backtop


Print 129 comment(s) - last by lagomorpha.. on Jul 31 at 9:53 AM


Chevrolet Cruze
Diesel Cruze will get about 50mpg in city

Traditionally, U.S. auto buyer (and manufacturers) have shied away from diesel engines in passenger cars. There are a few diesel cars on the market in the U.S. already, mostly from VW (BMW and Mercedes offer diesels in limited models). Diesel cars are common in Europe and are a viable alternative to gasoline engines and hybrids in many instances. 

A new vehicle is coming to the U.S. with diesel power that will have fuel economy good enough to make hybrids jealous according to Detroit News. The vehicle is the Chevrolet Cruze diesel and it get well over 40 mpg. The move is seen as a way for Chevy to meet the stiffer EPA standards that are looming for its entire fleet.

The diesel-powered Cruze is expected to hit dealer lots in 2013 and it will be built on the same line as its gasoline-powered brethren. Pricing for the diesel Cruze isn't known at this time. Right now, the gas-powered Cruze has a price starting at $16,525.

Interestingly, the Cruze is the bestselling vehicle in America right now with 25,000 units sold in June. That sales number was enough to put it ahead of the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord. Analyst Dave Sullivan with AutoPacific Inc said, "I couldn't think of a better way for GM to capitalize on the momentum that Cruze has created for GM by adding a diesel."

The diesel engine Cruze would most assuredly cost more than the gasoline version due to the higher cost of production. New diesel engines have little in common with the loud and smoky diesels that many people are familiar with from years ago. Likewise, modern diesel cars can be just as refined as their gasoline counterparts.

We first heard news of the Cruze diesel in February.

Updated 7/22/2011 @ 10:00am

General Motors CEO Dan Akerson just confirmed that the diesel version of the Chevrolet Cruze will drive in 2013. 

“I drove it the other day. It is great,” Akerson told USA TODAY. “These new diesels are quiet. Should make it in the low- to mid-40s, and that’s with an automatic."

Official Press Release:

Chevrolet confirmed today it will add a diesel variant to the Cruze lineup in North America in calendar year 2013.  Diesel versions of the Cruze are currently being sold in Europe. Additional details on the Cruze diesel for North American markets will be released at a later date.

The diesel will bolster the already fuel-efficient Cruze lineup. Cruze Eco with a standard six-speed manual transmission, is  the most fuel-efficient gas-powered/non-hybrid vehicle in America, with an EPA-rated 42 mpg on the highway.

Cruze recorded a total of 24,896 sales in the United States in June, the fifth consecutive month sales have exceeded 20,000. The success of the Cruze has increased Chevrolet’s total share of the compact-car segment from 9.5 percent a year ago to 11.9 percent for the first five months of 2011, even as the segment size grew 19 percent. 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Wow!!
By d33pblue on 7/12/2011 1:54:47 PM , Rating: 5
51mpg city, is that right? Given that this isn't a hybrid, it should get even better on the highway - which is hard to believe. Are you sure this isn't the highway figure?

Either way, if they can keep the starting price around $18k, they'll have a smash hit with this one.




RE: Wow!!
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/12/2011 2:04:12 PM , Rating: 3
That may be wishful thinking. The new "decontented" 2011 VW Jetta starts at $16,495 for the 2.slow model. The TDI starts at $22,995.


RE: Wow!!
By d33pblue on 7/12/2011 2:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it does, however VW only offers the diesel on the highest trim level, which elevates the price for reasons other than the diesel system. It doesn't offer one with the base trim.

I can see Chevy keeping the diesel premium to $2000 or less.


RE: Wow!!
By Mitch101 on 7/12/2011 2:51:25 PM , Rating: 1
Not to forget the price of Diesel is higher but opens up alternative fuels as an option and possibly drive the price of Diesel where it should be.

Seeing 51mpg for 2013 makes me laugh about this.
White House Wants 56.2 mpg by 2025, Automakers Are Upset
http://www.dailytech.com/White+House+Wants+562+mpg...

Only 12 years to get another 5mpg's but I think alternatives would serve a better purpose of getting people off FOREIGN oil all together.


RE: Wow!!
By NullSubroutine on 7/12/2011 3:04:54 PM , Rating: 4
You realize that is a fleet-wide average standard? There is also only so much energy in a gallon of fuel and even if you extract it all, you still have to deal with mechanical inefficiencies that will always exist with ICE. After all that engine has to propel a rather heavy vehicle forward and with all the required safety and emissions standard the government keeps adding on, it isn't that easy.

The government can require every vehicle to be pulled by a magical unicorn, doesn't mean that is reality.


RE: Wow!!
By Bostlabs on 7/22/2011 12:02:23 PM , Rating: 2
What??

Shoot, I was looking forward to having a magical unicorn...
hmmm, I'd probably need a scooper attachment though.


RE: Wow!!
By ClownPuncher on 7/22/2011 1:01:16 PM , Rating: 2
Unicorns don't poop, you knave.


RE: Wow!!
By borismkv on 7/22/2011 1:08:52 PM , Rating: 5
Yes they do. They fart rainbows and poop sunshine.


RE: Wow!!
By Manch on 7/22/2011 10:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
and the sushine will power solar panels!


RE: Wow!!
By superstition on 7/24/2011 3:24:16 AM , Rating: 1
I hope they do makeovers because the Cruze is really ugly. I was about to say butt-ugly, but there are a lot of butts in the world that look a LOT better than the front end of a Cruze.

The angry gopher look just doesn't do it for me:

http://images.pictureshunt.com/pics/g/gopher-8187....
http://image.motortrend.com/f/roadtests/sedans/170...


RE: Wow!!
By nofumble62 on 7/23/2011 10:54:00 AM , Rating: 2
Same garbage argument they made in last 20 yrs.
If the Bush administration had any brain and leadership, they should have raised the CAFE to 35, and we are all better off now.


RE: Wow!!
By Indigo64 on 7/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: Wow!!
By rnssr71 on 7/12/2011 9:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
"and in typical American fashion, since the possibility of using biodiesel or used cooking oil is a possibility, with widespread adoption, this car could take itself AND its owners to the nearest golden arches for a "fill up." "

ummm....no. older diesels, yes! but not new ones. anything more than B-5 on a new diesel and you void the warranty. it sucks!


RE: Wow!!
By knutjb on 7/13/2011 1:10:09 AM , Rating: 5
You do realize the new high fleet mpg standards are from the same people who don't want you to eat any fried foods...

Oh and they are pressuring electrical plants to shutdown through unreasonable emissions standards but push electric vehicles...


RE: Wow!!
By Philippine Mango on 7/12/2011 10:08:20 PM , Rating: 5
GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS EVERYBODY!!!! That '56mpg' or '62mpg' the whitehouse/epa are proposing are CAFE fuel economy. Which means that the 2010 Prius, rated at 50mpg average on the monroney sticker gets about 70mpg on the CAFE cycle. So a vehicle that gets 56mpg on the CAFE cycle is more around 38mpg average. Even better, that's a FLEET average. It is so annoying having to repeat this very important piece of information as it's the difference between a very reasonable request and a very UNreasonable request (by the govt.). Vehicles over the fleet averaging 40mpg is very reasonable and doable especially by 2025.


RE: Wow!!
By The0ne on 7/22/2011 5:26:20 PM , Rating: 2
Thumbs up for you. Lets see who will bang this into their heads for the next green vehicle discussion :)


RE: Wow!!
By Richard875yh5 on 7/13/2011 9:07:52 AM , Rating: 1
GM is not upset about the proposed CAFE. Ford and Toyota are and GM said they will simple comply with whatever it is.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rhwang/gm_breaks...


RE: Wow!!
By rudy on 7/12/2011 4:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
With most of these compact cars the base price only covers a stripped down manual anyway you are looking at the 20's to get into anything normal people would buy anyway.


RE: Wow!!
By JediJeb on 7/13/2011 11:41:22 AM , Rating: 3
I always knew I wasn't normal. I much prefer the stripped down manual version to the automatic version or any version with power everything and so pretty you are afraid to scratch it.

Well, I do have a weakness for cruise control, but please don't tell anyone.


RE: Wow!!
By mindless1 on 7/13/2011 1:43:14 PM , Rating: 1
Cruise control with manual transmission?


RE: Wow!!
By JediJeb on 7/13/2011 2:04:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, most pickup trucks have it, even my 85 Ranger did. Unless you are trying to use cruise control while driving in the city it works just fine.


RE: Wow!!
By mindless1 on 7/14/2011 3:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, almost all my driving (including expressway) would be considered city driving as there's no long stretches where there wouldn't be the potential for gear changes.


RE: Wow!!
By Spuke on 7/13/2011 3:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cruise control with manual transmission?
Yeah dude. Manual transmission cars have had that since the late 80's.


RE: Wow!!
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2011 9:27:03 AM , Rating: 3
Seriously. Cruise control has been on manuals pretty much as long as its been available on automatics.


RE: Wow!!
By DougF on 7/13/2011 5:09:43 PM , Rating: 3
Had it on my manual 1993 Volvo 850GLT...the pleasure of down-shifting through corners and easy long distance driving all in one. Loved that car, had it 14yrs, until my eldest child totaled it (accident was not her fault tho).


RE: Wow!!
By Manch on 7/22/2011 10:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
yup, pops had it on his 1978 Toyota Land cruiser. Granted it was more primitive(cut down mop stick) but he did upgrade it in 83 to an electronic one.


RE: Wow!!
By Kurz on 7/22/2011 12:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
Only thing cruise control controls is Throttle position to maintain speed that you set it to.


RE: Wow!!
By jah1subs on 7/13/2011 12:53:07 PM , Rating: 4
Another point of comparison is diesel trucks. IIRC, there is a $4000-$5000 price difference between comparable diesel and gas powered trucks. This is probably a pretty fair comparison since both options are typically somewhat high volume and mature offerings, at least for V8s.

There are other challenges around Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) in vehicles, which is what is in gas/fuel stations.


RE: Wow!!
By JediJeb on 7/13/2011 2:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
The price difference in trucks is understandable since the gasoline engine is often the same as in the regular version of the truck and SUVs, but the diesel is a fairly heavy duty engine option.


RE: Wow!!
By ChuckDriver on 7/13/2011 1:38:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The new "decontented" 2011 VW Jetta


I am sad that VW has decided equip the Jetta VI with a hard plastic dashboard, replace the articulated trunk hinges with the traditional ones that intrude into the cargo area, and remove the A/C registers mounted at the back of the center console that provided cool air to the rear seat passengers. These are just a few of the differences from the Jetta V that I observed when recently driving a 2011 Jetta. In this case, new is definitely not improved.

I hope that this decision gets VW many new customers. They will need them because they have disappointed many of their old customers who appreciated the attention to detail VW gave when designing and building their cars. It is still a decent car, but before you buy a 2011 Jetta, take a look at a 2005.5-2010 Jetta.

P.S. I also miss the hook in the trunk for hanging grocery bags.


RE: Wow!!
By Lord 666 on 7/22/2011 6:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
Love my 2006 TDI. Thanks for the comparison. They also don't offer the 4*4 (rear side airbags) option in the 2011 model.

Hoping the 2012 Passat is more like a 2010 Jetta but with more size.


RE: Wow!!
By Lord 666 on 7/22/2011 6:52:54 PM , Rating: 2
Wtf?!?! Just checked the new Passat and it is not an option for rear side airbags.

The 2012 A6 is not available in TDI yet either.

Holding onto mine for a bit longer then.


RE: Wow!!
By Lord 666 on 7/22/2011 6:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
How is a car "decontented"?


RE: Wow!!
By dubldwn on 7/12/2011 2:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
51mpg city, is that right?

Doubt it. Really doubt it. I'll keep an open mind, but I'll believe it when I see it.


RE: Wow!!
By quiksilvr on 7/12/2011 2:19:38 PM , Rating: 1
Don't doubt it for a second. Diesel engines are way WAY more powerful than petrol, meaning you don't need a honking huge engine to run it.


RE: Wow!!
By Mr772 on 7/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: Wow!!
By tviceman on 7/12/2011 2:38:02 PM , Rating: 3
I've got a Cruze 1.4L turbo right now, and on several fill ups the on-board computer is telling me I'm averaging 35mpg through a full tank of gas. I don't have the eco version either so think it's quite plausible they can hit 50mpg.


RE: Wow!!
By indigosfbmw on 7/12/2011 2:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
I average 33.8 mpg in a BMW 335d 6-cylinder diesel that makes 265hp and weighs 3800lbs. It actually attained 40 mpg on one all interstate trip. But it does seem like they may have reversed those numbers.


RE: Wow!!
By Spuke on 7/13/2011 12:21:56 AM , Rating: 2
Read that it's 50 highway and that's Chevy's target mpg.


RE: Wow!!
By bigdawg1988 on 7/22/2011 12:02:50 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares? If that sucker gets 51 mpg highway, I'M BUYING!! 2013 models ought to come out next year, just about when I'm ready to buy. Hoping it has a manual tranny, I miss my stick. Boy, GM is making that bailout thing look pretty smart. Did the government actually get something right?


RE: Wow!!
By bigdawg1988 on 7/22/2011 12:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, guess it won't hit the showrooms until 2013. Darn, not sure my old Camry will last that long....


RE: Wow!!
By Richard875yh5 on 7/23/2011 11:02:10 AM , Rating: 1
It's not the government who got things right, it's GM. Had the economy not gone bad, GM would still be putting out the great products they are now putting out. These vehicles were planned before the bankruptcy. Give credit to GM!

By the way, I own a Cruze and it is a great car.


RE: Wow!!
By Khato on 7/12/2011 2:38:47 PM , Rating: 2
It's not right.

The linked source article has no mention of actual mpg figures for the Chevy Cruze Diesel. It does have the 51 city/48 highway mpg figures of the current Prius mentioned though, which I'm guessing was mis-read by the author.


RE: Wow!!
By Netjak on 7/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: Wow!!
By Spuke on 7/13/2011 12:18:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The linked source article has no mention of actual mpg figures for the Chevy Cruze Diesel
I found another article that says Chevy is TARGETING 50 mpg HIGHWAY .

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2011/07/chevy-c...


RE: Wow!!
By GotDiesel on 7/12/2011 3:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
I see no reason for that figure to be so far off..
my 2001 jetta tdi does 45 city and 52 freeway.. and that's
10 year old technology..


RE: Wow!!
By FITCamaro on 7/12/2011 4:56:45 PM , Rating: 2
Your 2001 Jetta probably probably weighs a good bit less than a new one too.


RE: Wow!!
By ChoadNamath on 7/12/2011 6:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
And those numbers were also retroactively downgraded to 35 City/44 Highway...


RE: Wow!!
By lagomorpha on 7/12/2011 9:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
By 2001 the 4th Gen Jetta was getting pretty pudgy (2900 lbs). The Cruze is a fairly small platform and is only 3100 lbs.


RE: Wow!!
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2011 9:25:10 AM , Rating: 2
A base Cruze still added almost 200 pounds over the previous base Cobalt.


RE: Wow!!
By MorGasTax on 7/12/2011 4:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
From my friend who is a diesel zeolot, there is a big problem with the efficient euro diesels running with the dirty diesel fuel being sold in the US. This is another case of the Oil refiners owning Congress and the EPA, and why Ford will not open a diesel engine plant to make fuel efficient engines.


RE: Wow!!
By Solandri on 7/22/2011 1:30:25 PM , Rating: 3
The high sulfur content of diesel in North America is hardly the fault of oil refiners. The oil you get from the ground here simply has a higher sulfur content than that from the Middle East or Scandinavian North Shore.

And the entire world, including the U.S., has standardized on ULSD (ultra low sulfur diesel). It's pretty hard to buy any other type of diesel in the U.S. now. So if we are to believe your friend, then Congress and the EPA prevailed. Precisely the opposite of what he's insinuating.

Frankly, I don't think the oil companies care if they sell high-sulfur diesel or low-sulfur diesel. The only thing that they care about was that if they were producing low-sulfur diesel, they'd have a harder time selling it (would have to price it higher) than the company producing high-sulfur diesel. If the government mandates everyone produce low-sulfur diesel, then that isn't a problem anymore. They can just produce and sell the low-sulfur diesel, safe in the knowledge that nobody will be undercutting their prices by selling high-sulfur diesel.


RE: Wow!!
By superstition on 7/24/2011 2:55:43 AM , Rating: 2
Sulfur isn't the problem. US diesel is ultra-low sulfur.

The problem is that our lubricity standard isn't good enough, according to an engine manufacturers' association. They say the wear scar should be no higher than 460 and our standard is 520 max.

Many states don't have any fuel inspection, like Ohio. So fuel quality can be poor, with contaminants, algae, and water.

Cetane level is low here, at 40 minimum. This leads to less efficiency and more soot.


RE: Wow!!
By Shadowmaster625 on 7/13/2011 9:03:39 AM , Rating: 5
It is going to cost at least $2400 for the diesel upgrade. The rarity factor is going to ensure that the minimum price you pay is $3600 more than the best base Cruze price. So how much is 15 extra mpg worth? Is it really worth $3600, plus another $600-800 if you finance it? So, $4500. Minimum. Ha, no way in hell is it worth that. If you drive 12000 miles per year at $4 a gallon you take 12 years to make your money back, at 51 mpg vs 36 mpg. Even more if diesel is more expensive than gasoline.

Here is my math:
miles * years * ave fuel price / mpg

12000 * 12 * 4.0 / 36 = $16,000
12000 * 12 * 4.4 / 51 = $12,424
diff = $3576

If you project gas/diesel prices to what they are likely to average over the next 10 years:

12000 * 12 * 6.0 / 36 = $24,000
12000 * 12 * 6.6 / 51 = $18,635
diff = $5364

So somewhere around $5 a gallon is when it will actually pay (over 12 years) to buy this car. But then of course at some point you're going to end up dropping an extra grand into your car for maintenance/repair just because it is a diesel.


RE: Wow!!
By JediJeb on 7/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: Wow!!
By Dr of crap on 7/22/2011 10:42:11 AM , Rating: 1
Two things -
First diesels last longer so 12 years - do-able

second - don't buy a NEW one, wait 2 years and steal it for less!


RE: Wow!!
By superstition on 7/24/11, Rating: 0
RE: Wow!!
By Jeffk464 on 7/22/2011 12:05:02 PM , Rating: 3
Every review I have seen rates the 2012 ford focus much higher than the chevy cruze. The cruze is outselling the focus, its very discouraging.


RE: Wow!!
By IvanAndreevich on 7/22/2011 12:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
Have you ever heard about Geo Metro XFi (Pontiac Swift)? 43 city, 51 highway gas, 10 years ago.


RE: Wow!!
By Jeffk464 on 7/22/2011 1:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but they were awful cars. The 2012 ford focus and 2012 honda civic are actually pretty decent cars and get that kind of mileage.


RE: Wow!!
By blppt on 7/22/2011 5:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
That car weighed like 1800lbs....pretty much impossible to achieve nowadays with all the safety requirements. It also got that mileage with a Yugo-competitive 55 hp 3 cylinder engine. 0-60 was not expressed in seconds, but rather the percentage chance you could actually REACH 60mph.


RE: Wow!!
By EricMartello on 7/22/11, Rating: 0
WTB: TD model
By Spikesoldier on 7/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: WTB: TD model
By PorreKaj on 7/12/2011 2:14:02 PM , Rating: 5
Every Japanese car made in 2011-2012 will be sold with a complementary bag of iodine pills.


RE: WTB: TD model
By Chudilo on 7/13/2011 10:52:08 AM , Rating: 2
The radioactive isotope caesium-137 has a half-life of about 30 years and Caesium-134 has a half-life of 2.0652 years. So if you are concerned you should be REALLY avoiding them for the next 2 years and be concerned about it for the next 30 years by consuming extra iodine rich foods in your diet.


RE: WTB: TD model
By Kurz on 7/22/2011 12:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
Eh... Radioactive Iodine is the biggest threat.
By taking in the Iodine tablets you are just making sure your body doesn't absorb Radioactive Iodine for use in the Thyroid.

Iodine Tablets do not protect you from other radioactive elements.


RE: WTB: TD model
By AEvangel on 7/12/2011 2:17:15 PM , Rating: 3
After the bail out I just can't imagine every buying a Chevy...I would rather stick with Ford or something foreign.


RE: WTB: TD model
By Samus on 7/12/2011 3:06:33 PM , Rating: 3
Bailing out GM wasn't nearly as big of a mistake as bailing out Chrysler. I don't see many people buying Fiat 500's for $15,000-$22,000. It's just about the same size as a Smart Fourtwo, which hasn't ever met its US sales targets, and is being axed. GM actually has a future. The only reason they got into trouble is because they didn't transition to small cars as fast as Ford did with the Focus, which was one of the best selling cars in North America for years when it came out. All GM had was the awful Cavalier, later replaced with the overpriced, low-quality Cobalt. The Cruze is a great design, well priced, and should be above average reliability since its technology is based on the Holden Astra, which has been around for years and is quite reliable.

In regards to diesel, assuming this Cruze won't be turbo diesel is admiting ignorance of modern diesel technology. Practically all diesels are turbo, otherwise you need more displacement to achieve respectable horsepower. Looking at the given information of ~50mpg, it's obviously turbocharged, intercooled, common-rail direct-injected, possibly aluminum or just small displacement, smaller than the 1.9l VW uses in the Golf/Jetta TDI.

It's safe to say they're simply dropping in an updated Vauxhall/Opel/Holden 1.7l turbo diesel that's been in production for a decade. The engine produces 123hp, 207ft/lb, and in the Astra gets 62.8mpg on the Euro cycle, which falls right in line with the estimated 51mpg EPA estimate GM is touting.


RE: WTB: TD model
By superstition on 7/24/2011 3:02:51 AM , Rating: 2
The Fiat needs premium fuel, which is going to be a hard sell. Despite the premium price for diesel fuel, at least it gets better MPG.


RE: WTB: TD model
By kmmatney on 7/12/2011 3:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
I felt the same way - but I travel a lot and get to rent a lot of new cars. I have to say, the new Chevy's are nice cards. I had a Chevy Cruze for all of last week, and it's a great car for the money. Overall, I've had a better overall experience with new Chevy's versus new Fords. The Chevy Traverse is also a very good ride.

Also, GM paid off their bailout money early, and with interest, so they are now doing something right.


RE: WTB: TD model
By kmmatney on 7/12/2011 3:21:26 PM , Rating: 3
Woops - looks like GM hasn't paid off the bailout yet...


RE: WTB: TD model
By danjw1 on 7/12/2011 8:34:34 PM , Rating: 2
Not only that, but the current CEO of GM just recently said that even though the american tax payers have lost money on the stock we have already sold, that we should dump the rest while the price is still underwater. And he still insists it was a good investment.


RE: WTB: TD model
By fic2 on 7/12/2011 8:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
I think they borrowed money from another part of the U.S. gov't so they could say they "paid" off their TARP loans. Like paying your AMEX with your Visa and saying that you have paid off everything. Basically they are now running their accounting like the U.S. Gov't is...


RE: WTB: TD model
By superstition on 7/24/2011 3:05:48 AM , Rating: 2
GM was bailed out in the 1990s and paid back the money.

I think it's pretty silly how much people are focusing on the bailout for the auto makers. It's nothing when compared to what the rather parasitic finance sector got.


RE: WTB: TD model
By MrTeal on 7/22/2011 10:32:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
also: am i the only skeptic that is going to avoid japanese cars made in 2011 - on (2012 models and newer) due to the fukushima nuclear accidents?


Because you're worried about quality issues since the workers were preoccupied, or because you're worried about radiation. If it's the former, that's kind of reasonable. If it's the latter... pass the granola to the Greenpeace brother on your right.


What took so long?
By Mr772 on 7/12/2011 2:25:20 PM , Rating: 2
It's about damn time. This is the first thing US auto makers have said that makes much sense in a long time. Now can we please get a Suburban or Yukon with a Diesel Engine???




RE: What took so long?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: What took so long?
By IcePickFreak on 7/12/2011 5:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
But they will embrace electric vehicles... or else!


RE: What took so long?
By Lord 666 on 7/13/2011 7:37:18 AM , Rating: 2
Came down to protectionism of the US manufacturers. VW, MB, and BMW are too low volume to threaten US makers. However, Honda and Nissan are hence the delay with their diesel products.

Really looking forward to a diesel minivan.


RE: What took so long?
By vision33r on 7/22/2011 1:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
Not gonna happen, the gas companies don't want cheap solutions of us.


RE: What took so long?
By Solandri on 7/22/2011 1:44:28 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, that's a new one. The reason it took so long is that the California emissions standards (which 16 other states use) are much stricter than emissions standards in Europe and Asia. As such, overseas manufacturers looked at the cost to retool their diesel engines to meet those standards, looked at the market share for diesel passenger vehicles in the U.S., projected their sales, and decided it wasn't worth it.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel...

Now that fuel efficiency (well, higher MPG, which isn't strictly the same thing as fuel efficiency comparing diesel to gasoline) has become a higher priority, the sales projections are looking rosier, and some of those engine emissions conversions are starting to become worth it.

Most things aren't due to an industry conspiracy. It's actually very hard to put together an industry conspiracy, even an overt one. Ask OPEC.


RE: What took so long?
By superstition on 7/24/2011 3:10:02 AM , Rating: 2
So what explains the Vega, the Pinto, and the Pacer?

There may not be an overt conspiracy, but when the vehicles being produced are garbage (like the first two in my list, at least), there's a problem that suggests a need for better regulation. Guess what happened when the "free market" didn't do anything about those cruddy vehicles? The Japanese came in. That was great for Japan, but not so great for our auto industry.

Too often, short-term thinking ends up costing a lot. Nader exposed Ford's decision to make the Pinto with an exploding tank to save a little bit of money. Such a decision is a good example of why logical regulation is necessary, and good for everyone -- including the companies that kick and scream when subjected to it.


RE: What took so long?
By lagomorpha on 7/13/2011 12:02:36 AM , Rating: 2
I'd rather see them become available in half-ton pickups that might actually be towing something and able to benefit from the increased torque. Not to mention with work trucks people tend to care less that it sounds like a tractor.


RE: What took so long?
By Ghost42 on 7/13/2011 1:09:58 AM , Rating: 2
If it wasn't for the fact I live in California I would have gotten rid of the 350 in my K5 Blazer and put a diesel in it. It's damn near impossible to do however. There isn't even a C.A.R.B. legal CNG option that I can install.. Well there was 1 but that company is out of business as they were bought out and their new parent company no longer offers the kit.

C.A.R.B. is beyond ridiculous. You car could put out lower c02 emissions then a tree and it'd be illegal if the parts you used didn't have that stupid little sticker saying the manufacturer spent thousands for C.A.R.B. to "test" it.


RE: What took so long?
By Bad-Karma on 7/13/2011 2:04:57 AM , Rating: 2
When you start talking abut a Diesel engine that is capable of doing decent work in a 1/2 ton truck then your also looking at a considerable amount of weight added as well. Most Diesel engine blocks are cast iron to help hold in all the extra stresses. With the weight comes the increased suspension to support it.

Also the extra torque generated by the diesel means that the frame has to be beefed up as well to keep the engine from literally warping it.

When you move into the GM or ford 3/4 ton or higher you see the use of straight C channel beams used in the frame with additional cross members to strengthen.

I know that at one point that Ford was working on smaller diesel engine(s) for use in both the ranger and 150 series but I think the project was scrapped.


RE: What took so long?
By Spuke on 7/13/2011 9:45:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know that at one point that Ford was working on smaller diesel engine(s) for use in both the ranger and 150 series but I think the project was scrapped.
Everyone had a diesel ready for their 1/2 tons until the market took a crap. All were delayed/scrapped.


RE: What took so long?
By jharper12 on 7/23/2011 6:03:56 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, Ford had a 4.6 and GM had a 4.5. That 4.5 Duramax is truly remarkable. Didn't spend a lot of time learning about the Ford, but I'm sure it was also a great engine. I really wish these had come out... they offered up some great fuel economy in even 3/4 ton trucks.


RE: What took so long?
By lagomorpha on 7/22/2011 11:10:58 AM , Rating: 2
Somehow those issues didn't stop Toyota from putting a 3L turbodiesel in their Hilux and Fortuner, or Mercedes from putting turbodiesels in their sprinter vans. You don't need an enormous 8 cylinder diesel engine for half-ton and lighter trucks if you aren't trying to make them do the work of 3/4 ton trucks, and work trucks don't need impressive 0-60 times.


RE: What took so long?
By Jeffk464 on 7/22/2011 5:36:25 PM , Rating: 2
Man, I sure wish I had that engine in my 2005 Tacoma. I bet it would pull off 30-35mpg.


RE: What took so long?
By Jeffk464 on 7/22/2011 5:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
I accelerate pretty slow 0-60 with my 4.0 245hp v6 to improve my mileage, so I guess there is no point in the faster engine.


unless...
By Souka on 7/12/2011 5:11:15 PM , Rating: 2
Unless there is some massive tax incentive, I just don't see myself buying a diesel anytime soon.

Better MPG is great, but not paying $2000+ premium plus typically higher cost at the pump per gallon, really turns me off.

Same goes for most hybrids....

I look at total cost over time (10+ years) including repair costs, intial costs, and how I could invest my money now instead of buying a fuel-mizer option (eg, hybrid or diesel).

My $.02




RE: unless...
By Isidore on 7/12/2011 6:24:21 PM , Rating: 1
As a European, I just don't understand the American bigotry about diesel. My understanding is that your diesel fuel is now beginning to approach the low sulphur fuel available here so what is the problem? Half the cars sold in Europe are diesel and as a cyclist I can tell you that they don't smell particularly worse than a gasoline engine. Their efficiency is in a different league, even allowing for the slightly higher cost of diesel fuel which is a tax artifact. As for hybrids, their increased efficiency over gasoline engines is only real in stop start driving, when you get on the open road it is marginal or imaginary. There is no way they are better than diesels and now we are even beginning to see diesel hybrids. Physics shows that a diesel is intrinsically more thermodynamically efficient than the relatively low compression spark ignition engine so as far efficiency goes it's game over. Yes, it's hard to stomach the idea of a diesel Ferrari but when it comes to long distance sportscar racing the diesels are beginning to dominate. Moreover, a diesel is MUCH simpler than a hybrid and unless your electricity comes from hydro or nuclear they are much more low carbon than rechargeable electrics (if you are worried about carbon that is). I don't know about you but I don't want to drive a coal powered car. When you start adding in the extra refining cost of making gasoline.......


RE: unless...
By darcotech on 7/13/2011 4:49:57 AM , Rating: 1
First, i am sure Cruze can have this numbers on highway as I can easily make 6l/100km (47mpg) while driving at 80mph ( 130km/h) with my 2005 BMW x3 2.0d car.Cruze is lighter and should have even more effecient engine.

The problem in the USA is that diesel is not the same quality as here in Europe, so it smells bad (my friend told from his trip to USA) and might be less refined. I am sure that if citizens of USA could see/test in real life with good diesel the cars with diesel engines, there would be much more buyers for this type of engine.

To me, it seems that petrol companies are not willing to make effort on this side (for whatever their reasons could be) and governement and car industry are not pushing really.

You, as a voter and consumer, should make your impact and make sure you have been given all options like elsewhere in the world.(talking about freedom)


RE: unless...
By Spuke on 7/13/2011 9:53:52 AM , Rating: 2
We have the same diesel as you guys do now (been that way for a few years). Also, for the 1 billionth time, you CAN'T compare Euro mpg with US mpg. Not the same, period. Americans generally don't like diesel in cars (oddly trucks are not an issue). All been discussed before. Some people here claim the VW diesel numbers are indicative of the public's new perception of diesel but, considering the Cruze sells in MUCH higher numbers than the TDI VW's, this will be a perfect indicator of that supposed new perception. We'll see.


RE: unless...
By JediJeb on 7/13/2011 2:02:20 PM , Rating: 2
Concerning the TDI VW, in my area (Kentucky)you have to be on a waiting list to even get one. There is no problem selling a diesel here, and lately the difference in price between regular grade gasoline and diesel is less than the difference between regular grade and premium gasoline. It probably comes down to State taxes causing the large price difference in some places.

I would buy a diesel in an instant. The only diesel I have ever seen that would not outlast a gasoline engine were the ones where GM tried to make a 350CID gasoline engine into a diesel by changing the heads back in the late 70's early 80's and that wasn't a problem with diesels, only a problem with short sighted engineers/management back then. I knew people with the old VW Rabbit diesels that the car fell apart before the engine needed any work so as far as I'm concerned diesel already trumps gasoline for power in vehicles.


RE: unless...
By Spuke on 7/13/2011 3:45:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Concerning the TDI VW, in my area (Kentucky)you have to be on a waiting list to even get one.
So what? There was a waiting to get my Solstice but they still only sold 15,000 of them PER YEAR. The Chevy sold 25,000 Cruze's in ONE MONTH (June)! Guess how many TOTAL cars (everything they sell in the US) VW sold in June? 28,000!!! HUGE difference. That's why I said THIS will really tell how Americans feel about diesel cars. If the Cruze diesel doesn't sell, then it goes back to my original assertion that VW's diesels are just a niche market and niche markets do not reflect the majority.


RE: unless...
By darcotech on 7/13/2011 2:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
OK, I trust you on diesel quality.

Americans don't like diesels? Why?
Cause it's prejudice! How many really know about new and very effecient turbodiesels if you get bombarded with petrol offerings almost all the time? Very few IMHO.
And it's not about being stupid, it's because needed information is not passed to them. Don't count us,cause we check sites like this one, to see what's new in car industry and educate ourselfs this way.

I wasn't comparing Euro mpg vs US mpg.I was talking about my driving and how much I get.And I do not drive slow or accelerate slowly.I am sure if I try I can get even better mileage.So if you don't drive as if you were racing you should get great mileage.And if you easy on the pedal(I am not), wow, you will be surprised.

Most of the Cruze here are the diesel ones.

The only thing that i don't understand is why it is planned for 2013 when it exists here. Just small modifications are probably needed.


RE: unless...
By Spuke on 7/13/2011 3:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
I only use US EPA fuel efficiency testing when comparing cars fuel efficiencies. Same repeatable testing methods. No end user variables. Any other comparison is meaningless to me. I can get 33 mpg in my Solstice if I drive decently. Another person I know with a Solstice can't manage much above 20 mpg. Obviously, he drives different than I do. How? I don't know. Because of those variables, I can't compare my mileage with his. Simple stuff.


RE: unless...
By Jeffk464 on 7/22/2011 5:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
You also have to remember american car companies put out some really unbelievable poorly engineered crap diesel engines after the oil embargo in the late 70's. It could just be a long memory thing.

P.S. was I descriptive enough on how bad the diesels were?


RE: unless...
By superstition on 7/24/2011 3:14:40 AM , Rating: 2
Everything I've read said the Bosch design used by VW is made for 45 cetane minimum fuel.

Our cetane standard is only 40 minimum.

Everything I've seen, including a letter for an influential engine manufacturers' association (Bosch included) says our lubricity standard is inadequate. It should be no higher than 460 wear scar and ours is max of 520.

Many states don't test fuel, like Ohio... and so fuel can be shoddy and the only way people find out is when their fuel pumps fail.

No, we're not at European standards for our fuel, from everything I've seen.


only problem
By IlllI on 7/12/2011 2:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
is that (at least where i live) this type of gas costs as much, if not more than premium grade gas. so even though it might get good mileage you probably still lose out b/c of the higher fuel costs.




RE: only problem
By Gungel on 7/12/2011 2:19:46 PM , Rating: 2
No, it gets almost double the miles per gallon than the non-diesel Cruze with 26 MPG city and 36 MPG highway. Another plus is the high torque rating for diesel engines compared to its gasoline powered brother.


RE: only problem
By IlllI on 7/12/2011 6:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
what does higher torque have to do with the fact that you will be paying much more at the pump in addition to this version being more expensive?


RE: only problem
By guffwd13 on 7/12/2011 6:43:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
what does higher torque have to do with the fact that you will be paying much more at the pump


as i found out over the weekend, diesel may be cheaper depending on which state you live in. in PA diesel is more expensive than 93 premium. in CT, its cheaper than regular 87.


RE: o*!@ problem
By jharper12 on 7/23/2011 5:31:22 AM , Rating: 2
Truly short-sighted sentiment...

http://fuelgaugereport.aaa.com/

There you go, those are the national averages for gas, diesel, and E85. What do you see?

Because what I see is a 7.04% premium for diesel over regular gas. (7/23)

You're probably the same person thrilled with seeing $3.229 a gallon at the pump for E85, when it's really costing you $4.249 a gallon. See the link.

Now, here's the interesting bit, the diesel Cruze already exists, and what it current gets in fuel economy is about 41 MPG combined. The Cruze Eco offers 33 MPG combined. That's an improvement of 24.24%, which by the way, is a better than 7.04% improvement. Over 100k miles you'll save $1,550 at the pump with a diesel Cruze over a Cruze Eco manual. Now, the Cruze Eco already commands a price premium over the base Cruze. It's $18,425 ($19,175 w/ delivery). While we don't yet know what they will price the diesel at, there's a good chance around $20k or less will not be an unreasonable assumption. What's $18,425 plus $1,550? $19,975.

So basically, so long as they price the diesel at $20k or less, you'll either save money or come out even compared to the Cruze Eco. But, you'll get a car with 161 horsepower and 236 lb-ft of torque at 2k rpms compared with 138 horsepower and 148 lb-ft of torque with the current 1.4 turbo. The diesel will also likely last longer, and people know this, so you'll have a higher resale value.

So there you go, I'm tired of hearing, "diesel costs more, which negates the savings" blah blah blah. Yes, diesel costs more, but only about 7% more. Typically for that small premium you get a much better return in fuel economy, power, and resale value. Please cite some numbers or give an example next time. "you probably still lose out" is not a well thought out argument.


RE: o*!@ problem
By superstition on 7/24/2011 3:17:27 AM , Rating: 2
It definitely depends upon the area, though. When I was in Chicago, the price of diesel and the price of regular gas was about the same. In Ohio, I've seen diesel be as much as 70 cents higher per gallon!


whee
By Motoman on 7/12/2011 1:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
First time in a long time I've heard any news from the US car market that made any sense...

...having said that, anyone know if it requires the pee water? Because that little act of morony is keeping me from buying a new truck...maybe ever.




RE: whee
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/12/2011 1:53:58 PM , Rating: 2
Just piss in your fuel tank every 5,000 miles... problem solved ;)


RE: whee
By lelias2k on 7/12/2011 2:39:44 PM , Rating: 2
Why would it keep anyone from buying a vehicle? You top off the fluid every time you change your oil. What's the big deal?


RE: whee
By Motoman on 7/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: whee
By jharper12 on 7/23/2011 5:53:47 AM , Rating: 2
1. 66% reduction in NOx emissions

2. In Chevy's system you are first limited in speed to 55 MPH, then another drop, then finally 5 MPH. So you're never left stranded, and if you don't fill up as soon as you are limited to 55 MPH, then you deserve to go 5 MPH.

3. This is the only thing to really be bothered about with DEF systems. This has always been the case with emissions though. You're complaining now, but are you still complaining about the catalytic converter in your cars? Are you just dying to go back to the good old days of smog alerts in every major city every day? Because I'm not. I get it, you are bothered because individually we don't even notice emissions, but collectively they truly do pose a problem. I actually like to go outside. I like to run, bike, play sports, hike and have fun. While I'm not a fan of emission controls, I've definitely noticed they have helped the air quality tremendously in the Atlanta area, where I live.

Try this, stand behind an old school diesel (maybe GM's J-type or Ford's 7.3) while the engine is running and try to have a conversation with someone. Now, do the same thing with a brand new Duramax. You'll barely hear or notice the Duramax, you'll be choking and shouting standing behind the 10 year old engine. That's why.

ps. the fact that you call it "pee water" is hilarious. This stuff really is commercial grade urine... notice I said commercial grade though guys... don't pee in the tank. It will end poorly.


RE: whee
By lagomorpha on 7/31/2011 9:53:10 AM , Rating: 2
"An easy thing to run out of"

If you're a complete moron. Most autoparts stores carry it now by the gallon and sticking an extra gallon in your trunk will keep you going for quite a long time.


GREAT!!!
By rudolphna on 7/12/2011 2:51:01 PM , Rating: 2
And here we just bought two Cruzes. Love them, but with a diesel... Gahhhh.




RE: GREAT!!!
By Ghost42 on 7/13/2011 1:03:22 AM , Rating: 2
I know what you mean. My wife wants a Cruz Eco with the 6spd and we're looking at getting one in September. But if the Diesel Cruz comes with a manual option I may just pick her up a temp car and wait it out.


RE: GREAT!!!
By Jeffk464 on 7/22/2011 5:48:03 PM , Rating: 2
Read the comparisons with the ford focus, 100% of them favor the focus.


RE: GREAT!!!
By jharper12 on 7/23/2011 6:00:19 AM , Rating: 2
1) You mean the comparisons between the 2012 Focus vs. the 2011 Cruze... correct? Yep, that's a fair comparison.

2) 100%, that's a high number, are you sure you don't want to go with 106% or 111% so long as you are posting up random numbers?


One step closer...
By Jeff7181 on 7/13/2011 10:48:12 AM , Rating: 2
One step closer to a diesel electric hybrid. Someone needs to make it happen. Actually what I'd like to see is a diesel generator powering an electric motor. A diesel engine can be made even more efficient when they're tuned to be off, or running at a constant RPM. I'm betting a 1L turbo diesel generator would be plenty to provide electricity for a car like the Cruze.




RE: One step closer...
By Spuke on 7/13/2011 11:30:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm betting a 1L turbo diesel generator would be plenty to provide electricity for a car like the Cruze.
Yeah, but are you going to buy one? There are already people here complaining about the cost increase of the Cruze diesel over the gas version.


Not best selling vehicle
By Spuke on 7/13/2011 12:23:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Interestingly, the Cruze is the bestselling vehicle in America right now with 25,000 units sold in June.
Best selling car would be more accurate. The Ford F-Series and Chevy Silverado pickups still have the top two spots.




Auto Insurance
By gloriaphelan on 7/13/2011 5:01:16 AM , Rating: 2
there is something called "Auto Insurance Clearance" rates are very low and now I am saving a lot on my car insurance. Dont be fooled by 5 mins can save 500$ can use that for gas




czxxz
By vavavangv on 7/13/2011 11:54:28 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.benzlogo.com
I tide fashion Good-looking, not expensive Free transport




Diesels in Europe
By DanielUK on 7/16/2011 6:53:39 PM , Rating: 2
The main reason Diesels are popular in Europe is because not so long ago Diesel fuel was way cheaper, (Diesel fuel is alot cheaper to make than Gas. Gas companies will proplibly tell you different). So car companies made Diesels in volume and the prices came down.

If you couple the lower cost of the cars with the super high price of gas you can see why 50% of new cars are Diesels in the UK.

Car companies cant sell too many Diesels though, If every one in the world had a high volume of Diesels, the would be a problem. One gallon of crude oil only makes so much Diesel and so much gas. If we all had Diesel cars, Gas companies would have too much gas and not enough Diesel.

GM are serious about small Diesels in the States. They own 50% of VM Motori an Italian based company that has been making some very nice Diesel Engines for a long time. The other half of VM is owned by ..... Chrysler/Fiat who are allready using VM motors, the first I believe was in the Jeep Liberty.

This new small GM motor will be produced in a new factory here in the states. Given that, I would think the Cruze Diesel will be priced to sell.

Basically if you drive more than 15000 miles a year a Diesel will problably sace you money. Dont forget to factor in the resale value of the car. just look at the price of a used VW TDI even if it has 200K under its belt.




update article too?
By jaydee on 7/22/2011 10:20:45 AM , Rating: 2
If you're going to reiterate what we already knew, could you at least update the obviously erroneous 51mpg city number, as that was referring to a Prius in your source article, not a Cruze diesel?




Impala Diesel
By RU482 on 7/22/2011 2:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
Give me a next gen Impala Diesel straight out of the chute




Surprised?
By jfelano on 7/23/2011 9:15:06 AM , Rating: 2
Wow I was shocked to hear the Cruz is the best selling car in America, I knew it was hot in Europ, but didn't know it was a best seller here, even outselling accord and camry. Way to go GM.




By mad_dr1ver on 7/25/2011 5:22:37 AM , Rating: 2
The cruze is already a hit car in India and that is primarily due to the diesel powertrain. In fact the 4 cylinder 150 ps engine displacing 1991 cm3 is only available option.
The efficency claimed by the company is 41mpg(17.3 kmpl) whereas the actual user reported efficiency is 26mpg(11kmpl) in heavy city traffic driving conditions.

The link below has some sales figures
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian-car-scene/103...

Website for the Indian Cruze..
http://www.chevrolet.co.in/content_data/AP/IN/en/G...




Europe has it nailed
By Moricon on 7/14/2011 1:09:16 PM , Rating: 1
Diesel fuel has a higher energy density than gasoline. On average, 1 gallon (3.8 L) of diesel fuel contains approximately 155x106 joules (147,000 BTU), while 1 gallon of gasoline contains 132x106 joules (125,000 BTU). This, combined with the improved efficiency of diesel engines, explains why diesel engines get better mileage than equivalent gasoline engines.

Source http://auto.howstuffworks.com/diesel3.htm

I fill up my 150BHP Mazda 6 2.0TDI that produces less emissions and more power than the equivalent 2.0 petrol version and happily get 700+ miles before the next fill up.

It runs at a near constant 8.8l/100miles and I don't hang around, running 70-80 Mph on motorways always!

We have done 35k in 18 months and expect the engine to go to 280k in the next 7 years, the car only cost an extra £1000 over petrol model second hand three years old, and service costs are less with longer service intervals, car on 100k now and flawless!

Why with the above facts would I ever buy a petrol or hybrid!

And don't get me on to our new Kia Ceed which gets 70+Mpg Euro Cycle with its 7 year warranty....

Yes we are very lucky here in Europe and wish the same for you! All the best for the Chevy, hope it is a big big seller.




European cars and engines
By Turrbo on 7/23/11, Rating: 0
cvxvcx
By nananan on 7/12/11, Rating: -1
"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki