Jump to content


Advertisment
Photo

Cruze Gains for 2012


#1

Posted 16 May 2011 - 02:10 PM

Drew Dowdell

    Unimatrix 01

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,205 posts
Garage View Garage

Chevrolet Cruze Gains for 2012

2011-Chevrolet-Cruze-34AD99.jpg

Drew Dowdell - CheersandGears.com

May 16th, 2011

Being only one year on the market, we wouldn't expect too many changes for Chevy's new compact car. However, Chevy isn't going to sit still on this one. The biggest news is that on Cruze's equipped with the 1.4 liter turbo and automatic transmission gain 2mpg in highway fuel economy. Unfortunately, they don't explain how they do it. There are no axle ratio changes or engine updates listed. The final drive ratio is switching from 3.83 to a 3.53 while other cogs in the 6-speed auto are all getting different ratios as well. (scroll down in thread for details)

For those of you who want to row your own Cruze but aren't interested in all that greenie-weenie stuff included on the Eco, you can now buy the Cruze 1LT and 2LT with a 6-speed manual standard. The 2LT can be loaded up fairly nicely so you can now have a fun manual transmission without foregoing other creature comforts.

There also appears to be some seat changes for the front passengers as the 8 way seats have been replace with 6 way by deleting the seat bottom tilt. This could be a good thing or a bad thing as seat comfort was one of the more touchy areas in the Cruze.

The one thing the Cruze still doesn't have standard in base models? Cruise.

Source: 2012 Chevrolet Cruze Online Ordering Guide


  • 0


Advertisment

#2

Posted 16 May 2011 - 04:36 PM

ocnblu

    C&G's Boldest Member

  • Premium Subscriber
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,838 posts
Garage View Garage
I love a manual transmission, so this is pleasing news.
  • 0

#3

Posted 16 May 2011 - 05:08 PM

67impss

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,318 posts
+1 also but when in the hell are we EVER going to get a viable diesel option with that manual
  • 0

#4

Posted 16 May 2011 - 05:16 PM

ocnblu

    C&G's Boldest Member

  • Premium Subscriber
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,838 posts
Garage View Garage
Also, DUH, where's the coupe bodystyle? Where's the dorky looking 5-door hatch? The changes all appear to be positive, but they're still not enough for a corporation with only 4 brands to sell.
  • 0

#5

Posted 16 May 2011 - 05:49 PM

vonVeezelsnider

    Denali Member

  • Premium Subscriber
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,243 posts
Garage View Garage
This is very promising... the push button go and cheaper NAV should make this even more competitive. Still eying a lightly used or end of year clearance LTZ in a couple years.
  • 0

#6

Posted 16 May 2011 - 07:17 PM

ponchoman49

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,322 posts
They should have deleted the terrible base 1.8 while they were at it or at the very least improved it. Adding cruise control as an option on the base should have been a mandatory 2012 change!
  • 0

#7

Posted 16 May 2011 - 07:23 PM

dwightlooi

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,645 posts

Chevrolet Cruze Gains for 2012

2011-Chevrolet-Cruze-34AD99.jpg

Drew Dowdell - CheersandGears.com

May 16th, 2011

Being only one year on the market, we wouldn't expect too many changes for Chevy's new compact car. However, Chevy isn't going to sit still on this one. The biggest news is that on Cruze's equipped with the 1.4 liter turbo and automatic transmission gain 2mpg in highway fuel economy. Unfortunately, they don't explain how they do it. There are no axle ratio changes or engine updates listed...

Source: 2012 Chevrolet Cruze Online Ordering Guide


Wrong. We know exactly how they did that... for 2012 they dropped the axle ratio on the 6-speed automatic transmission cars to 3.53:1 (FXH), it was 3.87:1 in the 2011 models. They could probably have topped 40 mpg if they went with the 2.87:1 axle ratio used by the Equinox or Malibu with the same 6T40 transmission, but that would cost more loss in peppiness than they think buyers would put up with.

Again, I am not a subscriber to the small displacement = great fuel economy argument. Gear ratios and reducing cylinder / valve count probably works out to be more significant. If going from 2.0 to 1.4 liters (30%) didn't do much, whereas going from 3.87 to 3.53 axle ratio (8.8%) is worth 2 mpg, what does that tell you? Imagine this... the Cruze could have had a 1.8 liter DI-VVT 3-cylinder based on the LFX V6 engine making about 160 hp @ 6800 rpm and 138 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm, all while running on regular 87. This compares favorably to the new Focus's 2.0 liter DI four with 160hp and 146 lb-ft, but with 1 less cylinder, 4 less valves and 0.2 liters less swept volume it will probably beat it fuel economy. Besides a 90hp/liter Three is really unique. It might even make a good engine for the SS version of the Sonic.

Edited by dwightlooi, 16 May 2011 - 07:38 PM.

  • 0

#8

Posted 16 May 2011 - 07:39 PM

Drew Dowdell

    Unimatrix 01

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,205 posts
Garage View Garage


Chevrolet Cruze Gains for 2012

2011-Chevrolet-Cruze-34AD99.jpg

Drew Dowdell - CheersandGears.com

May 16th, 2011

Being only one year on the market, we wouldn't expect too many changes for Chevy's new compact car. However, Chevy isn't going to sit still on this one. The biggest news is that on Cruze's equipped with the 1.4 liter turbo and automatic transmission gain 2mpg in highway fuel economy. Unfortunately, they don't explain how they do it. There are no axle ratio changes or engine updates listed...

Source: 2012 Chevrolet Cruze Online Ordering Guide


Wrong. We know exactly how they did that... for 2012 they dropped the axle ratio on the 6-speed automatic transmission cars to 3.53:1 (FXH), it was 3.87:1 in the 2011 models. They could probably have topped 40 mpg if they went with the 2.87:1 axle ratio used by the Equinox or Malibu with the same 6T40 transmission, but that would cost more loss in peppiness than they think buyers would put up with.

Again, I am not a subscriber to the small displacement = great fuel economy argument. Gear ratios and reducing cylinder and valve count probably works out better. Imagine this... the Cruze could have had a 1.8 liter DI-VVT 3-cylinder based on the LFX V6 engine making about 160 hp @ 6800 rpm and 138 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm, all while running on regular 87. This compares favorably to the new Focus's 2.0 liter DI four with 160hp and 146 lb-ft, but with 1 less cylinder, 4 less valves and 0.2 liters less swept volume it will probably beat it fuel economy. Besides a 90hp/liter Three is really unique. It might even make a good engine for the SS version of the Sonic.


It just wasn't listed in the changes page:

This is how the 2012 Cruze transmission is on the ordering guide.

Transmission modelAUTOMATIC 6-SPEED HYDRA-MATIC 6T40
RPO CodeMH8
GEAR RATIOS
First 4.58
Second 2.96
Third 1.91
Fourth 1.45
Fifth 1.00
Sixth 0.75
Reverse 2.94
Transfer designthree-axis design, output chain
TORQUE CONVERTER
Element types Variable bleed solenoids
LUBRICANT CAPACITY (pints/litre)
MAX GVW(lbs/kg)1932/876.3552


Here is the 2011 Transmission:

Transmission modelAUTOMATIC 6-SPEED HYDRA-MATIC 6T40
RPO CodeMH8
GEAR RATIOS
First 4.6
Second 3.0
Third 1.9
Fourth 1.5
Fifth 1.0
Sixth 0.8
Reverse 2.9
Transfer designtwo-axis design, output chain
TORQUE CONVERTER
Element types Variable Bleed Solenoids
LUBRICANT CAPACITY (pints/litre)
Fluid Capacity 8.21/3.884972
MAX GVW(lbs/kg)4400/1995.84

  • 0

#9

Posted 16 May 2011 - 08:15 PM

daves87rs

    The +1 Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,166 posts
Interesting....
  • 0

#10

Posted 16 May 2011 - 10:50 PM

dwightlooi

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,645 posts

It just wasn't listed in the changes page:


Actually if you clicked on the link to the 2012 ordering guide, under STANDARD EQUIPMENT it states the axle ratio under "FXH Axle, 3.53 final drive ratio
1 - Included and only available with (MH8) 6-speed automatic transmission."

The 2011 Axle ratio is 3.83. So the new 2012 cars are getting taller gearing.

Edited by dwightlooi, 16 May 2011 - 10:50 PM.

  • 0

#11

Posted 16 May 2011 - 10:55 PM

blackviper8891

    Schwarze Schafe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,159 posts
Garage View Garage
This is good news all around. The Cruze Eco is still my choice of the compact class.
  • 1

#12

Posted 17 May 2011 - 10:40 AM

Paolino

    Ultra Member

  • Editor/Reporter
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,136 posts
So, let me see if I understand correctly.. this is a change that can be flashed onto 2011 models as well, no?
  • 0

#13

Posted 17 May 2011 - 12:04 PM

67impss

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,318 posts
I don't think you can flash a differential ratio in the transmission unless you have it on board the Starship Enterprise & use the replicator. :AH-HA:
  • 0

#14

Posted 17 May 2011 - 12:08 PM

Paolino

    Ultra Member

  • Editor/Reporter
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,136 posts

I don't think you can flash a differential ratio in the transmission unless you have it on board the Starship Enterprise & use the replicator. :AH-HA:


Why? That's not an option? :AH-HA: Sorry, I don't know how this works... I thought maybe it was like some sort of computer programming that told the transmission where to shift or something.
  • 0

#15

Posted 17 May 2011 - 12:55 PM

67impss

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,318 posts
Nope physical steel gears need to be replaced in the differential section of the transmission.
  • 0

#16

Posted 17 May 2011 - 01:47 PM

Paolino

    Ultra Member

  • Editor/Reporter
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,136 posts

Nope physical steel gears need to be replaced in the differential section of the transmission.


Interesting. So from a performance standpoint, how does it change the car's driving characteristics?
  • 0

#17

Posted 17 May 2011 - 01:51 PM

SAmadei

    Denali Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,990 posts

Nope physical steel gears need to be replaced in the differential section of the transmission.


It does make me question why its 2011 and we don't have CVDs... Continuously Variable Differentials. Or at least a two speed diff, that could provide added economy or performance.
Obviously weight is a factor and 6,8,14 speed transmissions negate some of the benefit.
  • 0

#18

Posted 17 May 2011 - 01:53 PM

SAmadei

    Denali Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,990 posts


Nope physical steel gears need to be replaced in the differential section of the transmission.


Interesting. So from a performance standpoint, how does it change the car's driving characteristics?


Generally, it hurts it, unless the engine has a ton of grunt.
  • 0

#19

Posted 17 May 2011 - 03:02 PM

dwightlooi

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,645 posts


Nope physical steel gears need to be replaced in the differential section of the transmission.


It does make me question why its 2011 and we don't have CVDs... Continuously Variable Differentials. Or at least a two speed diff, that could provide added economy or performance.
Obviously weight is a factor and 6,8,14 speed transmissions negate some of the benefit.


Because that means adding a shaft to the transmission and it takes up a lot of room. If you are going to put up with the added size, weight and complexity you won't put the shaft next to the differential, you'll put it in the transmission itself and turn it into a 8 or 9-speed. In fact this is exactly what they are doing... the 8-speed boxes tend to have a ratio spread of between 7.0 and 7.5, which is better than than 5.9~6.05 we see in 6-speed autos. That one point is roughly equivalent to being able to switch between a 2.9 and 3.5 axle ratio.
  • 0

#20

Posted 17 May 2011 - 03:17 PM

SAmadei

    Denali Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,990 posts



Nope physical steel gears need to be replaced in the differential section of the transmission.


It does make me question why its 2011 and we don't have CVDs... Continuously Variable Differentials. Or at least a two speed diff, that could provide added economy or performance.
Obviously weight is a factor and 6,8,14 speed transmissions negate some of the benefit.


Because that means adding a shaft to the transmission and it takes up a lot of room.


Why do you need an extra shaft between the diff and transmission? Is this how the big truck multispeed diffs work?
  • 0



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Advertisment