Last post on Dec 08, 2013 at 11:28 AM
You are in the Chevrolet Cruze
What is this discussion about?
Chevrolet Cruze, Sedan
#873 of 906 40 mpg a requirement?
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Apr 20, 2012 (6:15 am)
A reporter is looking for a car shopper who thinks 40 MPG is a requisite before they buy. If you have recently shopped for a car, and you have only considered cars that get 40 MPG, and you are willing to share your story with a reporter, please contact predmunds.com with your daytime contact information no later than Tuesday, April 24, 2012 at noon Pacific/3 p.m. Eastern.
#875 of 906 36 leadfoot mpg.. Cruze LS M6 is a Home Run .
May 06, 2012 (1:01 pm)
First 500 mile I-95 roundtrip, with 1.8LS stickshift: 36mpg, about 3 mpg better than commuting. Go-pedal was floored approximately 974 times each way in order to keep up with traffic/conditions. Just a couple doofi drivers were encountered, and only one drunk. Traffic is FAST out there people. With this car semi-loaded with 1.8 engine and automatic transmission, it would be *impossible* to "lead" the especially concious/big-dog drivers on I-95. but it's totally doable with the stickshift, thank you.
20k miles on it so far, zero dealer visits, just the one oil change and now time for #2 (synthetic).
home-run, GM: An actual 4.3 (A+) should go to the team that conceived/designed/built Cruze.
#876 of 906 Cruze Diesel
Jun 02, 2012 (9:49 am)
Recently, GM quietly announced that the Cruze will be sold here with a diesel and a six speed manual (no automatic) in model year 2013. The engine is being co-developed by GM and an Italian company partially owned by GM called V.M. Motori. FIAT owns the rest of V.M. Motori who has been making diesels since 1947.
I bring this up because of an issue I have had with V.M. Motori diesels. Chrysler in Europe has been using this company for some years now and in 2005 and 2006 used one of their engines in the Jeep Liberty. I had a 2005 Liberty with one of these engines and it did not hold up. It threw a rod at 77,594 miles without warning and destroyed the engine in short order in spite of getting very good care. If you look on the forum here on Edmunds at the Jeep Liberty diesel you will see that there have been numerous issues.
I am not trying to dissuade anyone from buying a diesel, but engines from this company leave something to be desired. I wonder why GM did not use one of their Opel diesels instead?
#877 of 906 Re: Cruze Diesel [winter2]
Jun 02, 2012 (10:48 am)
This is interesting to learn, winter. I almost bought a Liberty because it offered the diesel. I loved the torque and the way the engine ran, although for its 2.7 litre size (if I recall) certainly wasn't the smoothest of inline 4's, it was smooth enough.
The deal breaker for me, was the auto transmission. While I prefer a stick (and that engine was well suited to utilizing the most efficiency out of a stick with so much torque down low in the rpm range) I was still considering a purchase with the only trans available, being the corporate Chrysler 5 speed auto. But it shifted so badly, that I lost total interest after driving a second demo at a different dealer. The two trans shifted a bit differently from each other (even that was curious) but they both were busy shifters when they needn't have been, and lazy when they needed to be responsive. Just terrible software communicative management with the engine. A total deal-breaker. And wouldn't you know it, years later we learn that that trans did in fact have a very troublesome torque-converter. Little did I know at the time that Chrysler's sourced engine emission systems would also cause a myriad of issues down the road that can't really be blamed on VM.
But, your crank issue (and I have heard of other mechanical issues also) can't be blamed on emission devices or Chrysler; or at least I surely don't think they can. But what can be blamed on Chrysler is how poorly they handled their customers who got saddled with this troublesome, expensive power train. And for that I have a memory like an elephant and feel relieved that the auto trans was such a disaster on my demo drives because if it hadn't, I too would be experiencing the premature and even fatal issues you guys who bought one, have. I feel badly for you. And I thank you for your info post about the Cruze VM diesel. Had I not known this, I probably would have stilled passed if the auto was not available, but only because of some health complications that make shifting a stick a problem for me in my years now.
I am extremely impressed with the mileage that Cruze owners are getting in real world driving, with both engines and trans combos. I have personally driven the turbo with 6 auto and the 1.8 with 6 stick and was very impressed with both. The 1.8 with the stick left me suspecting that given the weight of car and the 1.8 with auto would make it not too swift for pickup, and if driven hard in stick or auto would be harder on gas than the turbo driven normally. But I also believe the great mileage owners like alias are getting with the 1.8 stick if driven not too aggressively. Now that I know about where GM is foolishly sourcing their diesel (instead of using the Holden?/Opel) and not offering the auto, my choice would be the turbo with auto when I am in the market again. Of course the bar is constantly being raised so who knows. And we also won't know if GM does a better job than Chrysler, of making emission systems more compatible with VM's diesel, but also offer longevity. Visions of crank failures on a cared-for engine is hard to forgive though.
#878 of 906 Re: Cruze Diesel [gimmestdtranny]
Jun 06, 2012 (8:58 am)
The issues with the powertrain in the Jeep Liberty were multiple and if you were not aware of some of the quirks, it would cost you.
If this VM/GM hybrid engine is more VM than GM then expect issues, especially with emissions and mechanical issues. The EGR valve on the CRD was a nightmare. It was not properly designed to handle the soot in the exhaust stream and from time to time you had to "blow out" the soot from the EGR which left clouds of soot behind you when you did it. Another quirk was the intake manifold pressure sensor. It needed cleaning with every oil change and of course the location left something to be desired. Forget to clean this sensor and you would blow a hose from the turbo to the intercooler. Then we come to the variable geometry turbo, made by Garrett. Only lasted about 80K miles before you had to repair it or replace it. I wish Chrysler had used a twin-scroll turbo, yes more money, a little harder to package, but in reality simpler and more rugged. The Cruze diesel will have a DPF and potentially urea (DEF) spray into the exhaust stream for emissions. This should prove interesting.
As to the trans, you must have driven an early model in 2005. The trans in my CRD always shifted smoothly in fact almost too smoothly. When Chrysler recalled the CRD to modify the engine torque and replace parts in the trans including the torque converter (F37 recall) the vehicle acted very much the same except that power delivery was not quite as potent. I was into my third torque converter at the time my engine threw a rod and I had read of other Jeep CRD owners having even more torque converters installed than I did.
Now back to the Cruze diesel. If GM has more say than VM, I am not sure what to expect. I still remember the 5.7L V-8 diesel nightmare from the late 70's to early 80's. GM gave diesel a bad name and an undeserved bad reputation with that engine.
Frankly, I am intrigued by this development but I am very scared of anything associated with VM Motori or GM.
#879 of 906 FE report
Jun 07, 2012 (1:41 pm)
I just took a Cruze rental (1LT I think) on a 370-mile two day trip. It had just over 12k miles when I picked it up. The outbound trip was in the evening and temps 70-80, so no AC and average speed was 64 mph--never had the cruise control over 67. Almost all highway. On that leg I got 42.7 mpg per the trip computer. Then I drove around town today and headed back to town. It was about 80 and I was dressed up so had the AC on. Still was doing well, at about 42 mpg overall, until I-94 was blocked by a bad accident. I sat for a long time, with AC on (1/2 mile for over an hour). Finally got to turn around and drove on side roads around the accident. But with all that I still averaged 40.2 mpg for the trip, which I think is really good given the near-zero mpg I got for over an hour (which dropped the overall mph to just over 50). Also, my butt and back weren't too much the worse for wear sitting in the car for nearly 4 hours w/o a break.
#880 of 906 Re: FE report [backy]
Jun 09, 2012 (3:58 am)
Great job on the mileage, if you are that good now look at the ECO model and be ready for 50+mpg under the same situations.
#881 of 906 Re: FE report [gpara]
Jun 09, 2012 (11:35 am)
Based on recent reviews from C/D and CR on the Eco, I doubt I'll see 50+ mpg under those conditions. Maybe 50 mpg with the stick when cruising on the highway.
Jun 13, 2012 (12:11 pm)
A reporter is interested in talking to any car shoppers who are thinking about buying any one of the following small cars: Chevy Cruze, Ford Focus, Hyundai Elantra, Honda Civic or Dodge Dart. Please send a brief description of your shopping experience and your preferred contact information to PRedmunds.com by Monday, June 18th