmission isn't fun, but not paying to be bent over backwards by a shop makes it worth it.


Couldn't have said it much better myself, though changing a clutch is a pretty large job for most people.



jblackburn said:


> I wouldn't try the not changing fluid thing on the Cruze. Aside from the 4T60, most GM auto transmissions are not known to last long.


Such a shame... GM used to have a really good reputation with their automatics. That good old 3800 V6 drivetrain was bullet proof, shifted smooth and lasted forever. My Mother's '90 Buick LeSabre suffered at her hands for years and years. If anything leaked or burned off in that engine it would have surely died - she couldn't even remember how to open the reverse opening hood!


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> That's common across the board these days, unfortunately. The Aisin 6-speed in our Toyota doesn't have one either. And how the heck are you supposed to check the color of the fluid?!


My GF's BMW doesn't even have an oil dipstick! THAT is a critical omission... you have to check your oil level with the DIC, and it goes 25,000km (over 15k miles) between recommended oil changes! How much does a dipstick cost...


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Blue Angel said:


> My GF's BMW doesn't even have an oil dipstick! THAT is a critical omission... you have to check your oil level with the DIC, and it goes 25,000km (over 15k miles) between recommended oil changes! How much does a dipstick cost...


WHAT.

Ok, desire to own a new BMW gone.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> I wouldn't try the not changing fluid thing on the Cruze. Aside from the 4T60, most GM auto transmissions are not known to last long. A fluid change at 30-40000 would be well worth the time/money invested.
> Sent from AutoGuide.com App



Really? My experience GM automatics are some of the best easily going 150,000-200,000miles with no maintenance(as long as they are not abused). Like I said most people never change the fluid in an automatic or on trucks front/rear axles and transfer case. 

I did change the fluid in my cavalier at 60,000(even though it was listed as lifetime). I plan to follow the extreme maintenance on the cruze and change the auto fluid by 45,000miles. The only bad part my dealer jacked the auto fluid change price up from $99 to $160 over the last few years. Price includes filter, pan gasket fluid and labor. Since the cruze has no serviceable filter wonder if I can get them to lower the price. 

Since the cruze is a simple drain/fill with a real drain plug I could do it myself, but I like a nice paper trail for the warranty.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Lol, you had 2 4t60s. It was around long enough that I hope they got it right. 

Their truck transmissions from the 80s-00s were absolute junk. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## EROracing (Mar 11, 2013)

The GM 4l60e is absolutely bullet proof with a $30 corvette servo! Gm transmission will last forever if you know a few inexpensive tricks! Actually changing the fluid helps too....... Lol


----------



## Suns_PSD (Feb 16, 2013)

Although the highway mileage of the Cruze is higher than the Jetta, at 46 mpg, the city mileage is listed as considerably less, something like 28 mpg (going off memory here).

I'm not really worried about it but I just wonder why or if it's just an EPA testing anomoly.

Thoughts?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

The Cruze is fat curb-weight wise; the diesel even more so. More weight to accelerate = less city MPG. The Jetta is 3100 lbs; the Cruze is 3500. 

It seems as though whatever fuel savings are gained by the Diesel engine are lost through its additional weight. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> It seems as though whatever fuel savings are gained by the Diesel engine are lost through its additional weight.


THIS is why they went so crazy pulling weight out of the Eco MT... hard to imagine the Cruze TD weighs almost 500 lbs more! That's honest mid-size car weight! All the high-techery and diesel goodness is wasted in town lugging all that extra weight around...

...I have to say it again; give me a Cruze Eco TD MT. I'd tolerate a ~100 lb weight gain for the diesel benefits, but not 4-500 lbs and be stuck with a slushbox.

All that extra weight plays a part in EVERYTHING about the car. My Eco, more-so since installing Eibach springs, feels light and tossable and turns in with a nice quick bite. Add 4-500 lbs to that and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the handling and "feel" of the car are going to take a hit. That weight gain is like the difference between having just me in the car, and me and three of my buddies in the car with me. That's HUGE.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

I own 2 cars, a Hyuandi Getz which weighs 1,000kg and is petrol with a 1.5 NA engine and 4 speed auto. The other is a Cruze diesel which weighs 1540kg and is TD with 6 speed auto. The diesel is more fuel efficient everywhere both town and highway. Before you say the Getz is only 4 speed around town the Cruize only uses the first 4 gears as it won't allow the engine to labour at low revs. On the highway the Getz goes about 13km for every liter used and the Cruize driven at the same 110kph goes 15km plus for every liter. Engine speed at 110 Getx 2,300rpm Cruze 1,750rpm. Quality of ride and comfort no comparison and also much quieter inside the Cruze. By the way the disc drum brake setup on the getz while ok is way below the Cruze all disc system.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> Lol, you had 2 4t60s. It was around long enough that I hope they got it right.
> Their truck transmissions from the 80s-00s were absolute junk.



I had no issues with any of the TH350, TH400 or 4L80E trans I have had experience with. most run 150,000+ with no fluid change without issues. I say without fluid change because if we took a poll I suspect 80% or more of the people would say they never change theirs in any car.


----------

