PRESS RELEASE
NEW YORK – At the New York Auto Show, Chevrolet reveals the compact 2011 Cruze Eco. This high-efficiency model is powered by a 1.4L Ecotec turbocharged engine with variable valve timing that achieves an estimated 40 mpg on the highway when combined with a six-speed manual transmission. Cruze Eco is expected to deliver the best fuel economy in the compact segment, while offering midsize car presence.
“The Cruze Eco delivers hybrid-like efficiency without the price tag,” said Jim Campbell, U.S. vice president Chevrolet marketing. “Along with the Volt electric vehicle, it demonstrates how Chevrolet is working to bring new products to market that range from gas-friendly to gas-free.”
Chevrolet also shows an optional RS sport appearance package for the Cruze LT and LTZ trim levels.
Cruze is the first in a family of all-new Chevrolet small and compact cars designed to offer excellent fuel economy, outstanding quality and top safety ratings. Cruze models for the United States and Canada will be produced at the Lordstown, Ohio assembly complex. In February, Chevrolet announced the addition of a third shift at Lordstown that will add 1,200 workers to support a smooth, fast and flawless ramp-up of Cruze production. More than $350 million has been invested to re-tool the plant and add new, state-of-the-art manufacturing equipment.
“This investment helps secure the best possible manufacturing footprint to react to market demand and deliver vehicles faster to our customers,” said Campbell. “We believe Cruze is the right car at the right time for American consumers.”
Cruze Eco details
Featuring a 1.4L Ecotec turbocharged engine with variable valve timing, the Cruze Eco is designed to be the most fuel-efficient model in the lineup, delivering an estimated 40 mpg on the highway with the standard six-speed manual transmission. City fuel economy, as well as estimates for the Cruze Eco equipped with an available six-speed automatic transmission, will be finalized closer to launch.
The Eco achieves greater fuel economy using a number of features that enhance its aerodynamics, minimize weight and reduce rolling resistance. Details include:
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
Unique 17-inch lightweight aluminum wheels
Ultra-low rolling resistance 17-inch Goodyear tires.
The axle ratio on the manual-transmission model is also optimized for fuel economy, while helping the car deliver confident performance. Chevrolet estimates the Cruze Eco will deliver 0-60 mph performance of about 10 seconds with the manual transmission and 9 seconds with the six-speed automatic.
The Cruze Eco will be available in the fourth quarter of 2010.
Cruze RS details
Complementing Cruze’s sporty proportions is an optional RS appearance package for the LT and LTZ trim levels, which bolsters the car’s styling with unique fascias, rocker moldings, rear spoiler and fog lamps. An uplevel instrument cluster is also part of the package and includes chrome accent rings in place of the standard silver finish, as well as opaque cluster bezels that allow the cluster’s ice blue backlighting to shine through – providing a sporty nighttime appearance.
“For customers who want even more personality and presence in their vehicle, the RS appearance package builds on the already bold face and coupe-like proportions of the Cruze,” said Michael Simcoe, executive director, North American Exterior Design.
Midsize presence in the compact segment
All Cruze models offer the spaciousness and amenities of a midsize car, combined with segment-leading features and details that challenge preconceived notions about what a compact car can be in North America.
Along with the Eco, the 2011 Cruze will be offered in LS, LT and LTZ trims. Standard and available equipment includes:
Ten standard air bags, including frontal, front-seat side-impact air bags, roof rail head curtain, rear-seat side air bags and new front knee air bags
Bluetooth, USB connectivity, XM Satellite Radio and navigation system
Standard OnStar with one year of Directions and Connections service
MacPherson strut front suspension and Z-link rear suspension, with 16-, 17- and 18-inch wheels
Standard StabiliTrak electronic stability control with rollover sensing, traction control and anti-lock brakes
Fuel-saving, rack-mounted electric power steering
Unexpected levels of quietness, smoothness and refinement for the segment.
All models share an interior characterized by upscale materials and a lengthy roster of equipment usually found in larger and more expensive vehicles. Available technologies include Bluetooth and a navigation system.
Cruze’s 1.4L Ecotec turbo performs like a larger engine when needed, but retains the efficiency of a small-displacement four-cylinder in most driving conditions; it is standard on Eco, LT and LTZ models. Rated at an estimated at 138 horsepower (103 kW) and 148 lb.-ft. of torque (200 Nm), it enables a cruising range of more than 500 miles (800 km). Cruze will lead the way for Chevrolet in the use of small-displacement, turbocharged Ecotec engines that are highly fuel-efficient and power vehicles that are fun to drive.
Standard on LS models is a 1.8L Ecotec four-cylinder rated at an estimated 136 horsepower (184 kW) and 123 lb.-ft. of torque (166 Nm). Both engines are designed with fuel efficiency in mind, including technology such as variable valve timing that optimizes performance and fuel economy.
Backing the Cruze’s engines are six-speed manual and automatic transmissions. Each contributes to excellent fuel economy.
Chevrolet engineers have already logged more than 4 million miles in quality and durability testing worldwide, making Cruze one of the most real world-tested products prior to a U.S. launch. It is backed by Chevrolet’s five-year/100,000-mile powertrain warranty – the best coverage in America.
About Chevrolet
Chevrolet is one of America’s best-known and best-selling automotive brands, and one of the fastest growing brands in the world. With fuel solutions that range from “gas-friendly to gas-free,” Chevrolet has nine models that offer an EPA-estimated 30 miles per gallon or more on the highway, and offers two hybrid models. More than 2.5 million Chevrolets that run on E85 biofuel have been sold. Chevrolet delivers expressive design, spirited performance and strives to provide the best value in every segment in which it competes. More information can be found at www.chevrolet.com. For more information on the Volt, visit http://media.gm.com/volt.
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!