New Cruze Diesel MPG "Comparable To Cruze ECO"; In Showrooms In May

[BlackGTP]

Yet, consumer reports wont remind you of the awful first TDI that came in the Audi 100 will they? Nope. Until the 2000 release of the PD TDI, they werent that good of motors yet they are forgotten about because of newer motors that have improved upon them. GM hasnt gone through that and will offer a motor that is likely equal to the current TDI and will get bashed for it.

Sure, you cant talk about regular gas cars the same because its a LARGE, LARGE market. The diesel market equates to about 3 of the market and is growing. Why is it growing? It certainly isnt availability, its about it being a great alternative to anemic gas engines available in smaller cars these days. This about it, the Cruze 1.4T has 138/148. The diesel is going to put out the same HP but over 100 more lb/ft while offering better MPGs. How is that a bad thing?

Diesels arent for everyone but the ones that understand them know the significance. I just find it funny that for almost 3 years people have balked at GM for not bringing over the diesel and then this forum craps all over it because its going to get almost the same rating as the other diesel in its class.

Don't get me wrong - I support GM getting into the diesel segment for cars. I just don't think you can equate competitors resale value with the resale value of a Chevy diesel. And, as you say more companies are getting into the diesel field - that may bring down resale values for all makes as the resale market gets more diesel options.

We can argue until we are blue in the face - time will tell.

[Wolfman01]

Ms. Landi hits us with a very interesting statement here.

It seems like no magic "50 MPG" is on the way with the Cruze diesel. Look at her quote - she states the estimated final (highway) figure will be comparable to the manual transmission Cruze ECO (42mpg) but with greater range.

This could possible mean the following: The diesel will get about the same MPG as the Cruze ECO. However, what does she mean by "greater range"? Possibly this: The Cruze ECO has a 12.6 gallon gas tank giving it a highway range of 529 miles. The Cruze diesel could possibly use the standard Cruze gas tank with its 15.6 gallon capacity. Thus if true, the Cruze diesel will have a greater range then the ECO at 655 miles.

Bottom line: The official, EPA rated Cruze diesel MPG numbers may possibly disappoint, hurting the marketing potential of this new Cruze model. The (urea) additive requirement and estimated $2000 option cost are not going to help either.

However, if the price point is lower than the competition from VW and Mazda...

The most difficult thing to quantify is real world. Gas cars still tend to net lower than EPA figures with the aggressive way people drive. Diesels tend to still BEAT their EPA numbers in the same scenario.

[Wolfman01]

Do you know how much the additive is?

Plus, I have to bring this up every single time a diesel thread comes up because someone always assumes that the markup for a diesel engine magically goes away once its purchased. It doesnt. In fact, in vehicles that offer a diesel engine they all have higher resale value than their gas counterparts throughout the life of the vehicle.

Not necessarily. If the car develops a reputation for being troublesome with a diesel, it will then be penalized for that issue. Anyone here know the history of the diesel engine going in the Cruze? GM will still have to contend with the inevitable comparisons to the exploding oldsmobile diesels of the late 70's and early 80's.

[the_smurf2008]

HHHMMM....Fasinating! I am hoping what is meant is that the AUTOMATIC gets "around" 42 and the manual gets 46. These numbers along with good low end torque would push the Cruze from a "nice" car to a true competitor in the entry level performance/lux catagory. Imagine and LTZ R/S with this power plant

From the Washington post.
"No output ratings are yet available for the Federalized 2.0-liter diesel; in Europe, it's rated at 161 horsepower and 266 lb-ft of torque."

This would make for a fun car. If the MPG offsets the extra cost of diesel (.50c/gal?) enough to be a value to customers, this is a hit.

[the_smurf2008]

Not necessarily. If the car develops a reputation for being troublesome with a diesel, it will then be penalized for that issue. Anyone here know the history of the diesel engine going in the Cruze? GM will still have to contend with the inevitable comparisons to the exploding oldsmobile diesels of the late 70's and early 80's.

I dont foresee a problem with perception. GM has had a great diesel truck engine long enough to be able to point to that success.

The car has alredy been in Australia is 2011

Aust. Review

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/518...ad-test-review

[BlackGTP]

I dont foresee a problem with perception. GM has had a great diesel truck engine long enough to be able to point to that success.

The car has alredy been in Australia is 2011

Aust. Review

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/518...ad-test-review

Yes, but just like almost every Cadillac article brings up the Cimmaron, I bet any diesel Cruze article brings up the Oldsmobile disasters - therefore saying that Detroit can't build diesels. And there is still a decent amount of people out there that grew up with "American diesels are bad" perception.... I think GM will need to do some re-education of the American public.

[Wolfman01]

I dont foresee a problem with perception. GM has had a great diesel truck engine long enough to be able to point to that success.

The car has alredy been in Australia is 2011

Aust. Review

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/518...ad-test-review

The argument would have some value if you were talking about a derivative of the Duramax engine. This car's engine is definitely NOT a derivative of that engine by any measure beyond the type of fuel consumed. Two years on the market in Austrailia is not going to translate into automatic acceptance here.

I hope the car is successful. I however, cannot ignore the fact that GM is still contending with the challenges of a damaged brand.

[bballr4567]

The argument would have some value if you were talking about a derivative of the Duramax engine. This car's engine is definitely NOT a derivative of that engine by any measure beyond the type of fuel consumed. Two years on the market in Austrailia is not going to translate into automatic acceptance here.

I hope the car is successful. I however, cannot ignore the fact that GM is still contending with the challenges of a damaged brand.

Just like the Volt? The challenges inherited in selling the Volt will likely be the same as the a Cruze diesel.

[Wolfman01]

Just like the Volt? The challenges inherited in selling the Volt will likely be the same as the a Cruze diesel.

GM's reputation isn't helping matters. That said, the problem with the Volt is the initial price. At $40k, it is a difficult sell beyond those who love the technology, or are making a "statement" of environmentalism. The Volt holds its own when one starts comparing its numbers with other "near luxury" vehicles in the same price bracket.

[bballr4567]

GM's reputation isn't helping matters. That said, the problem with the Volt is the initial price. At $40k, it is a difficult sell beyond those who love the technology, or are making a "statement" of environmentalism. The Volt holds its own when one starts comparing its numbers with other "near luxury" vehicles in the same price bracket.

So, what you are saying is that we shouldnt compare the Cruze diesel against other Cruze models but other diesels? What a concept!!!

[CJH]

So, let me ask you this. Does the Jetta TDI get a pass for getting 30/42 EPA rating? If GM matches that with a more powerful motor then what is the issue?

FYI ~ an updated VW 2.0L TDI is on the way.............supposedly putting out 190HP + 280lbs/ft TQ. MPG's not released, but I doubt they are going down.

Glad GM is bringing mainstream diesels to the party, just wish there was more MPG separation between it and the 1.4T. We all get the benefits of the diesel, but most of the sheeple will not.

[AMERICA 123]

If it only get Eco fuel economy, I wonder if it will be marketed more as a fuel-efficient performance upgrade, kind of like Eco-boost on the Ford F150. If that's the case, I'm just as curious about the performance figures as I am about the EPA ratings.

Yes, that's the thing ie all the other that comes with it.

Also, just being the first to offer a non VW sourced affordable diesel is worth something..... and then some....... so there is that as well.

Then the long suffering loyal to diesel dieselists in general who want to buy American - and don't want another MD + / HD Full size Pick Up - or the coming GC DT.

Plus a group ( as the article also indicates ) now willing to consider a DT in general.

A group which in part, may not have been previously been so interested in GM / GM small cars in general but are not in any of the other previously mentioned.

And with regard to an objective mpg comparison....

The 2013 Cruze Eco AT is currently rated @ 26 31 37 so..... 31 - 33 city and 43 - 45 Highway for pessimistic EPA ratings would seem sufficient - assuming the typical over margin experience DTs offer in the real world.

********

With all that said and while we need all the hard and soft information we do not have @ this time..... I'm not nuts about this strategy... which could change if the numbers and feel are above certain levels ( Don't think some of that is accessible w/o an AT transmission change. )

I also would not be surprised - you can kinda' feel it actually - there is a hand or two on diesel's ( GM ) shoulder creating drag - especially for US / Canadian applications.

Don't want them to 'out' 'attract' all the batteries.....

As of today, in my area Diesel is almost 30% higher in price.......... ($3.09 vs. $3.99)

Doesn't this car also have a higher MSRP?

Perhaps you should move ?

Last 24 hrs in my common fuel purchasing area using Top Tier sourcing known to be good has been -



Regular 3.45 - 3.60

Mid Grade 3.57 - 3.83

Premium 3.75 - 4.15

Diesel 3.79 - 3.94

The last two are of the most interest - given the performance.

Which you also manage to ignore.

Here, even doing it all cocked up like you like to do the 'biggest' discrepancy I can artificially create is 3.94 / 3.57 = a 10.364x % diesel fuel price 'surcharge' - over the now worse than useless regular grade 'gasoline' in the area.

The one that matters personally is buying Diesel for about 1 - 2 % less than Premium.



Ought to gore quite nicely many EcoBoost AT gassers when all is considered and also compare favorably in terms of refinement vs. the same.

Plus VW's current DCT AT equipped DT's - both of which ( Ford & VW ) become quite cobby the second you start to push them around - even just a bit.

[igotzzoom]

In my opinion this engine would be better placed in an Equinox or Malibu. The new 1.6L Turbo Diesel would be a better engine for the Cruze. It would still likely be the best performing Cruze (fairly close to the 1.4T gasser) but would get close to the mystical "50mpg" number.

I agree. If the mpg figures just match the Eco, and don't meaningfully surpass them, I see a hard sell for dealers trying to explain why it's $3,000+ more. Sure, there will be a few knowledgeable buyers that will get it for the combination of economy and performance, but most mainstream consumers may balk at the premium. The 1.6 has more than 200 lb-ft of torque, and would probably easily surpass the Eco's MPG.

[Neanderthal]

To quote someone, BRING IT ON!

A lot depends on price, weight, image, ad campaign (rutt roe!!), and price.

Diesels have some noteworthy advantages over gassers, one of which is that diesel fuel does not have that nasty gasoline tendency to burst into flames and incinerate its Master when it's released during a crash event or gas station spill.

Diesel torque is a wonderful thing. My 1999 Golf had great torque, and it was only 149. That's nearly doubled today, I'd love to have my Soul in diesel form.

[slayrdave]

Torgue will sale this car. Compare a Gas Jetta to a Diesel Jetta......... no brainer