How can the 2012 1.8 L manual get lower city mileage? This is a handy chart, thanks for posting it.
I don't think there's a chance in Hell the 1.4T will get the exact same mileage as a manual or as an auto. There's something very much flawed with the EPA test cycle, compared to most people's actual driving. As there is with our EU test cycles, I must add.
Is there any point to the ECO automatic now? There is no difference in city and only 1 mpg difference on the highway.
ZL-1, I agree about the flaw in the EPA tests with regard to the manual. I can get so much better than the EPA rating in my Astra in the city. I'm averaging over 29.3mpg for the 36,000 miles I have on the car. It's rated at 24 city, 32 highway and I probably do about 30-40% highway. Highway is pretty spot on though if I keep it under 70.
The big problem with the EPA test now is that the manufacturers are designing for the test, rather than the average driver, and the EPA test is not how a typical driver drives. And don't get me started on CAFE...
Last edited by emg77; 07-17-2011 at 02:58 PM.
Past GM vehicles: 72 Cutlass S, 97 LeSabre, 00 Alero, 04 Grand Prix, 05 Vue, 06 Envoy XL, 09 Traverse, 12 Enclave, 08 Astra
...might be useful to "add" the 6th-gear (G) and axle (A) ratios for each combination...or maybe just their G×A final product?
• 2011 Chevrolet Cruze LTZ 1.4LT 6A
• 2009 Pontiac Vibe 1.8L/SFI 4A
• 2004 Pontiac Vibe 1.8L/MFI 4A
• 1971 Dodge Charger 318 3A
• 1970˝ Plymouth AAR 'Cuda 340/6BBL 4M
• 1968 Dodge Charger 383 3A
• 1967 Plymouth Barracuda Formula S 383 4M
• 1965 Plymouth Barracuda Formula S 273 4M
Time for eco to add eassist and move to 50 mpg
Time for auto add DCT and move closer to manaul.
Time to up game :-)
EPA test cycles don't represent how most people drive. It also has several antecedent favors in it as well, having to be related to the initial testing years ago. It is a waste of time and money, while CAFE is outright detrimental.
Seen my first 2012 Cruze Eco/auto yesterday.
Was rated 26/39 and North America vehicle content is up to 60% now verses the 2011 models 45%. Big difference is that the engines are finally being supplied by a US plant and not Austria.
What is point and purpose of the 1.8 now?
If I got a cruze I would put wider lower profile tires on it. I think that would eat into my MPG’s, don’t you think?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)