Print 90 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Nov 15 at 3:53 PM

Chevrolet Cruze Eco
Cruze Eco gets better fuel economy than many popular hybrids

When most people think about green cars, they usually think of hybrids and EVs that are currently making headlines. The fact of the matter is that while most hybrid cars certainly get good fuel economy there are several subcompacts and compacts on the market that offer great fuel economy with standard powertrains.

Chevrolet earlier this year announced a new variant of its new compact car called the Cruze Eco. The Cruze Eco has been rated for 42mpg on the highway and offers 28mpg fuel economy in the city for 6-speed manual versions. An automatic transmission is also offered on the vehicle and it is rated for 26mpg in the city and 37mpg on the highway.

The Cruze Eco uses an Ecotec 1.4L turbocharged engine that produces 138hp and 148 lb-ft of torque between 1,850 rpm and 4,900 rpm. Chevy claim that that the motor was also designed with an eye towards being smooth and quiet.

Several features contribute to the fuel economy of the Cruze Eco including special low rolling resistance tires. The lightweight 17-inch alloy wheels and special tires helped shave 21.2 pounds total from the Cruze Eco compared to standard models with 16-inch wheels.

Chevy also spent lots of time in the wind tunnel to increase the aerodynamics of the Cruze Eco. Chevy says that over 500 hours of testing in the wind tunnel lead to a reduction in aerodynamic drag of 10% compared to non-Eco models. The Eco version has an underbody tray that guides air under the car and has a special grill with more closeouts to improve aerodynamics. The front air dam of the vehicle is lower and it has a special rear spoiler as well.

The Cruze Eco is the most fuel-efficient small cars around, beating out the fuel-sipping sub-compact Ford Fiesta rated for 40mpg, the Ford Focus rated for 35mpg (although the 2012 Focus is supposed to approach 40mpg), and most of the hybrids on the road including the Ford Fusion Hybrid, Nissan Altima Hybrid, and the Toyota Camry Hybrid.

The Cruze Eco will hit dealers in January at $18,895.

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: I thought...
By Keeir on 11/12/2010 3:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
Yes companies can just pay the penalties and pass that on to consumers but why should people have to pay more for a product because the government doesn't think it hits some target which they think they have to power to impose.

The worst part of CAFE is that it addresses the wrong thing.

We (voting citizens) of the US want people to use less Fuel. Increasing the CAFE standard does not directly address this issue, because it is not based in any way on actual Fuel Consumption... Car choice is just one of many factors that affect fuel consumption. Driving Style, Driving Habit, Distance Driven, type of leisure, etc all play significant roles in a person's fuel consumption...

Gas Tax + No more CAFE please! Let automakers make what they think will sell AND promote people to save fuel rather than make wasteful life choices and blame fuel consumption on manufactures not making magic cars.

RE: I thought...
By mcnabney on 11/12/2010 4:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
I agree 100%. If we do collectively want to reduce gas consumption we should tax it. Taxes destroy - quite reliably too. Add an extra $1/gallon tax and you would be amazed what kind of cars people would want to buy. It would also let different manufactures focus on different parts of the market instead of trying to force them into a CAFE box.

Wants me 90's era CRX
/will be happy with this car or a Fiesta.
//have two kids
///but they aren't fatties like most

RE: I thought...
By Spuke on 11/12/2010 6:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
Since we already have gas taxes, I'm guessing you would like to raise them. Are these taxes across the board or would some people be exempt or pay a lower rate, like truckers for instance? That's my problem with a gas tax. It doesn't just raise the price of fuel, it raises everything associated with fuel. So, what you're proposing is simply a consumption tax where people that consume more pay more (they already do it's called sales tax).

Why not cut out the middle man and just create an across the board tax called consumption tax. Remove the sales and gas taxes and replace it with this and have a single tax to raise and raise some more. Have a base federal rate and allow the states to raise it from that rate (or leave it). That way places like California can have their VAT equivalent and places like Alaska can choose the base rate.

Sound good?

RE: I thought...
By Keeir on 11/12/2010 7:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
Spuke... your not thinking this through

If the GOAL is to reduce Fuel consumption...

Forcing Manufacturers to SELL a certain mix of cars... not an efficient way to do this at all. You mention the increased hit due to gasoline... how about all those Auto Bailouts? GM, Ford, etc all made cars for years that did not return profits! Why did they do this? They were essentially forced to... by CAFE and by UAW.

CAFE as a tool has significant negatives. For one thing, it forces the new car market to only high mileage consumers. Looking at the Cruze/Focus versus last years models... its often 150,000+ miles before the cost increases are offset by the fuel gains. It forces people who want a weekend toy to pay the same cost of acquistion as someone who plans on driving every day. Look at Ferrari looking at expensive Hybrid system.

Its targeting the wrong thing, and comes at significant costs.

Maybe a gas tax is not a good idea, but CAFE is a terrible idea which is politically popular because we get to blame the manufacturers for failures and price increases rather than the government or our own consumption choices (both of Fuel and Automobile).

RE: I thought...
By FITCamaro on 11/13/2010 11:38:06 PM , Rating: 2
How about we do neither.

Why should people be punished for having a large family? Or want to own a boat? Or some jet skis? Or just wanting to have a fun car to drive? Why should people be forced either through CAFE standards or taxes to have small families or not enjoy luxuries if they can afford them. Punishing these people is nothing but a great way to kill an economy. You're discouraging economic activity. As well as ensuring that a nations population will go down.

Of course thats what these "green" idiots want. Less of us parasites sucking off mother earth because we're so evil.

RE: I thought...
By Kazinji on 11/14/2010 10:50:17 AM , Rating: 1
Some of these "green idiots" think more of the future. How long with the oil last til its gone? How long with coal last til we can't make energy? IT WILL NOT LAST FOREVER. If we don't start moving to getting off it now, what then? What if oil was all gone up tomorrow...WE WOULD BE SCREWED.

CAFE is not the best but it something. What happened when gas was $4 a gallon, people got smaller cars. And the ones that needed the trucks still had them.

We need more people? 4 billion is not enough?

RE: I thought...
By Nfarce on 11/14/2010 5:04:24 PM , Rating: 1
Well why don't you fascist "Green" nazis start killing yourselves to save the planet while the rest of us move forward with whatever energy means and equipment we deem fit for our personal tastes, needs, and comfort.

We have enough untapped energy in North America to last into the next century until a real viable alternative energy solution for transportation can be met. We just can't access it thanks to the enviro-nazis.

RE: I thought...
By mindless1 on 11/15/2010 3:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
The differences in fuel consumption are a mere drop in the bucket contrasted with total fuel consumption in manufacturing and other transportation.

These "geen idiots" are misinformed zealots that cannot think logically enough to gather info before pretending they have the answers.

Whether it lasts forever or not, it is not very important in the grand scheme of things if the oil reserves run out in 2180 instead of 2185!

What will happen? The market will decide! As you mentioned the price of fuel will go up, consumption will go down, and people can CHOOSE to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle instead of having it forced upon them.

Ironically enough, if it weren't for all the changes made to automobiles they would be cheaper, so the money you save would sit in bank drawing interest to pay for the tiny difference in fuel economy OR for whatever you want to spend it on instead.


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki