GM had already planned three variants of the upcoming, and fuel efficient, 2011 Chevrolet Cruze — an LS, LT, and LTZ — the same labeling scheme that Chevy has for lots of its vehicles. But Chevy plans to unveil yet another Cruze model at the New York Auto show this week: the Cruze Eco.
Using a variety of innovative techniques, including a 1.4 liter Ecotec engine, various aerodynamic improvements, weight saving features, and low rolling resistance tires, Chevy claims to have squeezed at least 40 MPG out of the Cruze Eco on the highway.
Having broken the 40 mpg barrier, GM is using these stats to claim “the Cruze Eco delivers hybrid-like efficiency without the price tag.” That’s according to Jim Campbell, Chevy’s vice president of marketing.
Along with the upcoming Chevy Volt, the Cruze has been one of the poster children that GM is using as a mea culpa to the taxpayers who saved it from certain doom… a way to exclaim “See everybody, we’re doing green things!” Certainly the Cruze is a car for the modern buyer, reflecting a clear trend all across the US marketplace for downsized, yet solidly-built and feature-rich vehicles. Whether or not it helps to save GM’s tushy is another question entirely.
GM says that, although the Cruze is technically a compact car, like the Corolla, it offers enough interior space to rival other midsize cars.
It should be noted that GM only claims the 6 speed automatic version of the Cruze Eco will reach 40 MPG highway, also adding that the manual transmission will have a slower 0-60 time of 10 seconds, while the 6 speed auto will get you to 60 a whole second earlier.
Along with the miserly 1.4 liter engine, GM included a laundry list of features to squeeze out every last drop of fuel economy:
- A lower front grille air shutter that closes at higher speeds to improve aerodynamics and opens at lower speeds to optimize engine-cooling airflow
- The upper grille has more “closeouts” to improve aerodynamics
- A lower front air dam extension, extensive use of underbody panels and a rear spoiler enhance aerodynamics
- A lowered ride height improves aerodynamics
- 17-inch lightweight aluminum wheels
- Ultra-low rolling resistance 17-inch Goodyear tires.
With all those extra features, I’m not sure how much less expensive the Cruze Eco will be than a similarly sized and equipped hybrid. I’ll see if I can’t get some pricing estimates out of GM while I’m at the NY Auto Show this week.
Up until now, and without official EPA estimates, GM had been saying that the 2011 Cruze would get about 40 mpg on the highway. With the announcement of the Cruze Eco it is now clear that, out of the 4 variants of the Cruze, only the Eco will break that 40 mpg ceiling.
This leaves me wondering two things: 1) what kind of mileage can we expect from the other trim levels, and 2) will we start seeing the “Eco” moniker on other GM models? Camaro Eco anyone? Somehow I don’t think so, but it does seem to indicate a new naming convention for the General.
Chevy anticipates that the Cruze Eco will start hitting showrooms in the 4th quarter of this year. You can check out the full press release on the next page.
Source: GM
PDF 
Pages: 1 2
40mpg is very good; how much more could they get by dropping a hybrid drivetrain in it?
I wouldn’t mind taking 10 seconds to reach 60 mph, but you hotrodders may want more acceleration – something a hybrid crivetrain might also be able to achieve.
40mpg is very good; how much more could they get by dropping a hybrid drivetrain in it?
I wouldn’t mind taking 10 seconds to reach 60 mph, but you hotrodders may want more acceleration – something a hybrid crivetrain might also be able to achieve.
Don,
I dunno. It isn’t really as simple as dropping in a hybrid drivetrain. As you ratchet up the mileage from adding a hybrid system, it gets harder and harder to squeeze more mileage out of the vehicle because you can only improve each variable (aerodynamics, hybrid efficiency, brake energy recovery, weight, etc.) to a finite amount. Diminishing returns and all that.
Just for the sake of comparison, let’s say a manufacturer could get the car up to 55 mpg by adding a hybrid system that cost a premium of $3,000. And let’s say you’re an average driver and you go 15,000 miles a year. At $3.00 per gallon of gas, the savings difference between 40 mpg and 55 mpg in a year is $309. Not chump change, but it would still take you a almost 10 years to make up the price difference. Even if gas were $5 a gallon, it would take you almost 6 years to make up the difference. From a cost benefit perspective, it gets hard for a manufacturer to justify spending the money on engineering a hybrid system for a car that already has good mileage without it. Nobody would pay the extra money for the hybrid version.
Don,
I dunno. It isn’t really as simple as dropping in a hybrid drivetrain. As you ratchet up the mileage from adding a hybrid system, it gets harder and harder to squeeze more mileage out of the vehicle because you can only improve each variable (aerodynamics, hybrid efficiency, brake energy recovery, weight, etc.) to a finite amount. Diminishing returns and all that.
Just for the sake of comparison, let’s say a manufacturer could get the car up to 55 mpg by adding a hybrid system that cost a premium of $3,000. And let’s say you’re an average driver and you go 15,000 miles a year. At $3.00 per gallon of gas, the savings difference between 40 mpg and 55 mpg in a year is $309. Not chump change, but it would still take you a almost 10 years to make up the price difference. Even if gas were $5 a gallon, it would take you almost 6 years to make up the difference. From a cost benefit perspective, it gets hard for a manufacturer to justify spending the money on engineering a hybrid system for a car that already has good mileage without it. Nobody would pay the extra money for the hybrid version.
Don,
I dunno. It isn’t really as simple as dropping in a hybrid drivetrain. As you ratchet up the mileage from adding a hybrid system, it gets harder and harder to squeeze more mileage out of the vehicle because you can only improve each variable (aerodynamics, hybrid efficiency, brake energy recovery, weight, etc.) to a finite amount. Diminishing returns and all that.
Just for the sake of comparison, let’s say a manufacturer could get the car up to 55 mpg by adding a hybrid system that cost a premium of $3,000. And let’s say you’re an average driver and you go 15,000 miles a year. At $3.00 per gallon of gas, the savings difference between 40 mpg and 55 mpg in a year is $309. Not chump change, but it would still take you a almost 10 years to make up the price difference. Even if gas were $5 a gallon, it would take you almost 6 years to make up the difference. From a cost benefit perspective, it gets hard for a manufacturer to justify spending the money on engineering a hybrid system for a car that already has good mileage without it. Nobody would pay the extra money for the hybrid version.
“Along with the upcoming Chevy Volt, the Cruze has been one of the poster children that GM is using as a mea culpa to the taxpayers who saved it from certain doom… a way to exclaim “See everybody, we’re doing green things!””
I would like to point out that the Cruze had the greenlight back in 2006 and 2007 with full plant retooling planned for it’s inception (the reason I know is that the plant where it’s going to be built is near my hometown). This was when the economy was still booming and it was long before any talk of credit crisis, bailouts, bankruptcies, etc.
Tim, you’re absolutely right. In fact the Volt had the greenlight back in 2006/2007 as well. Although we hadn’t hit the econopocalypse yet, there was clearly a trend that the auto execs noticed, considering both Ford and GM started making strategic changes then. Even though both cars were greenlighted back then, it doesn’t mean they weren’t using them as a mea culpa after the s&*t hit the fan.
Tim, you’re absolutely right. In fact the Volt had the greenlight back in 2006/2007 as well. Although we hadn’t hit the econopocalypse yet, there was clearly a trend that the auto execs noticed, considering both Ford and GM started making strategic changes then. Even though both cars were greenlighted back then, it doesn’t mean they weren’t using them as a mea culpa after the s&*t hit the fan.
“Along with the upcoming Chevy Volt, the Cruze has been one of the poster children that GM is using as a mea culpa to the taxpayers who saved it from certain doom… a way to exclaim “See everybody, we’re doing green things!””
I would like to point out that the Cruze had the greenlight back in 2006 and 2007 with full plant retooling planned for it’s inception (the reason I know is that the plant where it’s going to be built is near my hometown). This was when the economy was still booming and it was long before any talk of credit crisis, bailouts, bankruptcies, etc.
Tim, you’re absolutely right. In fact the Volt had the greenlight back in 2006/2007 as well. Although we hadn’t hit the econopocalypse yet, there was clearly a trend that the auto execs noticed, considering both Ford and GM started making strategic changes then. Even though both cars were greenlighted back then, it doesn’t mean they weren’t using them as a mea culpa after the s&*t hit the fan.
The car has been on sale in Europe. How have the sales been there for it? Any reviews, comments, or blogs, on it’s performance, reliability, and mileage?
The car has been on sale in Europe. How have the sales been there for it? Any reviews, comments, or blogs, on it’s performance, reliability, and mileage?
The car has been on sale in Europe. How have the sales been there for it? Any reviews, comments, or blogs, on it’s performance, reliability, and mileage?
” Even though both cars were greenlighted back then, it doesn’t mean they weren’t using them as a mea culpa after the s&*t hit the fan.”
You’re right and if I were GM’s management, I’d probably be doing the same thing. My comment was just to reiterate the notion that so many of us were trying to get across once the s*** finally did hit the fan back in 2008-9. GM really was turning itself around before the credit crisis made operations impossible. However, I still don’t believe the bailouts were warranted (I would have liked to see a full-on bankruptcy so GM could flip the UAW the bird and really become lean and mean).
” Even though both cars were greenlighted back then, it doesn’t mean they weren’t using them as a mea culpa after the s&*t hit the fan.”
You’re right and if I were GM’s management, I’d probably be doing the same thing. My comment was just to reiterate the notion that so many of us were trying to get across once the s*** finally did hit the fan back in 2008-9. GM really was turning itself around before the credit crisis made operations impossible. However, I still don’t believe the bailouts were warranted (I would have liked to see a full-on bankruptcy so GM could flip the UAW the bird and really become lean and mean).
Tim, If I were in charge of anything at GM, I’d absolutely be doing the same thing too. I’m not faulting them for that. Just calling it out for what it is. If they had been a little quicker to realize what was going on — like Ford — they could have avoided bankruptcy altogether. But then they might not be the leaner, meaner company they are now…
Tim, If I were in charge of anything at GM, I’d absolutely be doing the same thing too. I’m not faulting them for that. Just calling it out for what it is. If they had been a little quicker to realize what was going on — like Ford — they could have avoided bankruptcy altogether. But then they might not be the leaner, meaner company they are now…
Nick, I think you’re right that, should the Cruze have even modest sales, GM will use that excuse to start slapping “eco” on every ox-cart they haul out of the barn. At least we won’t have to worry about an “eco-hummer”…
Nick, I think you’re right that, should the Cruze have even modest sales, GM will use that excuse to start slapping “eco” on every ox-cart they haul out of the barn. At least we won’t have to worry about an “eco-hummer”…
The Cruze Eco essentially replaces the Cobalt XFE.
I have a 2009 Cobalt LS XFE 4 door sedan [5 speed] and it was rated at 37 MPH highway [but the window sticker claimed I could get anywhere from 30 to 44 MPG highway]. On my last 2 trips on the NY State Thruway, I got 31 MPG [and I was not going very fast, average was just over 70 MPH]. The only time the car’s computer says I am getting 37 MPG is when I am going about 50 MPH on flat roads, and I don’t consider that to be typical highway driving. I also have a 1987 Chevy Nova 5 speed [based on 1986 Corolla, it was BEFORE they went to fuel injection] and under the same driving conditons, the 1987 car gets 39 MPG. Also, I have checked how many miles I drive per tank of gas and how many gallons I used and the Cobalt’s computer is ALWAYS 1 or 2 MPG HIGH in the MPG it reports. So be warned that when the window sticker says “Your actual mileage will vary”, they really mean it !
The Cruze Eco essentially replaces the Cobalt XFE.
I have a 2009 Cobalt LS XFE 4 door sedan [5 speed] and it was rated at 37 MPH highway [but the window sticker claimed I could get anywhere from 30 to 44 MPG highway]. On my last 2 trips on the NY State Thruway, I got 31 MPG [and I was not going very fast, average was just over 70 MPH]. The only time the car’s computer says I am getting 37 MPG is when I am going about 50 MPH on flat roads, and I don’t consider that to be typical highway driving. I also have a 1987 Chevy Nova 5 speed [based on 1986 Corolla, it was BEFORE they went to fuel injection] and under the same driving conditons, the 1987 car gets 39 MPG. Also, I have checked how many miles I drive per tank of gas and how many gallons I used and the Cobalt’s computer is ALWAYS 1 or 2 MPG HIGH in the MPG it reports. So be warned that when the window sticker says “Your actual mileage will vary”, they really mean it !
In another comment I said that the Cruze Eco will essentially replace the Cobalt XFE high-efficiency car [since the Cobalt name has been discontinued] and that my 2009 Cobalt LS XFE manual 5 speed sedan, although rated at 37 MPG highway [window sticker says highway range is 30-44 MPG highway] has been getting 31 MPG highway on the NY State Thruway [going about 72 MPH] and that actual gas mileage is 1-2 MPG less than what the car’s computer reports. I should have mentioned that the window sticker’s CITY fuel economy estimate for my car is 25 MPG [expected range is 20 to 30 MPG]. “Combined Fuel Economy” estimate on the window sticker is 30 MPG. I am definitely NOT in awe
at my 2009 Cobalt XFE sedan’s fuel economy. Even if the Cruze Eco does a little better, I wonder how many people will ever actually see the “predicted” highway fuel economy. And if their car’s computer says they are getting 40 MPG, I wouldn’t believe it based on my real life experience with my Cobalt XFE “high efficiency car”.
In another comment I said that the Cruze Eco will essentially replace the Cobalt XFE high-efficiency car [since the Cobalt name has been discontinued] and that my 2009 Cobalt LS XFE manual 5 speed sedan, although rated at 37 MPG highway [window sticker says highway range is 30-44 MPG highway] has been getting 31 MPG highway on the NY State Thruway [going about 72 MPH] and that actual gas mileage is 1-2 MPG less than what the car’s computer reports. I should have mentioned that the window sticker’s CITY fuel economy estimate for my car is 25 MPG [expected range is 20 to 30 MPG]. “Combined Fuel Economy” estimate on the window sticker is 30 MPG. I am definitely NOT in awe
at my 2009 Cobalt XFE sedan’s fuel economy. Even if the Cruze Eco does a little better, I wonder how many people will ever actually see the “predicted” highway fuel economy. And if their car’s computer says they are getting 40 MPG, I wouldn’t believe it based on my real life experience with my Cobalt XFE “high efficiency car”.
In another comment I said that the Cruze Eco will essentially replace the Cobalt XFE high-efficiency car [since the Cobalt name has been discontinued] and that my 2009 Cobalt LS XFE manual 5 speed sedan, although rated at 37 MPG highway [window sticker says highway range is 30-44 MPG highway] has been getting 31 MPG highway on the NY State Thruway [going about 72 MPH] and that actual gas mileage is 1-2 MPG less than what the car’s computer reports. I should have mentioned that the window sticker’s CITY fuel economy estimate for my car is 25 MPG [expected range is 20 to 30 MPG]. “Combined Fuel Economy” estimate on the window sticker is 30 MPG. I am definitely NOT in awe
at my 2009 Cobalt XFE sedan’s fuel economy. Even if the Cruze Eco does a little better, I wonder how many people will ever actually see the “predicted” highway fuel economy. And if their car’s computer says they are getting 40 MPG, I wouldn’t believe it based on my real life experience with my Cobalt XFE “high efficiency car”.
Alan, I don’t know what’s wrong with your Cobalt, but I had a 2004 Grand Am 5-spd with essentially the same Ecotec 2.2L engine and I regularly got 36-39 mpg and that was with ~20% city mixed in (the lowest I ever got was 35 which was in mid-winter). I also know there are a few Cobalt XFEs on Ecomodder that are getting the EPA numbers or better.
Alan, I don’t know what’s wrong with your Cobalt, but I had a 2004 Grand Am 5-spd with essentially the same Ecotec 2.2L engine and I regularly got 36-39 mpg and that was with ~20% city mixed in (the lowest I ever got was 35 which was in mid-winter). I also know there are a few Cobalt XFEs on Ecomodder that are getting the EPA numbers or better.
This is reinventing the wheel. My 1992 Honda Civic VX averages about 42 mpg and has gotten over 68 mpg highway on a good day. It had the EX lean burn motor, special low rolling resitance tires with light wheels, aerodynamics and light weight. The VX is not well known and rare because they came out at the start of the SUV craze.
We could of been driving fuel efficient cars for years, but the car companies and politicians exploit peoples ignorance and keep us in the dark!
This is reinventing the wheel. My 1992 Honda Civic VX averages about 42 mpg and has gotten over 68 mpg highway on a good day. It had the EX lean burn motor, special low rolling resitance tires with light wheels, aerodynamics and light weight. The VX is not well known and rare because they came out at the start of the SUV craze.
We could of been driving fuel efficient cars for years, but the car companies and politicians exploit peoples ignorance and keep us in the dark!
Nick, re: “From a cost benefit perspective, it gets hard for a manufacturer to justify spending the money on engineering a hybrid system for a car that already has good mileage without it. Nobody would pay the extra money for the hybrid version.”
That would be a rational response, but I think enough people might pony up to make it worthwhile to produce. A certain number already do pay a premium for hybrid Civics, Escapes, Fusions, Highlanders, etc. that are also available in non-hybrid versions. Maybe the payback period is long, but you get bragging rights and the sense that you’re doing the right thing – as well as 55mpg and better acceleration.
Nick, re: “From a cost benefit perspective, it gets hard for a manufacturer to justify spending the money on engineering a hybrid system for a car that already has good mileage without it. Nobody would pay the extra money for the hybrid version.”
That would be a rational response, but I think enough people might pony up to make it worthwhile to produce. A certain number already do pay a premium for hybrid Civics, Escapes, Fusions, Highlanders, etc. that are also available in non-hybrid versions. Maybe the payback period is long, but you get bragging rights and the sense that you’re doing the right thing – as well as 55mpg and better acceleration.
Nick, re: “From a cost benefit perspective, it gets hard for a manufacturer to justify spending the money on engineering a hybrid system for a car that already has good mileage without it. Nobody would pay the extra money for the hybrid version.”
That would be a rational response, but I think enough people might pony up to make it worthwhile to produce. A certain number already do pay a premium for hybrid Civics, Escapes, Fusions, Highlanders, etc. that are also available in non-hybrid versions. Maybe the payback period is long, but you get bragging rights and the sense that you’re doing the right thing – as well as 55mpg and better acceleration.
Current Hybrids may not be worth the extra cost for 25%-50% improvement in mpg. But, if the engineers can get the plug in hybrid perfected, that will be a big leap that conventional cars won’t be able to touch!
Current Hybrids may not be worth the extra cost for 25%-50% improvement in mpg. But, if the engineers can get the plug in hybrid perfected, that will be a big leap that conventional cars won’t be able to touch!
Current Hybrids may not be worth the extra cost for 25%-50% improvement in mpg. But, if the engineers can get the plug in hybrid perfected, that will be a big leap that conventional cars won’t be able to touch!