# 2012 Chevrolet Cruze Eco Review



## AutoGuide.com (Jul 26, 2010)

> Driving the Chevrolet Cruze Eco is like bringing someone who hates wine on a vineyard tour: they’ll sip the liquid slowly and drink the cheap stuff without complaint.
> 
> Refreshing and unusual like an episode of Judge Judy that doesn’t involve perjury, the Cruze Eco actually met its EPA fuel estimated 28/42 mpg in the city and on the highway. In fact at times it beat the highway figures, averaging as much as 45 mpg on a long drive.


Read the full 2012 Chevrolet Cruze Eco review at AutoGuide.com.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...where'd they get their information from, Canada?

_"Best of all, even with 87 octane priced around $4 per gallon, the Cruze Eco is cheap to fill thanks to a stomach-stapled *10.5* gallon tank compared to the usual *13*-gallon equipment found on other Cruze models."_

...last I heard, it's *12.6* gallon and *15.6* gallon, respectively, for the USA models.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

AutoGuide is based in Toronto, so they probably did use Imperial Gallons. 12.6 US Gallons = 10.5 Imperial Gallons and 15.6 US Gallons = 13 Imperial Gallons.

What I want to know is did they drive the ECO MT or the ECO AT. From reading the article I would guess they drove the ECO AT.


----------



## Fajin (Jun 4, 2012)

You know, if you want to tear up the road you get a Camero, a Lamborghini, a Corvette . . . I just went on an 800 mile road trip and got 50.2 mpg. I don't see too many hot rods or luxury cars getting that kind of mileage. And too when I was shopping for my Cruze the competing vehicle was an Audi A4 with manual transmission. There aren't too many vehicles with MT these days. And yes the interior of the A4 is much, much nicer than the interior of my Cruze but it also costs more than twice as much as the Cruze and probably 5 times as much to maintain. So like the hot rod, if you want near luxury like the A4 then go for it. Me? I'm really happy with my 50.2 mpg. I don't mind having cloth instead of leather, in fact I prefer the cloth. I'm not so wild about not having a spare but we'll see how that works out. I'm really, really happy having my $23,000 paying the dividends and I have yet to miss any extra power that I could have bought with that money.


----------



## rbtec (Feb 3, 2012)

obermd said:


> AutoGuide is based in Toronto, so they probably did use Imperial Gallons. 12.6 US Gallons = 10.5 Imperial Gallons and 15.6 US Gallons = 13 Imperial Gallons.
> 
> What I want to know is did they drive the ECO MT or the ECO AT. From reading the article I would guess they drove the ECO AT.


If they cited 42 mpg EPA estimates, they drove the manual.


Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

rbtec said:


> If they cited 42 mpg EPA estimates, they drove the manual.


They also said the engine screamed implying high RPMs, which the manuals don't do, but there have been several complaints here on CT about the automatics doing.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

obermd said:


> They also said the engine screamed implying high RPMs, which the manuals don't do, but there have been several complaints here on CT about the automatics doing.


Maybe they can't drive. The engine will scream needlessly away all the way til 6500 unless you realize the powerband dies at ~5000 RPM. 1st gear is the only one worth accelerating to 6000 in.

I will agree highway acceleration is a bit lacking after 60, but if you've got the engine screaming and not accelerating, you're in the wrong gear for a light-pressure turbo car that gets its peak power at lower RPMs than normally aspirated engines.

Also, the small tank is only on the MT, right? I thought the Eco AT has the normal-sized tank.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

The ECO MT's has a stomach (gas tank) staple in the form of a bushing that closes off the main tank vent early.


----------



## TechCruzer (Mar 15, 2012)

In reading the article it states... "Aggressive downshifting makes for marginal gains and maddening noise as the engine screams in agony." You can only downshift aggressively in a manual... so unless they are running the Automatic in manual mode (which they should say, but don't) I suspect it is a manual they are taking about. Oh and the fact that if the car pictured was the test car... then hands down it was the stick version (see below). Again... if the car pictured is/was the test car it must have an actual owner since it appears to have legitimate plates in the last picture.


----------



## TechCruzer (Mar 15, 2012)

obermd said:


> The ECO MT's has a stomach (gas tank) staple in the form of a bushing that closes off the main tank vent early.


According to Chevrolet the Eco (all) have a 12.6 gallon gas tank... if you care to, check out my Fuelly info I can usually squeeze about an extra gallon in there depending on how close to empty it is, but that is just me & what I choose to do.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

amalmer71 said:


> If they're using imperial gallons for the MPG calculations they're going to read higher since an Imperial gallon is larger than a US gallon, ergo, 42 mpg isn't that impressive.
> 
> It calculates to ~35 mpg US gallons.


That would indicate the ECO AT, which is what "engine screaming" says to me as well.


----------

