Jump to content
Create New...

LLN Reviews Cruze 2LT


NOS2006

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

Less than 30 MPG and tepid power. Color me unimpressed with GM latest 4 cylinder engineering efforts or rather lack of efforts. I can pull down 30 MPG on the open road easily with my 2008 Impala 3900 AFM and I know my dad has surpassed that figure with his 3500 2008 LS say around 31-32 and that was going more than 70 MPH. Sounds like the same old problem that seems to face many new GM entries, too small of an engine with too little power to carry around too much weight!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Less than 30 MPG and tepid power. Color me unimpressed with GM latest 4 cylinder engineering efforts or rather lack of efforts. I can pull down 30 MPG on the open road easily with my 2008 Impala 3900 AFM and I know my dad has surpassed that figure with his 3500 2008 LS say around 31-32 and that was going more than 70 MPH. Sounds like the same old problem that seems to face many new GM entries, too small of an engine with too little power to carry around too much weight!

Again, I think the 1.4T is probably not the best choice. A better choice ought to be a low boost, Miller Cycle, version of the 2.0T and a regular Otto Cycle 2.0 (Non-turbo). At base car will out perform the Civic, Sentra, Focus, etc. by virtue of its DI 2.0 power plant. The extra cost Eco-Turbo engine uses a turbocharger along with late closing intake valves (~ 1.5 liter effective displacement) and makes identical power, but with superior torque and economy...

And, perhaps with the second model year, an SS with a non-Miller version of the 2.0T.

2.0 (LT / 1LT / 2LT)

  • DOHC-16v Otto-Cycle Inline-4 (w/Dual VVT & Direct Injection)
  • 86 x 86 mm (Bore x Stroke); 1998 cc
  • Naturally Aspirated
  • 170 bhp @ 6200 rpm
  • 152 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm
  • 6200 rpm / 6350 rpm (Redline / Rev Limit)
  • 6T40 6-speed Automatic Transmission (w/ 2.89 axle ratio)
  • Est. 24 (city) / 35 (Hwy) mpg -- 87 Octane

2.0 T (LTZ / ECO)

  • DOHC-16v Miller Cycle Inline-4 (w/Dual VVT & Direct Injection)
  • 86 x 86 mm (Bore x Stroke); 1998 cc
  • Honeywell-Garrett MGT-2052-7 Turbo @ 8.8 psi (max boost)
  • 170 bhp @ 5200 rpm
  • 175 lb-ft @ 1500~5000 rpm
  • 5200 rpm / 6350 rpm (Redline / Rev Limit)
  • 6T40 6-speed Automatic Transmission (w/ 2.89 axle ratio)
  • Est. 27 (city) / 40 (Hwy) mpg -- 87 Octane [ECO MODEL: 27 (city) / 42 (Hwy) mpg w/ lightening & aerodynamic enhancements)

2.0 T (SS)

  • DOHC-16v Inline-4 (w/Dual VVT & Direct Injection)
  • 86 x 86 mm (Bore x Stroke); 1998 cc
  • Honeywell-Garrett MGT-2259-3 Turbo @ 13.2 psi (max boost)
  • 270 bhp @ 6000 rpm
  • 250 lb-ft @ 1600~5600 rpm
  • 6000 rpm / 6350 rpm (Redline / Rev Limit)
  • 6T70 6-speed Automatic Transmission (w/ 2.89 axle ratio) or Getrag F28/6 6-speed Manual Transmission (3.72 axle ratio)
  • Est. 22 (city) / 32 (Hwy) mpg -- 91 Octane

For purpose of expediency and economies of scale, the 2.0 T SS engine is also the V6 replacement engine on the new Malibu. Whereas the base Malibu gets the 182hp 2.4 liter from the Regal.

Edited by dwightlooi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Displacement taxes in other countries, since it is GM's "World Car".

That is the drawback of seeking one solution to all problems - compromise.

Uh... except the 1.4T is not available in Europe. The Europeans get a 1.6 and a 1.8 NA four, plus a 2.0 Turbodiesel.

The 2.0 Turbodiesel is actually the highest performance motor for the Cruze at 150hp / 240 lb-ft

Couple of quick comments/clarifications:

1. The 1.4T is sold in over here on the Astra, in manual and automatic versions. Exact same powertrain as the NA Cruze IIRC.

2. The highest power 2.0L diesel is now rated at 163PS (don't remember torque figures).

Is there a chance that beside final drive ratio, GM messed up the software somehow losing a few mpg in the process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Displacement taxes in other countries, since it is GM's "World Car".

That is the drawback of seeking one solution to all problems - compromise.

Uh... except the 1.4T is not available in Europe. The Europeans get a 1.6 and a 1.8 NA four, plus a 2.0 Turbodiesel.

The 2.0 Turbodiesel is actually the highest performance motor for the Cruze at 150hp / 240 lb-ft

Couple of quick comments/clarifications:

1. The 1.4T is sold in over here on the Astra, in manual and automatic versions. Exact same powertrain as the NA Cruze IIRC.

2. The highest power 2.0L diesel is now rated at 163PS (don't remember torque figures).

Is there a chance that beside final drive ratio, GM messed up the software somehow losing a few mpg in the process?

But not in the European Cruze; which does nothing in making the Cruze a world car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But not in the European Cruze; which does nothing in making the Cruze a world car.

GM has a "mechanicals bank", so they go there and and fish for an offer of something each of the major markets depending on what they see as more appropriate for that market. In Europe it means the Cruze and Astra dpon't share engines, in the US it means the Verano gets the 2.4L engine while the Cruze gests the 1.4T. It does not take away anything from the Cruze's "world car" status (more even when the Cruze gets a diesel in the US in a couple of years).

Edited by ZL-1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But not in the European Cruze; which does nothing in making the Cruze a world car.

GM has a "mechanicals bank", so they go there and and fish for an offer of something each of the major markets depending on what they see as more appropriate for that market. In Europe it means the Cruze and Astra dpon't share engines, in the US it means the Verano gets the 2.4L engine while the Cruze gests the 1.4T. It does not take away anything from the Cruze's "world car" status (more even when the Cruze gets a diesel in the US in a couple of years).

No, no. What I mean is that while the 1.4T might be a useful engine in the lineup in giving GM a range of engines that fits worldwide needs, its use in the Cruze cannot be explained or justified by the desire to avoid European displacement taxes. The very simple reason being that the Cruze is NOT offered with that engine in Europe, hence its selection cannot be explained by the desire to accommodate European market realities.

The 1.4T does not appear to offer a cost, fuel economy or performance advantage over a direct injected 1.8 or 2.0 liter engine. In this regard, it is a poor choice -- the additional complexity and cost of forced induction with no payback. It is smooth, yes, but so is a 2.0 with balancers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Odd question; since the manual IS offered on the 1.4T ECO in the Cruze, if someone demanded a manual transmission in say, the LTZ, there would really be no reason not to have it done despite equipment listings?

Random side note; I have been averaging 25-27mpg COMBINED in my 1988 Dodge Aries LE. It has a 2.5L balance shafted four, throttle body injection, and a 3-speed TorqueFlite automatic. 100hp/136lb-ft.

Edited by MyerShift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odd question; since the manual IS offered on the 1.4T ECO in the Cruze, if someone demanded a manual transmission in say, the LTZ, there would really be no reason not to have it done despite equipment listings?

When my friend went to get a manual transmission on his 2005 Corolla LE (at the time it was the top trim designation, now the low end trim), they said absolutely no LE's are made with the manual and he couldn't order one like that. I would imagine GM would offer a similar response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how it is around the other parts of the US but here in the Midwest the Cruze's are popping up like dandylions. Every short trip I take anymore I can see a half dozen or more Cruze.

I saw the numbers and the over market numbers for last month were really good for the car.

Now that I have seen several of the trim levels and color some of these look really good on the road. The only weak spot for me is the C pillar. I really wish it has something closer to the Malbu look but on a shorter wheel base it would have been hard to do.

As for the engines you have what they have. GM deemed them the best choices for more than one reason. You can imagine all the combinations you like but it means little.

This car was made to be economical and it is.

As for the trannys I see them being offered but limited. GM still will not invest a lot into putting manual trannys in too many models that may end up sitting on dealer lots and having to be discounted to get sold. It would be nice if you could order one and they would build it. That would save the the expence of unsold inventory. As long as the manual market remains in decline I see little more effort being made than what they have. We are at 7% as a whole and in many segements even less of the cars being Manual. Even the theft rates are down on them as many of the theifs can't drive them.

I see the manual in this country being let to the performance cars and slowly fade away accept for a stripped down odd econo car that provides good numbers for advertising.

Even back in 84 Pontiac touted a 50 MPG Fiero with a manual and specail gearing. As far as anyone could find only a few were built so they could prove to GM it was a economy car and for advertising. From what I have seen of them they would not get out of their own way they were geared so bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how it is around the other parts of the US but here in the Midwest the Cruze's are popping up like dandylions. Every short trip I take anymore I can see a half dozen or more Cruze.

I've seen 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how it is around the other parts of the US but here in the Midwest the Cruze's are popping up like dandylions. Every short trip I take anymore I can see a half dozen or more Cruze.

I saw the numbers and the over market numbers for last month were really good for the car.

Now that I have seen several of the trim levels and color some of these look really good on the road. The only weak spot for me is the C pillar. I really wish it has something closer to the Malbu look but on a shorter wheel base it would have been hard to do.

As for the engines you have what they have. GM deemed them the best choices for more than one reason. You can imagine all the combinations you like but it means little.

This car was made to be economical and it is.

The problem is that it is not. At least it is not as economical as it could have been if GM went with a bigger engine with higher compression and taller gearing.

Conventional wisdom has it that smaller displacement engines are easier on gas. This has lead to some governments passing displacement taxes to encourage the sale and adoption of cars with small engines. It has also lead to the new government owned Chevrolet introducing the Cruze with a decidedly tiny 1.4 liter – 1364cc to be exact – turbocharged four with the aspiration to claim the fuel economy crown of the compact segment. But conventional wisdom is wrong.

As it turns out, the 1.4 liter turbocharged four was not only more expensive to build and made less power compared to its competitors – 138 hp versus 160 hp in the Ford and 148 hp in the Hyundai respectively – it was using burning more gasoline. When equipped with a 6-speed automatic transmission, the 1.4 liter Cruze Eco’s 26 / 37 mpg was easily beaten by the 2.0 liter Ford Focus’s 28/38 mpg and the 1.8 liter Hyundai Elantra’s 29 / 40 mpg.

How did that happen? To start with, the Cruze’s power plant was geared in such a manner that it spins at a relatively brisk 3000 rpm at 75 mph. This is considerably higher than the competition. And it has to be gear in this manner because highway cruising is typically done at very low engine loads and with the turbocharger making very little boost. The tiny displacement means that the engine has to be geared in a manner that will allow the engine to easily maintain highway cruising speeds off-boost. In addition, the combination of turbo-charging and the lack of direct injection meant that the engine operates with a relatively low compression ratio of 9.2:1 – a far cry from the Focus’s 12:1. Combined, these more than negated marginal savings in pumping and frictional losses gained through displacement reduction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm seeing a very gradual increase in numbers out in Los Angeles. I'm starting to get a little concerned that they aren't as common as I would have expected given my personal impressions of the Cruze.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far, the two tanks that I've done the math on have offered 6.2 l/100km and 6.1 l/100km, respectively. This is driving back and forth to work mostly, which is usually about 75% open freeway and 25% traffic jam.

6.2 l/100km = 37.9 mpg

6.1 l/100km = 38.6 mpg

Canadian GM site's efficiency estimates are 7.2 city / 4.6 hwy / 6.0 combined (pretty close to what I got). This translates to 32.7 city / 51.1 hwy / 39.2 combined.

American estimates are 28 city / 42 hwy (seems very low to me)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how it is around the other parts of the US but here in the Midwest the Cruze's are popping up like dandylions. Every short trip I take anymore I can see a half dozen or more Cruze.

I saw the numbers and the over market numbers for last month were really good for the car.

Now that I have seen several of the trim levels and color some of these look really good on the road. The only weak spot for me is the C pillar. I really wish it has something closer to the Malbu look but on a shorter wheel base it would have been hard to do.

As for the engines you have what they have. GM deemed them the best choices for more than one reason. You can imagine all the combinations you like but it means little.

This car was made to be economical and it is.

The problem is that it is not. At least it is not as economical as it could have been if GM went with a bigger engine with higher compression and taller gearing.

Conventional wisdom has it that smaller displacement engines are easier on gas. This has lead to some governments passing displacement taxes to encourage the sale and adoption of cars with small engines. It has also lead to the new government owned Chevrolet introducing the Cruze with a decidedly tiny 1.4 liter – 1364cc to be exact – turbocharged four with the aspiration to claim the fuel economy crown of the compact segment. But conventional wisdom is wrong.

As it turns out, the 1.4 liter turbocharged four was not only more expensive to build and made less power compared to its competitors – 138 hp versus 160 hp in the Ford and 148 hp in the Hyundai respectively – it was using burning more gasoline. When equipped with a 6-speed automatic transmission, the 1.4 liter Cruze Eco's 26 / 37 mpg was easily beaten by the 2.0 liter Ford Focus's 28/38 mpg and the 1.8 liter Hyundai Elantra's 29 / 40 mpg.

How did that happen? To start with, the Cruze's power plant was geared in such a manner that it spins at a relatively brisk 3000 rpm at 75 mph. This is considerably higher than the competition. And it has to be gear in this manner because highway cruising is typically done at very low engine loads and with the turbocharger making very little boost. The tiny displacement means that the engine has to be geared in a manner that will allow the engine to easily maintain highway cruising speeds off-boost. In addition, the combination of turbo-charging and the lack of direct injection meant that the engine operates with a relatively low compression ratio of 9.2:1 – a far cry from the Focus's 12:1. Combined, these more than negated marginal savings in pumping and frictional losses gained through displacement reduction.

That is apparently only true for the automatic. The manual ECO is doing very well with MPG, I'm regularly seeing reports of over 42mpg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how it is around the other parts of the US but here in the Midwest the Cruze's are popping up like dandylions. Every short trip I take anymore I can see a half dozen or more Cruze.

I saw the numbers and the over market numbers for last month were really good for the car.

Now that I have seen several of the trim levels and color some of these look really good on the road. The only weak spot for me is the C pillar. I really wish it has something closer to the Malbu look but on a shorter wheel base it would have been hard to do.

As for the engines you have what they have. GM deemed them the best choices for more than one reason. You can imagine all the combinations you like but it means little.

This car was made to be economical and it is.

The problem is that it is not. At least it is not as economical as it could have been if GM went with a bigger engine with higher compression and taller gearing.

Conventional wisdom has it that smaller displacement engines are easier on gas. This has lead to some governments passing displacement taxes to encourage the sale and adoption of cars with small engines. It has also lead to the new government owned Chevrolet introducing the Cruze with a decidedly tiny 1.4 liter – 1364cc to be exact – turbocharged four with the aspiration to claim the fuel economy crown of the compact segment. But conventional wisdom is wrong.

As it turns out, the 1.4 liter turbocharged four was not only more expensive to build and made less power compared to its competitors – 138 hp versus 160 hp in the Ford and 148 hp in the Hyundai respectively – it was using burning more gasoline. When equipped with a 6-speed automatic transmission, the 1.4 liter Cruze Eco's 26 / 37 mpg was easily beaten by the 2.0 liter Ford Focus's 28/38 mpg and the 1.8 liter Hyundai Elantra's 29 / 40 mpg.

How did that happen? To start with, the Cruze's power plant was geared in such a manner that it spins at a relatively brisk 3000 rpm at 75 mph. This is considerably higher than the competition. And it has to be gear in this manner because highway cruising is typically done at very low engine loads and with the turbocharger making very little boost. The tiny displacement means that the engine has to be geared in a manner that will allow the engine to easily maintain highway cruising speeds off-boost. In addition, the combination of turbo-charging and the lack of direct injection meant that the engine operates with a relatively low compression ratio of 9.2:1 – a far cry from the Focus's 12:1. Combined, these more than negated marginal savings in pumping and frictional losses gained through displacement reduction.

That is apparently only true for the automatic. The manual ECO is doing very well with MPG, I'm regularly seeing reports of over 42mpg.

Well, we have to compare apples to apples right? It won't be fair or meaningful to compare a manual Cruze to an Automatic Focus or Elantra. GM actually went out of the way to lower the gearing of the 6T40 transmission as applied to the Cruze. In prior applications, such as the Regal or Malibu, the 6T40 had a 2.89:1 axle ratio (vs 3.83:1) which would have placed its cruising RPMs within 50 rpms of the manual ECO's. But the engine was so weak off boost that the car probably wouldn't be able to maintain 65 mph without hunting between 5th and 6th gear on the freeway. Remember, a 1.4T is very much like a 1.4 NA with low compression and lousy intake runner design, until you give it enough throttle (and time) to compound enough exhaust energy and spin up meaningful boost. This is a big problem when the engine is lugging around at under 2000 rpms and 10~20% throttle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search

Change privacy settings