Chevy Cruze ECO earns an astounding 42 MPG EPA Highway rating!

[Kal-El]

2011 Chevy Cruze Eco Gets EPA Fuel Economy Rating Of 42 MPG

The new Chevrolet Cruze Eco and its 42 mile-per-gallon highway gas mileage rating is likely to send the rest of the auto industry scrambling. Suddenly, every chief engineer is going to have to measure the fuel mileage of vehicles under development against a General Motors sedan.

2011 Chevrolet Cruze's badging will distinguish the Eco version on the rear.

It could be a painful exercise. At 42 mpg with a manual transmission, Cruze Eco is 2 mpg better than even GM had forecast. More significantly, it bests smaller cars like Honda Fit and Ford Fiesta. It's better than some hybrids, which can cost a lot more.

How did Chevy do it? It added more body panels to reduce wind drag, among other things.

Now other automakers are going to have to struggle for mpg boasting rights. A new Hyundai Elantra could deliver. So could the next Honda Civic. But if they can't best 42 mpg or come close, there could be hell to pay when sales are counted. Interestingly, even though gas prices have remained stable below $3 a gallon, surveys show buyers still care a lot about fuel conservation.

Cost is the key. Adding hybrid systems, turbochargers or diesel engines significantly increase their cost. The Cruze Eco will be more expensive than the base model, but won't blow the bank. Cruze Eco starts at $18,895, including shipping. The base model Cruze starts at $16,995. Chrissie Thompson of the Detroit Free Press says that's at least several hundred dollars more than its targeted foreign competitors, but Cruze Eco comes with more standard features.

The company will start building the Eco model this month, spokeswoman Lesley Hettinger tells the Free Press. Sales of the Eco model start by the end of the year, she said.

Just how does Cruze Eco's manual-transmission fuel economy stack up?:

At 28 m.p.g. city / 42 m.p.g. highway, it compares with the 26 / 35 offered by the Toyota Corolla, the Honda Civic's 26 / 34, the Ford Focus' 25 / 35 and the Hyundai Elantra's 26 / 35.

[Kal-El]

This really questions the logic of spending twice as much for a Volt that gets 36 mpg highway in gas mode. That's right, 36 mpg in the far more advanced Volt designed specifically for efficiency. LOL!

42 MPG is an extremely significant achievement for a straight gas powered car. And it's good sized too. To think that much smaller cars like the Honda Fit only get 34 MPG highway. And Honda was always much more fuel efficient than GM cars. This really can't be overstated.

First it was this years Fiesta which leapfrogged the rest of the industry with a 40 mpg rating with the 6-speed option. 4 mpg better than 2nd best. Now, the bigger Cruze comes along and sets a whole new standard nobody is likely to match anytime soon.

And for this larger car to beat the Yaris by 6 MPG highway is nothing short of remarkable.

[SAV912]

I think what most people miss is that this car (nor any car driven by the average human being) will not get 42 MPG. In fact, it won't get anywhere near that. It is CAPABLE of it, yes. It's not LIKELY to get it though.

America as a whole still drives like too much of an asshat, setting cruise control at 85 MPH thru the Appalachians, accelerating up to red lights and hammering the brakes, and overall having little knowledge of the most efficient method out of a car. I know there are people here that crack 50 MPG with their Yarii. Give that same Yaris they did it in to the Avg Joe and I guarantee he won't touch anywhere near 50 MPG.

-SAV

[severous01]

so for all you volt haters....how often do you really go more than 45 miles before you need to 'charge' again??? and, while you're at work do you have access to a 120v port? i happen to have access so, i will never be stranded...that and i drive 25 miles round trip.

plus i'm sure there'll be options for solar panels on hood and trunk like prius did. that will increase charging abilities. and the volt is much more advanced than the cruz. and until battery prices come down and technologies go up....electrics will be outrageous.

any way, that's an average driver doing average things. that's not someone driving smart, with nothing in the car and trying to get better economy...

any way, go cruz....now maybe GM can sell cars in china and korea....

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by SAV912

I think what most people miss is that this car (nor any car driven by the average human being) will not get 42 MPG. In fact, it won't get anywhere near that. It is CAPABLE of it, yes. It's not LIKELY to get it though.

America as a whole still drives like too much of an asshat, setting cruise control at 85 MPH thru the Appalachians, accelerating up to red lights and hammering the brakes, and overall having little knowledge of the most efficient method out of a car. I know there are people here that crack 50 MPG with their Yarii. Give that same Yaris they did it in to the Avg Joe and I guarantee he won't touch anywhere near 50 MPG.

-SAV

Well, regardless, it's the official EPA rating. The EPA tests all cars the same way and this is simply a way to compare cars and get an idea of what you may expect to achieve.

Fact is, is that post 2007, EPA testing is much more stringent and "real world". This 42 mpg rating before 2008 would have been about 47 mpg.
Today's EPA ratings are easily beaten. For example, most of us average around 38 mpg in our Yaris's even driving above speed limits and using AC. Yet the Yaris is EPA rated 29/36 (33 average).

Based on that, most people will indeed get at least 42mpg while cruising on the highway even at 70-75mph. More than half will probably get more, even above 45 on average.

Believe it or not, the new EPA testing actually tests based on going over the speed limit which you pointed out most Americans do. It's just normal to do so. And they test with the AC on and account for other real world variables.

[SAV912]

Today's EPAs are not as easily beaten as people think. A website of enthusiasts is not a generally good sample of the owners of the car as a whole. The largest sample on fueleconomy.gov of Yaris owners are coupled in the 2007 and 2008 models.

'07 AT = 35 MPG
'07 MT = 38.1
'08 AT = 36.3
'08 MT = 38.4

That covers a field of 203 users just over those four model years. Personally, using the miles travelled/gallons filled method, I've never gotten better than 39.9 MPG, and that was after a week of steady 65 MPH commuting on I-95 to and from work during cool weather. No, nothing is wrong with my car either. Plugs are new, and I run full synthetic oil and have had new low rolling resistance tires on the car since May '10. So most people do not get at least 42 MPG on average. Most people will not get 42 MPG in the Cruze ECO either.

The new EPA cycle only tests AC usage as a small portion of the ratings they issue cars. The average speed of the car while using AC is only 22.2 MPH and only over the course of 9 minutes while only travelling 3.6 miles. For the other four parts of conducting the EPA tests, the AC is off. The highway cycle's average speed is 48 MPH while touching a top speed of 60 MPH. They do have a section where the top speed they achieve is 80 MPH, but only over 8 miles and 10 minutes. The bottom line is, while the new EPA numbers are CLOSER to those achieved by the average American driver, they are still a bandaid rather than the full overhaul fix that the EPA system needs. While you can achieve the highway rating or better, the point still stands that you have to concentrate harder than most Americans are willing to do in order to get there.

This isn't all a bag on the Cruze ECO. I appplaud tremendously that a car larger than ours with more luxury items is able to be more efficient while simultaneously offering more power. This is hopefully a sign of even better things in the pipeline. I just don't care for the misrepresentation and such disparity between city and highway numbers. Advertising a 42 MPG rating, when the car is not likely to touch anywhere near that on average occasion (you must take into account the 28 MPG city rating, and the 35 MPG average), is what irks me.

-SAV

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by SAV912

Today's EPAs are not as easily beaten as people think. A website of enthusiasts is not a generally good sample of the owners of the car as a whole. The largest sample on fueleconomy.gov of Yaris owners are coupled in the 2007 and 2008 models.

'07 AT = 35 MPG
'07 MT = 38.1
'08 AT = 36.3
'08 MT = 38.4

That covers a field of 203 users just over those four model years. Personally, using the miles travelled/gallons filled method, I've never gotten better than 39.9 MPG, and that was after a week of steady 65 MPH commuting on I-95 to and from work during cool weather. No, nothing is wrong with my car either. Plugs are new, and I run full synthetic oil and have had new low rolling resistance tires on the car since May '10. So most people do not get at least 42 MPG on average. Most people will not get 42 MPG in the Cruze ECO either.

Who ever said that the Yaris get's 42 mpg average, or that it's expected too?
It's rated 29/36 for the MT. That's 32-33 mpg average. Even the fact that you can get 39 mpg is a significant amount more than what the EPA says you'll get.

Originally Posted by SAV912

The new EPA cycle only tests AC usage as a small portion of the ratings they issue cars. The average speed of the car while using AC is only 22.2 MPH and only over the course of 9 minutes while only travelling 3.6 miles. For the other four parts of conducting the EPA tests, the AC is off. The highway cycle's average speed is 48 MPH while touching a top speed of 60 MPH. They do have a section where the top speed they achieve is 80 MPH, but only over 8 miles and 10 minutes. The bottom line is, while the new EPA numbers are CLOSER to those achieved by the average American driver, they are still a bandaid rather than the full overhaul fix that the EPA system needs. While you can achieve the highway rating or better, the point still stands that you have to concentrate harder than most Americans are willing to do in order to get there.

I just disagree that it takes any special effort to achieve or beat today's EPA estimates. Using the Yaris as an example, I'd have to drive a consistent 90mph just to get it down to the highway rating of 36mpg. To get the city mileage down to 29mpg, I'd have to either drive it like a rally car or be stuck in gridlock.

Originally Posted by SAV912

This isn't all a bag on the Cruze ECO. I appplaud tremendously that a car larger than ours with more luxury items is able to be more efficient while simultaneously offering more power. This is hopefully a sign of even better things in the pipeline. I just don't care for the misrepresentation and such disparity between city and highway numbers. Advertising a 42 MPG rating, when the car is not likely to touch anywhere near that on average occasion (you must take into account the 28 MPG city rating, and the 35 MPG average), is what irks me.

-SAV

Well, the 42mpg rating is clearly stated as HIGHWAY. No one is claiming that this will be your average mixed with city. I don't see anything misleading about it. Since everyone has a different "average" based on how much city and how much highway they drive, stating an average isn't very helpful. Most of us just care about the highway number as a bar that is set for how fuel efficient a car is. People should look at both numbers to get an idea of what is good for them.

[SailDesign]

The only thing that makes it get 42 mpg is an overdrive on the 6-speed auto box (it is not available with stick-shift) The LT gets 36 mpg, because it doesn't have the OD.
The engine is a 1.4 with turbo giving 138hp, and the cars' weight is close to 3100 lbs. So the power/weight ratio is just a bit worse than ours.

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by SailDesign

The only thing that makes it get 42 mpg is an overdrive on the 6-speed auto box (it is not available with stick-shift) The LT gets 36 mpg, because it doesn't have the OD.
The engine is a 1.4 with turbo giving 138hp, and the cars' weight is close to 3100 lbs. So the power/weight ratio is just a bit worse than ours.

Actually, the ECO is ONLY available in a manual transmission.

[SAV912]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

Who ever said that the Yaris get's 42 mpg average, or that it's expected too?

You did, actually. I know you meant highway. I figured it was safe to assume you would know I meant highway as well.

Originally Posted by Kal-El

Based on that, most people will indeed get at least 42mpg while cruising on the highway even at 70-75mph. More than half will probably get more, even above 45 on average.

-SAV

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by SailDesign

The only thing that makes it get 42 mpg is an overdrive on the 6-speed auto box (it is not available with stick-shift) The LT gets 36 mpg, because it doesn't have the OD.
The engine is a 1.4 with turbo giving 138hp, and the cars' weight is close to 3100 lbs. So the power/weight ratio is just a bit worse than ours.

Read this article. It outlines the amount of things GM had to do to achieve this. It wasn't easy.

Cruze Eco’s highway fuel economy beats non-hybrid segment competitors – including 23 percent greater highway fuel economy than the Honda Civic – as well as the Ford Fiesta subcompact and many hybrid models. In fact, it’s better than Ford Fusion Hybrid, Nissan Altima Hybrid and Toyota Camry Hybrid.

“Chevrolet Cruze continues to redefine the compact segment, offering class-leading standard safety features, upscale amenities – as well as hybrid-like fuel economy without the price,” said Chuck Russell, vehicle line director. “The Cruze Eco is in a league of its own and will challenge perceptions of the efficiency available in a more affordable non-hybrid.”

The Cruze Eco carries an MSRP of $18,895 (including destination charge). It goes on sale in January.

To achieve its segment-leading fuel economy, Cruze’s engineers focused on aerodynamic performance, mass optimization and powertrain enhancements. The refinements in each area paid big dividends towards the car’s overall efficiency, while providing engineers with valuable information to help enhance the efficiency of future Chevrolet models.

“We left no stone unturned or piece of sheet metal un-weighed,” said Russell. “Our engineers were comprehensive and thorough when it came to evaluating and modifying the aspects of the car’s performance that contribute to fuel economy.”

Aero enhancements.
Aerodynamic improvements over non-Eco manual-transmission models contributed approximately six mpg to the Cruze’s EPA-estimated 42 mpg highway fuel economy. Many were developed and refined in more than 500 hours of wind-tunnel testing of the Chevy Volt, which shares a core architecture with the Cruze. Examples include the upper grille, which has more “closeouts” to improve aerodynamics, a lower front air dam extension, a rear spoiler, a lowered ride height and underbody panels that smooth airflow beneath the car.

The Eco model also features an all-new technology in the compact segment: a lower front grille air shutter that closes at higher speeds to reduce aerodynamic drag and opens at lower speeds to optimize engine-cooling airflow. Another contributor to reduced drag is the use of ultra-low rolling resistance 17-inch Goodyear tires (used with lightweight wheels), which are also used on the Volt.

As a result of the aero enhancements, aerodynamic drag was reduced by 10 percent over a non-Eco model, with a coefficient of drag of 0.298. That places Cruze at the top of the class for mainstream compact cars.

Mass optimization.
More than 42 changes were made on the Eco to reduce weight. It weighs in at 3,009 pounds (1,365 kg), compared to the 3,223 pounds (1,462 kg) of the Cruze 1LT. The diet program for the Cruze challenged engineers to look at all aspects of the vehicle’s construction, including hundreds of weld flanges on the vehicle. They were reduced 1 mm to 2 mm in length, which saved several pounds, while the sheet metal gauge thickness was reduced by about 0.1 mm in select components. This saved weight while preserving structural integrity.

Lighter wheels and tires are used on the Eco. They’re stylish, polished 17-inch alloy units with Goodyear tires that weigh only 36.5 pounds (16.6 kg) apiece. That’s 5.3 pounds (2.4 kg) less than the 16-inch wheel/tires of the Cruze 1LT for a complete savings to the vehicle of 21.2 pounds (9.6 kg).

Efficient powertrain.
Cruze Eco is powered by power-dense Ecotec 1.4L turbocharged engine and a standard six-speed manual transmission. The transmission’s gearing is optimized for the model’s specific 17-inch wheel/tire combination and includes aggressive ratios for first and second gear coupled with a highly efficient, “taller” sixth-gear ratio for highway driving. That means engine rpm is reduced on the highway, which in turn reduces fuel consumption. A six-speed automatic transmission is available, with EPA-estimated fuel economy ratings of 26 city and 37 highway.

The Ecotec 1.4L turbo’s power ratings are 138 horsepower (103 kW) and 148 lb.-ft. of torque (200 Nm) between 1,850 rpm and 4,900 rpm. The wide rpm range for the maximum torque – a specific trait of turbocharged engines – helps the engine deliver a better driving experience and performance. The turbocharger is integrated within the exhaust manifold, for reduced weight and greater packaging flexibility.

The engine also features premium design elements that give it world-class smoothness and durability while also contributing to the Cruze Eco’s lower curb weight. They include a cast iron block with a hollow frame structure, hollow-cast camshafts and a plastic intake manifold.

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by SAV912

You did, actually. I know you meant highway. I figured it was safe to assume you would know I meant highway as well.

No, any 42 mpg statement was in reference to the Cruze. Never did I or anyone else say that the Yaris averages 42 on the highway (although some people do).

[SailDesign]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

Actually, the ECO is ONLY available in a manual transmission.

Duh! My bad. <blush>
Either way, the OverDrive is what makes the 42 mpg possible.

[firemachine69]

That's one long-ass sixth gear!

[p123456789]

I'd still rather have the diesel version of the yaris over any hybrid 70mpg would be nice. I still dont understand how a 400 hp vette can get 30 mpg on the highway but a cruze only get 36.

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by p123456789

I'd still rather have the diesel version of the yaris over any hybrid 70mpg would be nice. I still dont understand how a 400 hp vette can get 30 mpg on the highway but a cruze only get 36.

The Corvette has nearly unmatched aerodynamics that really shines at high speeds.
It has a very high 6th gear. And engines with a lot of power moving a light car barely has to work when cruising. The Corvette is basically idling at 75 MPH.

Meanwhile, economy car engines run higher RPM at highway speeds than any other class. Their aerodynamics aren't superior, and they usually have less gears.

[thebarber]

the panels in the grill that close at speed help, too....as well as the underbody panels....

though a tall overdrive with a relatively torquey 1.4L turbo help too

[Kal-El]

It's certainly interesting that they went with a very small 1.4 liter engine in the ECO, although turbocharged. 1.5 is the smallest engine in the US (except for Smart) until this comes out.

One thing to possibly be concerned about is engine reliability in the ECO. Reason being is that turbo engines are notoriously less reliable over time and such a small displacement coupled with 138 hp powering a good size car puts a lot of pressure on it.

Though I think it will be fine has long as you're not trying to win races everyday with that turbo. Just gotta be easy on the throttle if you want it to last.