• Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

    GM: Diesel For The Light-Duty Trucks Are Under Consideration


    • The 4.5L Diesel V8 Could Be Coming To GM's Pickups

    With Ram offering a small diesel and Ford announcing that next F-150 will be considerably lighter, GM is considering all options with their pickups to raise fuel economy. One of those options happens to be a 4.5L Diesel V8 that was planned to go into their pickups five years ago.

    Steve Kiefer, GM's vice president of global powertrain tells Automotive News that GM is considering dusting off that engine and slip it into their new trucks.

    "We are looking closely at diesel entrees in that segment. In fact, I heard the terms 'dust off' that 4½-liter at one point. That is certainly one of the options. Clearly, we have a portfolio of diesel engines," said Kiefer.

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

    William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at william.maley@cheersandgears.com or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

    0


    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback


    YES YES YES, Put that bad boy into the Full Size SUV's line. Tahoe, Suburban, Yukon, Yukon XL and Escalade, Escalade ESV would do well with this.

    Class leading HP, Torque and MPG would be awesome for GM.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well, GM needs to do something. With both Ram and Ford bring new innovations to the segment, GM really played it too safe with the redesigns of the trucks with not enough to set them apart from the competition.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Forget the 4.5 Duramax Diesel -- the cost, complexity and mass of a four cam V8 isn't worth the specific output improvement. A very simple solution is to simply build on the Pushrod-32v Duramax 6.6 architecture. Instead of building a smaller V8, just take two cylinders off the Duramax 6.6. The resulting 4.95L V6 will make about 300 bhp / 575 lb-ft. That's close enough to the projected 310 bhp output of the 4.5 they were developing and more importantly superior in stump pulling torque (which is what really matters in a truck). While they are at it, why not a 3.3L V4 with 200 bhp / 383 lb-ft? The beauty of a cam-in-block + pushrod design is that you can use a V configuration with no penalty in terms of number of camshafts or phasers needed. The Duramax 6.6 and/or it's 6 or 4 cylinder engines are already reverse flow engines where the exhaust exits the valley of the Vee permitting the efficient use of a single turbo instead of two smaller ones flanking the engine. Unlike the 4.5, the 4.9 and 3.3 Duramax 6.6 derivatives will share the piston, connection rods, wrist pins, valves, springs, lifters, pushrods, bolts and a huge number of other parts with the 6.6L sibling.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I agree with Dwightlooi, GM should just use the existing 6.6 and scale it down as a V6, V4 and really kick ass in the auto industry. People would buy up every 4.95L V6 powered Yukon Denali and Tahoe with this engine. I also can see huge sales in both full size and mid size pickups with a 3.3L V4 Duramax Engine.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Forget the 4.5 Duramax Diesel -- the cost, complexity and mass of a four cam V8 isn't worth the specific output improvement. A very simple solution is to simply build on the Pushrod-32v Duramax 6.6 architecture. Instead of building a smaller V8, just take two cylinders off the Duramax 6.6. The resulting 4.95L V6 will make about 300 bhp / 575 lb-ft. That's close enough to the projected 310 bhp output of the 4.5 they were developing and more importantly superior in stump pulling torque (which is what really matters in a truck). While they are at it, why not a 3.3L V4 with 200 bhp / 383 lb-ft? The beauty of a cam-in-block + pushrod design is that you can use a V configuration with no penalty in terms of number of camshafts or phasers needed. The Duramax 6.6 and/or it's 6 or 4 cylinder engines are already reverse flow engines where the exhaust exits the valley of the Vee permitting the efficient use of a single turbo instead of two smaller ones flanking the engine. Unlike the 4.5, the 4.9 and 3.3 Duramax 6.6 derivatives will share the piston, connection rods, wrist pins, valves, springs, lifters, pushrods, bolts and a huge number of other parts with the 6.6L sibling.

    What would the timeframe testing-to-production be like with this plan?

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Forget the 4.5 Duramax Diesel -- the cost, complexity and mass of a four cam V8 isn't worth the specific output improvement. A very simple solution is to simply build on the Pushrod-32v Duramax 6.6 architecture. Instead of building a smaller V8, just take two cylinders off the Duramax 6.6. The resulting 4.95L V6 will make about 300 bhp / 575 lb-ft. That's close enough to the projected 310 bhp output of the 4.5 they were developing and more importantly superior in stump pulling torque (which is what really matters in a truck). While they are at it, why not a 3.3L V4 with 200 bhp / 383 lb-ft? The beauty of a cam-in-block + pushrod design is that you can use a V configuration with no penalty in terms of number of camshafts or phasers needed. The Duramax 6.6 and/or it's 6 or 4 cylinder engines are already reverse flow engines where the exhaust exits the valley of the Vee permitting the efficient use of a single turbo instead of two smaller ones flanking the engine. Unlike the 4.5, the 4.9 and 3.3 Duramax 6.6 derivatives will share the piston, connection rods, wrist pins, valves, springs, lifters, pushrods, bolts and a huge number of other parts with the 6.6L sibling.

    A few questions. I thought you had said on another thread that diesels benefited most from using DOHC due to the superior breathing offered from DOHC and the lack of air obstructions in diesels. It would certainly make intuitive sense that an engine that always runs lean would benefit most from using a DOHC valvetrain. Is the smaller packaging, lower parasitic friction of a pushrod V engine still sufficient to overcome the higher specific output / better breathing / lower reciprocating mass of a DOHC even in a diesel - at least in your estimation?

    The upcoming Canyon/Colorado are going to offer a 2.8L duramax, which is VMRA208 puts out ~200hp (possibly less after US emissions are added) and weighs ~520 lbs. The ecodiesel that Chrysler is using in the Grand Cherokee and the Ram 1500 is a Vm Motori A630 which puts out ~240hp and weighs ~500 lbs. Dimensions really don't look like the I4 does much to save space over the V6. So, at the end of the day, if these were the two options why on earth would GM choose the I4 over the V6? Is it a cost issue? Volume production issue? Will an I4 with a lower power output produce better fuel economy numbers of a more powerful V6? My impression is that perhaps this would be true in a gasoline engine with a throttle, but without a throttle does this logic still apply to a diesel?

    The dimensions of the ecodiesel, which is a DOHC 3.0L V6 are 695 mm (27.36 in) in length, 729 mm (28.7 in) in width and 697.5 mm (27.46 in) in height. Do you have the dimensions of the 6.6L duramax? And your proposed 4.95L smaller duramax, what would the proposed weight/dimensions of that engine be? Would it be appreciably larger and heavier than the ecodiesel?

    Your proposal seems to be fantastic on its face. 2 different displacement diesel engines for the half tons which would *easily* give them best in class fuel economy across all models. What are the drawbacks to doing something like this? Is there any limitation from attempting to shrink the current duramax architecture? How difficult would it be to add balance shafts to a V6 at that angle? Does it being a heavier diesel engine make any difference with balance shafts / NVH? Very genuinely curious since on its face your idea seems to result in engines that put out near *perfect* power/torque numbers for a half ton pickup, all built on an engine architecture that already exists and could be extremely modular - thus significantly reducing costs.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Your proposal seems to be fantastic on its face. 2 different displacement diesel engines for the half tons which would *easily* give them best in class fuel economy across all models. What are the drawbacks to doing something like this? Is there any limitation from attempting to shrink the current duramax architecture? How difficult would it be to add balance shafts to a V6 at that angle? Does it being a heavier diesel engine make any difference with balance shafts / NVH? Very genuinely curious since on its face your idea seems to result in engines that put out near *perfect* power/torque numbers for a half ton pickup, all built on an engine architecture that already exists and could be extremely modular - thus significantly reducing costs.

    It is not hard to add balance shafts... you can simply put one in the oil pan or above the camshaft. There is a difference between shrinking -- as in making the pistons, combustion chambers, valves, etc. smaller -- and simply removing two cylinders and changing the crank pin angles. The latter is easy because all the combustion and aspirational work is done. A diesel has heavier pistons and rods. They need bigger weights on the balancer. It doesn't affect refinement as much as it affects engine resposiveness. Still... the same applies to the 4.5 DOHC and the difference is immaterial between a 4.5 and a 4.95L engine. In fact, the 4.5 is trickier because it is a 72 degree Vee engine -- which is worse from a balance standpoint than a 60 degree (unbalance shafted) or a 90 degree (with balance shaft). This is why V6es are usually either 60 degree (for good intrinsic balance) or 90 degree (when derived from a 90 deg V8 or when it is desirable to stuff a supercharger or turbo(s) in the valley.The 72 degree angle was chosen entirely for packaging reasons to make the fat DOHC heads fit in the same width as a 90 deg pushrod design, and still be wide enough in the valley for the single turbo to fit

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    They need a 3 liter V6 diesel in a bad way, they just don't see it yet. There are other diesel V6s out there with 240ish hp and 425 lb-ft, whether they be in an Audi A6 or a Ram 1500, the numbers are similar. That is the sort of engine GM needs, with an 8-speed transmission you can keep the engine in it's power band and you'd have adequate acceleration, plus the fuel economy.

    Rumor is Ford is planning a diesel V6 with a 10-speed automatic for the F150, add that with the drop in weight and they are surely to have over 30 mpg in a pick up, if GM's best offering is 23 mpg, they are screwed.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Forget the 4.5 Duramax Diesel -- the cost, complexity and mass of a four cam V8 isn't worth the specific output improvement. A very simple solution is to simply build on the Pushrod-32v Duramax 6.6 architecture. Instead of building a smaller V8, just take two cylinders off the Duramax 6.6. The resulting 4.95L V6 will make about 300 bhp / 575 lb-ft. That's close enough to the projected 310 bhp output of the 4.5 they were developing and more importantly superior in stump pulling torque (which is what really matters in a truck). While they are at it, why not a 3.3L V4 with 200 bhp / 383 lb-ft? The beauty of a cam-in-block + pushrod design is that you can use a V configuration with no penalty in terms of number of camshafts or phasers needed. The Duramax 6.6 and/or it's 6 or 4 cylinder engines are already reverse flow engines where the exhaust exits the valley of the Vee permitting the efficient use of a single turbo instead of two smaller ones flanking the engine. Unlike the 4.5, the 4.9 and 3.3 Duramax 6.6 derivatives will share the piston, connection rods, wrist pins, valves, springs, lifters, pushrods, bolts and a huge number of other parts with the 6.6L sibling.

    A few questions. I thought you had said on another thread that diesels benefited most from using DOHC due to the superior breathing offered from DOHC and the lack of air obstructions in diesels. It would certainly make intuitive sense that an engine that always runs lean would benefit most from using a DOHC valvetrain.

    IIRC; the emphasis was on 4-valve heads for air flow, not DOHC. Duramax is an IBC 4-valve design- best of both worlds in some instances.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

      Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor




  • Popular Stories

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Deuce
      Deuce
      (38 years old)
  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      The rivalry of the Chevrolet Camaro and Ford Mustang has been going for ages in the U.S. But now this fight has expanded into China.
      Automotive News reports that a growing group of Chinese buyers are being drawn towards to these models as the exude the no-apologies Americana attitude.
      "We're seeing the beginning of a muscle car culture here. Something that is uniquely American appeals to the Chinese consumer. The image that it relays to the automotive public is very positive," said James Chao, a China market auto analyst with IHS Markit.
      Sales of both models are small with Chevrolet only moving 2,000 Camaros since its launch 2011. Ford is doing slightly better with 6,200 Mustangs sold since its launch in 2015. In the first quarter, Mustang sales saw a 90 percent increase to 963 vehicles. Part of the reason for the slow sales comes down to the price. The Camaro starts about 399,900 yuan (about $58,000) - more than double of the base price of $26,900 in the U.S. The Mustang isn't that far behind, costing about $15 dollars less. Prices are increased due to a 25 percent import tariff on U.S. made vehicles, homologation and shipping fees, and Chinese buyers trending to splurge on higher-time models.
      But despite the low sales, the Camaro and Mustang are bringing buyers to dealers. These models act as eye candy to help draw shoppers into showrooms with the hope they'll purchase a vehicle, where it be the eye candy or something a little less exciting.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      The rivalry of the Chevrolet Camaro and Ford Mustang has been going for ages in the U.S. But now this fight has expanded into China.
      Automotive News reports that a growing group of Chinese buyers are being drawn towards to these models as the exude the no-apologies Americana attitude.
      "We're seeing the beginning of a muscle car culture here. Something that is uniquely American appeals to the Chinese consumer. The image that it relays to the automotive public is very positive," said James Chao, a China market auto analyst with IHS Markit.
      Sales of both models are small with Chevrolet only moving 2,000 Camaros since its launch 2011. Ford is doing slightly better with 6,200 Mustangs sold since its launch in 2015. In the first quarter, Mustang sales saw a 90 percent increase to 963 vehicles. Part of the reason for the slow sales comes down to the price. The Camaro starts about 399,900 yuan (about $58,000) - more than double of the base price of $26,900 in the U.S. The Mustang isn't that far behind, costing about $15 dollars less. Prices are increased due to a 25 percent import tariff on U.S. made vehicles, homologation and shipping fees, and Chinese buyers trending to splurge on higher-time models.
      But despite the low sales, the Camaro and Mustang are bringing buyers to dealers. These models act as eye candy to help draw shoppers into showrooms with the hope they'll purchase a vehicle, where it be the eye candy or something a little less exciting.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
    • By dfelt
      G. David Felt - Staff Writer Alternative Energy - www.cheersandgears.com
      National BOLT Lease Deal with 15,000 miles.
      According to CarsDirect web site, Chevrolet rolled out starting April 1st a national lease deal on the Chevy BOLT.
      Details of the Lease:
      $329 a month for 36 months with $3,809 due at signing with 15,000 miles of range per year. 
      This is a hell of a deal when you compare the normal lease deals are just 10,000 or for a bit more, 12,000 miles per year.
      Now if your in a CARB state like California or Oregon, you get an additional $2,250 off on the lease. Thus giving you a upfront cost of only $1,559, 15,000 miles and a monthly payment of just $329. Sweet deal for the LT. The premier is just a bit more $347 according to the local web site in Seattle.
       
    • By William Maley
      American automakers haven’t been known for building good compact vehicles. Previous attempts have faltered when compared to those from the likes of Honda, Mazda, and Toyota. But this perception began to change when Ford brought out the Focus in 2000. It seemed progress was being made in making a decent compact vehicle thanks to their European branch helping out. Seeing this, GM decided to follow the same path. They called in their Korean and European offices to help out with the development of a new model known as Cruze. The vehicle proved to be a massive improvement from the Cobalt as it got the basics right such as fuel economy and overall interior space. Yes, the Cruze was lacking in some key areas such as design and driving fun. But it was light years ahead of GM’s previous attempts at a compact vehicle.
      When it came time to work on the next-generation Cruze, Chevrolet knew they had a good starting point and only needed to make improvements to make the model a real contender in the class. Let’s see if that has panned out or not.
      Dare I say the new Cruze is a sharp looking compact? Yes, but to a point. It is clear that Chevrolet’s design team took a lot of inspiration from the Volt PHEV when working on the second-generation Cruze. The overall profile and certain lines of the Volt appear on the Cruze. The front end features Chevrolet’s new tiered-grille and a set of slimmer headlights. Where the Cruze’s design falls flat is in the back. It seems Chevrolet’s designers really couldn’t be bothered to do something special. There two ways you can fix this. You can either go with the Cruze hatchback which to our eyes looks so much better thanks to the longer roofline and tailgate, or opting for the RS appearance package which dresses up the back with a more aggressive bumper. The RS package also adds mesh grille inserts, and sporty looking wheels - 18-inch ones on our Premier tester.
      Moving inside, Chevrolet has put a lot of effort in making the Cruze a nice place to sit in. Many surfaces are covered with high-quality materials and feature some unique touches such as a curving character line on the dashboard. Making yourself comfortable is quite easy thanks to eight-way power adjustments for the driver and a tilt-telescoping steering wheel. The front passenger has to make do with manual adjustments. In the back, there is enough legroom for most passengers. Headroom is slightly tight if you decide to get a sunroof. One nice item for those sitting in the back is the option of heated seats.
      One area Chevrolet is using as a selling point for the Cruze is technology. All Cruzes get a seven-inch touchscreen with Chevrolet MyLink and compatibility with Android Auto and Apple CarPlay. OnStar 4G LTE with Wi-Fi also comes standard across the board. Our Premier tester came with the optional 8-inch touchscreen with navigation. MyLink has been a source of frustration in many of Chevrolet vehicles we have reviewed, but it seems they are starting to get its act together. Overall performance has seen a slight improvement with transitions into various functions being snappy. The navigation system still has some performance issues as it slows down when zooming in or out. Chevrolet has also fixed some of the bugs with their Apple CarPlay integration. We saw no issues of slowdown or apps crashing whenever we had CarPlay up.
      Under the Cruze’s hood is a turbocharged 1.4L four-cylinder with 153 horsepower and 177 pound-feet of torque. A six-speed automatic is the only transmission choice if you get the Premier. Anything below and you have the choice of the automatic or a six-speed manual. A diesel engine is coming later this year. The performance figures for the turbo 1.4L will not knock the socks off of anyone - 0-60 mph time of just over eight seconds. But you won’t think the Cruze is a slowpoke thanks the engine having a lot of low-end grunt. The vehicle leaps forward when leaving a stop and doesn’t feel that it is going to run out of breath. It doesn’t hurt Chevrolet has dropped almost 300 pounds from the new model. The six-speed automatic is quick to upshift to maximize fuel economy, but the same cannot be said for downshifts. It takes a moment or two for the automatic to go down a gear when you step on the accelerator.
      The turbo 1.4 comes with an auto stop-start system as standard. The system is quick to start the engine back up whenever you take your foot off the brake. One item that will irk some people is that you cannot turn off the stop-start system.
      EPA fuel economy figures for the 2017 Chevrolet Cruze stand at 29 City/39 Highway/33 Combined for the Premier sedan. Our average for the week landed around 31.2 mpg. The L, LS, and LT sedan get slightly higher fuel economy figures of 28/39/32 for the manual and 30/40/34 for the automatic.
      It seems most compacts are trying to outdo one another in terms of offering the best driving experience. So it is a bit of fresh air that Chevrolet has decided to skip this and make the Cruze ride like a bigger car. The suspension provides a cushy ride with most bumps being ironed out. Road and wind noise are kept to almost silent levels. Handling is competent in the class as the Cruze shows little body roll. However, the steering is too light in terms of feel and weight when driven enthusiastically.
      Chevrolet’s previous attempts at a compact vehicle have ranged from the punchline to a bad joke to something that can be considered at competent. But with the 2017 Cruze, Chevrolet put their heads down into making a compact that could stand tall among competitors. They have succeeded as the Cruze gets the fundamentals right and offers some distinctive traits that help it stand out from others such as the big-car ride and impressive amount of tech. Yes, it would be nice if Cruze was a slightly sharper in terms of design and the steering tweaked a bit to make it a bit more fun to drive. 
      Since I have been reviewing new vehicles for almost five years, there have been only a few vehicles that I keep thinking about to this day. Chevrolet has two to its name. The first was the 2014 Impala and the Cruze is number two.
      Disclaimer: Chevrolet Provided the Cruze, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas
      Year: 2017
      Make: Chevrolet
      Model: Cruze
      Trim: Premier
      Engine: Turbocharged 1.4L DOHC VVT DI Four-Cylinder 
      Driveline: Six-Speed Automatic, Front-Wheel Drive
      Horsepower @ RPM: 153 @ 5600
      Torque @ RPM: 177 @ 2000-4000
      Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 29/39/33
      Curb Weight: 2,978 lbs
      Location of Manufacture: Lordstown, OH
      Base Price: $23,475
      As Tested Price: $29,195 (Includes $875.00 Destination Charge)
      Options:
      Sun & Sound w/Navigation - $1,995.00
      RS Package - $995.00
      Enhanced Convenience Package - $865.00
      Driver Confidence II Package - $790.00
      Floor Mats - $140.00
      Wheel Lock Kit - $60.00

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      American automakers haven’t been known for building good compact vehicles. Previous attempts have faltered when compared to those from the likes of Honda, Mazda, and Toyota. But this perception began to change when Ford brought out the Focus in 2000. It seemed progress was being made in making a decent compact vehicle thanks to their European branch helping out. Seeing this, GM decided to follow the same path. They called in their Korean and European offices to help out with the development of a new model known as Cruze. The vehicle proved to be a massive improvement from the Cobalt as it got the basics right such as fuel economy and overall interior space. Yes, the Cruze was lacking in some key areas such as design and driving fun. But it was light years ahead of GM’s previous attempts at a compact vehicle.
      When it came time to work on the next-generation Cruze, Chevrolet knew they had a good starting point and only needed to make improvements to make the model a real contender in the class. Let’s see if that has panned out or not.
      Dare I say the new Cruze is a sharp looking compact? Yes, but to a point. It is clear that Chevrolet’s design team took a lot of inspiration from the Volt PHEV when working on the second-generation Cruze. The overall profile and certain lines of the Volt appear on the Cruze. The front end features Chevrolet’s new tiered-grille and a set of slimmer headlights. Where the Cruze’s design falls flat is in the back. It seems Chevrolet’s designers really couldn’t be bothered to do something special. There two ways you can fix this. You can either go with the Cruze hatchback which to our eyes looks so much better thanks to the longer roofline and tailgate, or opting for the RS appearance package which dresses up the back with a more aggressive bumper. The RS package also adds mesh grille inserts, and sporty looking wheels - 18-inch ones on our Premier tester.
      Moving inside, Chevrolet has put a lot of effort in making the Cruze a nice place to sit in. Many surfaces are covered with high-quality materials and feature some unique touches such as a curving character line on the dashboard. Making yourself comfortable is quite easy thanks to eight-way power adjustments for the driver and a tilt-telescoping steering wheel. The front passenger has to make do with manual adjustments. In the back, there is enough legroom for most passengers. Headroom is slightly tight if you decide to get a sunroof. One nice item for those sitting in the back is the option of heated seats.
      One area Chevrolet is using as a selling point for the Cruze is technology. All Cruzes get a seven-inch touchscreen with Chevrolet MyLink and compatibility with Android Auto and Apple CarPlay. OnStar 4G LTE with Wi-Fi also comes standard across the board. Our Premier tester came with the optional 8-inch touchscreen with navigation. MyLink has been a source of frustration in many of Chevrolet vehicles we have reviewed, but it seems they are starting to get its act together. Overall performance has seen a slight improvement with transitions into various functions being snappy. The navigation system still has some performance issues as it slows down when zooming in or out. Chevrolet has also fixed some of the bugs with their Apple CarPlay integration. We saw no issues of slowdown or apps crashing whenever we had CarPlay up.
      Under the Cruze’s hood is a turbocharged 1.4L four-cylinder with 153 horsepower and 177 pound-feet of torque. A six-speed automatic is the only transmission choice if you get the Premier. Anything below and you have the choice of the automatic or a six-speed manual. A diesel engine is coming later this year. The performance figures for the turbo 1.4L will not knock the socks off of anyone - 0-60 mph time of just over eight seconds. But you won’t think the Cruze is a slowpoke thanks the engine having a lot of low-end grunt. The vehicle leaps forward when leaving a stop and doesn’t feel that it is going to run out of breath. It doesn’t hurt Chevrolet has dropped almost 300 pounds from the new model. The six-speed automatic is quick to upshift to maximize fuel economy, but the same cannot be said for downshifts. It takes a moment or two for the automatic to go down a gear when you step on the accelerator.
      The turbo 1.4 comes with an auto stop-start system as standard. The system is quick to start the engine back up whenever you take your foot off the brake. One item that will irk some people is that you cannot turn off the stop-start system.
      EPA fuel economy figures for the 2017 Chevrolet Cruze stand at 29 City/39 Highway/33 Combined for the Premier sedan. Our average for the week landed around 31.2 mpg. The L, LS, and LT sedan get slightly higher fuel economy figures of 28/39/32 for the manual and 30/40/34 for the automatic.
      It seems most compacts are trying to outdo one another in terms of offering the best driving experience. So it is a bit of fresh air that Chevrolet has decided to skip this and make the Cruze ride like a bigger car. The suspension provides a cushy ride with most bumps being ironed out. Road and wind noise are kept to almost silent levels. Handling is competent in the class as the Cruze shows little body roll. However, the steering is too light in terms of feel and weight when driven enthusiastically.
      Chevrolet’s previous attempts at a compact vehicle have ranged from the punchline to a bad joke to something that can be considered at competent. But with the 2017 Cruze, Chevrolet put their heads down into making a compact that could stand tall among competitors. They have succeeded as the Cruze gets the fundamentals right and offers some distinctive traits that help it stand out from others such as the big-car ride and impressive amount of tech. Yes, it would be nice if Cruze was a slightly sharper in terms of design and the steering tweaked a bit to make it a bit more fun to drive. 
      Since I have been reviewing new vehicles for almost five years, there have been only a few vehicles that I keep thinking about to this day. Chevrolet has two to its name. The first was the 2014 Impala and the Cruze is number two.
      Disclaimer: Chevrolet Provided the Cruze, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas
      Year: 2017
      Make: Chevrolet
      Model: Cruze
      Trim: Premier
      Engine: Turbocharged 1.4L DOHC VVT DI Four-Cylinder 
      Driveline: Six-Speed Automatic, Front-Wheel Drive
      Horsepower @ RPM: 153 @ 5600
      Torque @ RPM: 177 @ 2000-4000
      Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 29/39/33
      Curb Weight: 2,978 lbs
      Location of Manufacture: Lordstown, OH
      Base Price: $23,475
      As Tested Price: $29,195 (Includes $875.00 Destination Charge)
      Options:
      Sun & Sound w/Navigation - $1,995.00
      RS Package - $995.00
      Enhanced Convenience Package - $865.00
      Driver Confidence II Package - $790.00
      Floor Mats - $140.00
      Wheel Lock Kit - $60.00
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)