Report: GM Working On Cruze XFE? Target Is 44mpg Highway

[steve333]

Confirmed-Base engine to be wheezing 1.8L

GM has an advertising section in Motor Trend with one page mentioning the Cruze and the 1.4L Turbo at 140hp with a base engine of a 1.8L with 138hp.

This adds up to a huge failure. Coming out with a Cobalt replacement with a smaller, weaker engine? One that's been panned even in Europe where they are used to weak engines?
Dumb name, lame powertrain, derivative styling = FAIL

[johnstarnes]

Would a manual transmission help them reach that target?

[44 mpg by 2010]

The mission of the XFE is fuel economy ... 44 mpg combined average?

I'm sorry, even though this is relatively high for the US market, it is NOT GM's best by a long DISAPPOINTING shot.

2010 Corsa diesel ecoFLEX, 70 kW/95 hp 1.3 CDTI, 3.7 l/100 km [~64mpg(US) combined average?], 3dr 98 g/km CO2 [5 dr 99 g/km.]
http://www.gmeurope.info/social_medi...98gkm-CO2.html

UK = 2009 Vauxhall Corsa 5 Door Hatchback 1.3CDTi 16v 75PS M5; 49.6/62.8/74.3 mpg(imperial) urban/combined/extra urban [3.8 L/100km extra urban]; 119 g/km CO2, 0.220 g/km NOx Emissions, [best guess kerb wt 1180 kg, overall lenght 3999 mm] approximately 52.3 mpg(US) combined average
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/sea...s.asp?id=22030



UK Cruze diesel 2.0VCDi LS (125PS) 4 5MT Door Saloon (with a/c) 145 g/km CO2, 0.150 g/km NOx Emissions; 40.4/51.4/61.4 mpg(imperial) urban/combined/extra urban [4.6 L/100km extra urban] approximately 42.8 mpg(US) combined average http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/sea...s.asp?id=23016



UK Cruze gasoline 1.6LS 4 Door Saloon (with a/c) 5MT 159 g/km CO2, 0.013 g/km NOx Emissions, [best guess kerb wt 1285 kg, overall lenght 4597 mm] ;31.4/41.5/51.4 mpg(imperial) urban/combined/extra urban [5.5 L/100km extra urban] approximately 34.6 mpg(US) combined average
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/sea...s.asp?id=23012

Sorry that is the way I see it ...

[44 mpg by 2010]

Originally Posted by johnstarnes

Would a manual transmission help them reach that target?

I believe a properly configured, computer controlled, 6 speed dual-clutch transmission could improve fuel economy somewhere between 5% and 12%. This would allow either manual or automatic modes of operation at the operator's discretion.

However, it occurs to me that computer management of so many automotive operating functions, when considered with all of the potential failure modes, that manual over-rides are necessary to FORCE .... quick SAFE CONTROLLED "shutdowns" under ANY FAILURE MODE! Example = the Toyota accelleration problems!

[fp115]

Originally Posted by 44 mpg by 2010

The mission of the XFE is fuel economy ... 44 mpg combined average?

I'm sorry, even though this is relatively high for the US market, it is NOT GM's best by a long DISAPPOINTING shot.

2010 Corsa diesel ecoFLEX, 70 kW/95 hp 1.3 CDTI, 3.7 l/100 km [~64mpg(US) combined average?], 3dr 98 g/km CO2 [5 dr 99 g/km.]
http://www.gmeurope.info/social_medi...98gkm-CO2.html

UK = 2009 Vauxhall Corsa 5 Door Hatchback 1.3CDTi 16v 75PS M5; 49.6/62.8/74.3 mpg(imperial) urban/combined/extra urban [3.8 L/100km extra urban]; 119 g/km CO2, 0.220 g/km NOx Emissions, [best guess kerb wt 1180 kg, overall lenght 3999 mm] approximately 52.3 mpg(US) combined average
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/sea...s.asp?id=22030



UK Cruze diesel 2.0VCDi LS (125PS) 4 5MT Door Saloon (with a/c) 145 g/km CO2, 0.150 g/km NOx Emissions; 40.4/51.4/61.4 mpg(imperial) urban/combined/extra urban [4.6 L/100km extra urban] approximately 42.8 mpg(US) combined average http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/sea...s.asp?id=23016



UK Cruze gasoline 1.6LS 4 Door Saloon (with a/c) 5MT 159 g/km CO2, 0.013 g/km NOx Emissions, [best guess kerb wt 1285 kg, overall lenght 4597 mm] ;31.4/41.5/51.4 mpg(imperial) urban/combined/extra urban [5.5 L/100km extra urban] approximately 34.6 mpg(US) combined average
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/sea...s.asp?id=23012

Sorry that is the way I see it ...

I hope you know that MPG ratings in Europe are 20.095% higher

Somehow you are managing to compare it as being lower. For someone trying to make arguments on MPG, you'd think they would at least know that MPG in Europe is ALWAYS significantly higher, by 20.095%!

[44 mpg by 2010]

Originally Posted by fp115

I hope you know that MPG ratings in Europe are 20.095% higher

Somehow you are managing to compare it as being lower. For someone trying to make arguments on MPG, you'd think they would at least know that MPG in Europe is ALWAYS significantly higher, by 20.095%!

Sorry you missed the fact that I provided mpg(US) combined average, mpg(Imperial) urban/combined/extra urban, and Liters/100 km just so there was NO confusion except in the case of the 2010 Corsa diesel ecoFLEX.

You (and anyone else) can conclude what ever you wish from the VCA values and those from http://www.gmeurope.info/social_medi...98gkm-CO2.html

Maybe you would have understood better ... IF ... I presented the Cruze data first.

[JBsZ06]

both engines have around 140 hp..?

thats really lame.. LOL

Just put the 182hp direct injection four cylinder in it from the equinox?

Probably gets the same mileage as the 1.4 liter turbo...

[steve333]

I will never again buy an underpowered car. The main thing I like about my Balt is that it gives out 150hp.

[63GrandSport001]

Originally Posted by steve333

I will never again buy an underpowered car. The main thing I like about my Balt is that it gives out 150hp.

hmmm what is under powered?

it seems to be a relative thing.

[63GrandSport001]

Originally Posted by JBsZ06

both engines have around 140 hp..?

thats really lame.. LOL

Just put the 182hp direct injection four cylinder in it from the equinox?

Probably gets the same mileage as the 1.4 liter turbo...

Whats wrong with only having 140BHP in a compact car?

140BHP in a compact is still a lot of horsepower not to mention that its a turbo motor so its probably making 140ft-lbs of torque which means its going to move a lot faster then the 140BHP rating would lead on to.

The cruze with the 1.4L turbo and XFE is said to target 44MPG on the highway which Im sorry but you are not going to get that with the 2.4L motor and if they were smart they would include direct injection on the 1.4L turbo and maybe hit 50MPG from the 1.4L turbo motor.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by JBsZ06

both engines have around 140 hp..?

thats really lame.. LOL

Just put the 182hp direct injection four cylinder in it from the equinox?

Probably gets the same mileage as the 1.4 liter turbo...

Not even close.

[goblue]

Originally Posted by calgaryhhr

I would like to see some more impressive city fuel economy numbers. Sure 33mpg highway sounds good for the Malibu or 45 mpg highway for the Cruze. But 22mpg city for the Malibu really stinks.

I know that many people typically drive more on highways and interstates so for those people highway fuel economy is what really matters. For me, my driving is 95% city with speeds under 30 miles/hour. GM doesn't offer any vehicle with great city fuel economy because they don't offer any electric hybrids in small or mid size vehicles.

Most people just assume that the higher the highest number, the better. Remember, we live in a society where most people can't even calculate a cost/unit volume or weight in a supermarket and get ripped off constantly.

[goblue]

Originally Posted by 63GrandSport001

Whats wrong with only having 140BHP in a compact car?

140BHP in a compact is still a lot of horsepower not to mention that its a turbo motor so its probably making 140ft-lbs of torque which means its going to move a lot faster then the 140BHP rating would lead on to.

The cruze with the 1.4L turbo and XFE is said to target 44MPG on the highway which Im sorry but you are not going to get that with the 2.4L motor and if they were smart they would include direct injection on the 1.4L turbo and maybe hit 50MPG from the 1.4L turbo motor.

Completely agree - but it better not have an ounce of turbo lag. I was upset not to see DI on this motor which would have helped.

Also, a 0-60 of 9 sec is fine for a compact car with great economy - but more expensive gas might be needed to seal the deal.

[ehaase]

Originally Posted by JBsZ06

both engines have around 140 hp..?

thats really lame.. LOL

Just put the 182hp direct injection four cylinder in it from the equinox?

Probably gets the same mileage as the 1.4 liter turbo...

According to the latest issue of Motor Trend, that 1.4L turbo may be offered in the 2013 Malibu.

[63GrandSport001]

Originally Posted by ehaase

According to the latest issue of Motor Trend, that 1.4L turbo may be offered in the 2013 Malibu.

I honestly expect the new Malibu to gain weight though with the flat torque curve of a turbo motor it could pull it off.

Honestly I would drop in he 2.4L direct injected motor into the 2013 Malibu and instead of using a V-6 for the upper engine use the 2.0L turbo motor (260BHP 260ft-lbs) mated to 6 speeds which should get it more then 30MPG on the highway and out run even the slightly more powerful V-6 engines.