Print 79 comment(s) - last by superstition.. on Feb 13 at 11:06 PM

Diesel-powered Cruze will start at under $26,000, get up to 42 mpg

Chevrolet has officially announced the specs of the diesel-powered version of the 2014 Cruze. The 2.0-liter turbo diesel engine generates 148hp and 258 pound-foot of torque. Chevrolet promises that the clean diesel engine will achieve 42 mpg on highway, which oddly enough is the same as the $5,000 cheaper Cruze ECO. The vehicle will also accelerate to 60 mph in 8.6 with its standard six-speed automatic transmission.

According to Chevrolet, clean diesel engines generate at least 90% less nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions compared to previous generation diesel power plants. In order to achieve its “clean” status, the engine uses urea injection that is supplied from a 17-liter tank. As a result, customers will lose a bit of trunk space to accommodate the urea tank. Another downside is that the tank will need to be refilled every 10,000 miles.

“Cruze Clean Turbo Diesel is the most sophisticated passenger car diesel engine GM has ever produced,” said Jens Wartha, GM global program manager and chief engineer for the Cruze’s diesel engine. “We merged European diesel expertise with the real world driving preferences of North American consumers.”
The 2014 Cruze Clean Turbo Diesel will be priced from $25,695 including destination charge. The vehicle comes with the Chevrolet MyLink infotainment system, a two-year maintenance plan, and a five-year 100,000-mile powertrain warranty.

Mazda announced that it would be selling a diesel version of its Mazda6 in the United States not long ago, and Volkswagen has been selling diesel-powered passenger cars here for decades.

Source: GM

Comments     Threshold

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

By FITCamaro on 2/7/2013 8:34:54 AM , Rating: 3
Given that the Eco is rated for only 42 mpg but for many achieves over that depending on speed and driving habits, me thinks that 42 mpg rating isn't that accurate. My lifetime average in my Cruze so far is 41.5 mpg over 19000 miles.

What is extremely disappointing is that it doesn't come in a manual. I'm guessing they'll wait until next year for that but we need to see what the gear ratios on that automatic are. The automatic Cruze Eco has the same transmission as non-Ecos which is why it's fuel economy is hardly any better than the non-Ecos.

By nrhpd527 on 2/7/2013 8:59:56 AM , Rating: 2
I have always been a GM fan, but had to buy a Ford Fusion with my last car because the idiots at GM have NO mid-sized sedans with a 5-6 speed manual. Driving a Malibu or Impala with an automatic makes me feel like my grandfather, and at 6'4", I cannot drive the tiny Japanese cars (save for the Subaru Legacy) in the same class.

Even a Nissan Altima is really big enough, there were no Mazda 6s or Subaru Legacies available in Texas / Oklahoma in a manual, and Toyota and Honda still think most Americans are 5'8" and under apparently. Thus, I had to by a Ford. I've not been unhappy with the Fusion, but it is not ideal by any means. I guess if I was lazy like most Americans, I'd just get an automatic, but I just don't want to do that.

I guess my next car will have to be a VW, Subaru Legacy, Audi, BMW, or Volvo...something that is a little bigger, gets decent gas mileage for my 15-18,000 miles a year, and is actually a decent vehicle. I would gladly pay $29-30,000 for a diesel Malibu with good power seats (maybe even with leather?) and a built-in XM Radio (Sirius on my Ford sucks because it costs more to get NHL and MLB games, the only sports I listen to / follow).

Long story short, GM has gone a long way to lose my business with their refusal to even allow for special ordering of a manual on mid-sized sedans...<rant off>

By lanc14086 on 2/7/2013 9:08:40 AM , Rating: 5
Buick Regal comes in a manual..

By Myrandex on 2/7/2013 9:28:52 AM , Rating: 2
My wife's mustang with Sat. Radio uses both XM and Sirius. No knowledge on whether extra is charged for the content you want (which always blows) but I don't know if that would make a difference or not.

By FITCamaro on 2/7/2013 9:41:19 AM , Rating: 2
Absolutely agree with you.

They've had a few cars in the past decade that begged for a manual but they didn't offer one. The G8 comes to mind which was only offered with a manual in the rare and expensive GXP.

I love the look of the new Fusion too. I don't even think the Fusion offers a manual option with all power trains though.

By FITCamaro on 2/7/2013 9:44:48 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah you can only get a manual with the 1.6L engine. That 2.0L turbo motor is begging for a manual...

By Jeffk464 on 2/8/2013 12:13:47 AM , Rating: 2
The G8 was a great looking car, I don't know if it was any good but it sure looked the part. Never understood why they didn't sell any of them.

By FITCamaro on 2/8/2013 10:14:12 AM , Rating: 2
Part of the problem was high fuel prices when it was released. But it was also killed from Pontiac production ending.

G8 GXPs are ultra rare(only a few hundred produced and shipped before Pontiac died) and will be a collectors item.

As far as the quality, it was good. Seats weren't quite as good as the GTOs in my opinion (having owned a GTO and sat in a G8) but otherwise good.

By GotThumbs on 2/7/2013 9:47:59 AM , Rating: 3
My personal choice would be a manual jetta TDI. I've owned 3 VW's (all manuals) and have always enjoyed driving them and the dependability. I realize some owners have not been as fortunate, but I will always recommend VW's. My truck is the first and last american brand vehicle that I'll buy. It's a Dodge Ram 3500 with a Cummings diesel engine(reason I bought it) and a manual 5 speed. I had wanted a mid-sized diesel truck (diesel Tacoma) but they do not exist in the US. America is advanced in many ways, but so behind in others IMO. They push the idea of new fuel sources, yet overlook the millions of used cooking oil that can be converted in to Bio-Diesel to run city busses and properly equiped semi's. The idea of using a product twice, once for cooking and then for fuel just makes sense to me, but seems to be overlooked by the US Govenment. Obama's EPA needs to learn the K.I.S.S principle IMO. (Keep It Simple Stupid)

The Ford Fusion looks nice, but I just don't have any confidence in american vehicles based on family and friends experiences.

Best wishes and safe driving.

By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/2013 10:10:51 AM , Rating: 2
Yeeeah VW and "dependability" don't go in the same sentence sadly. Your experience has been extremely in the minority.

By Spuke on 2/7/2013 10:53:51 AM , Rating: 3
Yeeeah VW and "dependability" don't go in the same sentence sadly. Your experience has been extremely in the minority.
X2, VW has consistently been at the bottom or near the bottom in reliability. I've always wanted a VW but the lack of quality scares me off.

By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/2013 12:54:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I was *this* close to getting a GTI, thank god I went with a Subaru instead. VW's are a mechanics wet dream.

By hubb1e on 2/7/2013 1:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
I've had many VWs and they've been very reliable. VW got a bad rap because the Mexican assembled Jetta IV had bad reliability. Since that model they have been much better.

By mars2k on 2/7/2013 2:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
My VW was a great car, nothing ever broke, I drove the sh#@ out of it for 100,000 miles. The injection sprung a leak, the car burn to the ground we're talking conflagration here. My insurance paid me $750 more than I paid ($2100) Volkswagon 411 is Automotive Heaven! of course that was in the 70s. Great car really I loved it :-)

By Spuke on 2/7/2013 4:06:14 PM , Rating: 3
VW got a bad rap because the Mexican assembled Jetta IV had bad reliability. Since that model they have been much better.
I'm not talking about some anecdotal, internet crap, I'm talking poor quality ratings. VW HAS been for MANY years, Mexican production or not, been AT or NEAR the bottom in quality.

By FITCamaro on 2/8/2013 10:16:38 AM , Rating: 2
TDI Jetta motor and transmission are fine. I have issues with quality on the rest of the car.

But a coworker has a '12 TDI Golf and he averages roughly the same fuel economy as me. Not to say it isn't capable of more. Just saying real world. Granted I have to drive more conservative than him probably to get the same mileage.

By Ammohunt on 2/7/2013 11:35:40 AM , Rating: 3
I am 6'4" and drive a prius 120 miles round trip daily not buying the i need a big car bit.

By Spuke on 2/7/2013 12:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
The Fusion isn't exactly a Cadillac XTS though. Just a typical mid-size sedan.

By maevinj on 2/7/2013 12:19:29 PM , Rating: 3
Same here. I'm 6'2 and fat and my Prius is plenty roomy for me.

By alpha754293 on 2/7/2013 12:48:01 PM , Rating: 1
I would have bought a Ford Fusion too, except that the hybrid is currently under investigation by the EPA for false fuel economy claims.

By Jeffk464 on 2/8/2013 12:12:11 AM , Rating: 2
and at 6'4", I cannot drive the tiny Japanese cars

Really, you can't fit in a Toyota Avalon?

By Pessimism on 2/13/2013 12:59:21 PM , Rating: 2
No, he can't. I at 6'3.5 can't either. When I last bothered looking at Toyotas in 2007, even the avalon lacked legroom, headroom, and steering wheel travel. I just COULD NOT get comfortable inside it.

By Visual on 2/8/2013 11:23:43 AM , Rating: 2
What gear ratios? Can't be bothered to search for it, but if this thing does not use a CVT, someone should be fired.
Manual has been made pointless by good CVT autos for a couple decades now... unfortunately very few cars actually used good ones. I expect this to change with hybrids, but they can also start using them in gas/diesel ones more, it is high time...

By mgilbert on 2/7/2013 9:24:34 AM , Rating: 5
What is it with people and manual transmission these days. Automatic transmissions are more reliable, and don't require a new clutch every two or three years at a cost of $1,000 or so, and cars with automatic transmissions get better gas mileage, because computers can shift more efficiently than any human. Manual transmissions simple don't offer a single advantage over automatics anymore. 30 years ago they did, but not anymore.

RE: Manual?
By Brandon Hill on 2/7/2013 9:26:03 AM , Rating: 2
Manual transmissions simple don't offer a single advantage over automatics anymore. 30 years ago they did, but not anymore.

I can think of at least one advantage:

RE: Manual?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/13, Rating: -1
RE: Manual?
By Brandon Hill on 2/7/2013 10:54:46 AM , Rating: 5
Da hell? I saw the story last week on The Car Lounge, and instead of wasting my time using their terrible search to find the original link, I did a quick google search for "Corvette carjacking florida" and this popped up.

You're always looking to start *&#&$, aren't you :-)

RE: Manual?
By cyberguyz on 2/8/2013 7:56:40 AM , Rating: 1
And what douchebag rag do you read?

RE: Manual?
By Jeffk464 on 2/8/2013 12:21:28 AM , Rating: 3
Two advantages actually, you can push start a manual. I had to do it last month because it was to cold for a diesel.

RE: Manual?
By hpglow on 2/7/13, Rating: -1
RE: Manual?
By Brandon Hill on 2/7/2013 10:30:35 AM , Rating: 3
Plus you look like a giant vagina driving an auto, specially if you drive a sports car.

OK, so if I drive a full-size pickup, SUV, or a full-size sedan (Avalon, Impala, Lexus LS, 7-Series, S-Class, etc), why the hell would I want to row my own gears? Rowing my own gears in a 4,000-pound sedan or a 5,000-6,000 pound pickup/SUV isn't my idea of fun.

I drive a midsize sedan. Most of the time, I'm shuttling my 9-month old around in the back seat, running errands, or cruising on the highway to see family. I couldn't care less about rowing my own gears.

Now if I'm going to buy something like a Corvette, or a Miata, or an M3, or a BRZ/FR-S, you better give me a manual.

But I also wouldn't thumb my nose up at a DCT in a sports car either.

RE: Manual?
By JediJeb on 2/7/2013 6:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
I must say I prefer the manual in my F150 over any one I ever drove with an automatic. It is especially better when you are in those sticky situations where you need complete control over the torque applied like snow or mud. On slick roads I can upshift to put less torque to the wheels with a manual but you can't force an upshift with an automatic. Plus when driving to work in normal weather I usually only need three gears instead of five, and an automatic makes me go through all of them instead of skipping the ones I don't need. Just like when driving a semi, just skip the ones you don't need when running empty, use them all when the load is very heavy.

RE: Manual?
By GotThumbs on 2/7/2013 10:12:51 AM , Rating: 5
They are reliable and if you need a clutch every two or three years...your doing it wrong. Only an inexperienced driver will burn up a clutch that fast. I've got two vehicles (sports car and diesel truck) and have owned them for 10 and 6 years respectively and have yet to replace a clutch.

You can also get better fuel economy with a manual trans. When I'm exiting a freeway, I just slide the truck out of gear and coast to the light. Engine is at idle and consumes less fuel than an automatic.

At the end of the day, its a personal choice.

Best wishes,

RE: Manual?
By JZavala on 2/7/2013 1:09:19 PM , Rating: 3
actually, if you have a obdII controlled engine(or somewhere when they started using that system), you're better off leaving it in gear, as when its idling its using fuel, but most cars that have that type of engine management cut fuel all together and you use no fuel. thats how geo metro drivers(with obdII) get 70-100mpg. they leave it in gear when decelerating and it uses absolutely no fuel.

something an automatic cannot do.

RE: Manual?
By robertisaar on 2/7/2013 4:23:36 PM , Rating: 3
not only does OBD2 have nothing to do with it, automatic models do it as well...

excellent example? my wife's old 1990 Pontiac Grand Prix. 3.1/automatic, the factory calibration allows DFCO to be entered and it did MANY times in our owndership of it. Me being me, i tweaked the calibration further to even keep the TCC locked when DFCO was entered so that it would coast without fuel for even longer periods of time.

RE: Manual?
By ianweck on 2/7/2013 11:04:30 AM , Rating: 2
13 years and 120,000 miles on my original clutch over here.

RE: Manual?
By JediJeb on 2/7/2013 6:44:42 PM , Rating: 2
16 years and 235,000 miles on my original clutch, replaced it last year but after taking it out realized it wasn't worn enough to worry about, but put the new one in just for the heck of it. Less than $500 even having a transmission shop do the work.

RE: Manual?
By Spuke on 2/7/2013 11:16:26 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't cost $1000 for a clutch job. You must be thinking of automatic transmission rebuilds which do cost somewhere in that neighborhood. Also, never replaced a clutch every 2 to 3 years either. The only time I've ever replaced a clutch was when I owned a car for 12 years (250,000 miles) and I did that one once. Manual cars are FAR cheaper to own than autos not to mention they're simple to repair/replace if you're a DIYer. I know gearheads that won't touch an auto tranny.

I will agree that today's autos are more efficient than manuals and shift faster and more consistently than any human. My wife's new BMW X1 has an 8 speed auto that's simply fantastic. I'm so impressed by it that my next car will either have that transmission or a dual clutch.

RE: Manual?
By TerranMagistrate on 2/7/2013 2:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
I know gearheads that won't touch an auto tranny.

No surprise there; automatic transmissions, especially those eight gear ones from Aisin Seiki and ZF are at least an order of magnitude more complex than any other part of a vehicle.

RE: Manual?
By dubldwn on 2/7/2013 11:55:34 AM , Rating: 2
Manual transmissions simple don't offer a single advantage over automatics anymore.

For many of us, they're more fun to drive. For a few of us, they're an absolute requirement for driving enjoyment, not to mention more control over the car. No accident that a 2013 Viper, among others, only comes with a manual. I understand an A to B person wouldn't get that.

RE: Manual?
By bill.rookard on 2/7/2013 1:50:24 PM , Rating: 2
There's another advantage of a manual vs an auto: push start. My driveway has a decent slope to it, more than one occasion I've had the odd 'dead battery' (cold Michigan weather) so I just get rolling and pop the clutch.

As far as clutch longevity, my Mustang (and yes I drive it... aggressively...) still has the original clutch after 125,000 miles, so your 'every 3 years' statement means you must not know how to drive one properly. Every other MT I've had (and -all- my cars are MT's) usually need a new clutch at the 120-150k mark, which is about what you would expect for what is essentially a 'wear and tear' item.

Seriously, it's the equivalent of a big round circular brake pad, and you don't expect to get unlimited mileage out of those do you?

As for the rest of the MT, it is just a simpler design, and as such, the simpler it is, the longer it will last. The auto-trans may have gotten a bad rap in the 80s-90s, but they certainly have improved a great deal, and in many cases with the computer controlling the shift points - they actually can get better gas mileage than the MTs. Ultimately though, they -are- more complicated, and with more complicated machinery, it just makes it easier for something to go wrong.

That's why I like the simplicity of a MT. It's gears and levers. No hydraulic pressure. No electronic solenoids. Fewer potential points of failure.

RE: Manual?
By Jeffk464 on 2/8/2013 12:19:04 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, I can't even imagine considering a manual in anything I would want to buy. Besides better gas mileage, and better reliability, its a hell of a lot easier to stuff my face with a burrito while driving.

RE: Manual?
By conquistadorst on 2/8/2013 8:52:40 AM , Rating: 2
...require a new clutch every two or three years at a cost of $1,000 or so

lol, I bet he/she owned a stick-shift once (or knew someone that did) and unbeknownst to them, was getting scammed by their mechanic. Sorry dude, just simply not true. Unless you leave your foot on the clutch the entire time heh. My manual civic '01 was considered a "lemon" because I had to rebuild my 2nd gear after its 10th year. Honestly it was probably my fault because it was the first car I learned on. Regardless, even though my clutch didn't need replacing right then I decided to replace it anyway since I was planning on driving it another 10 yrs anyway. It was an extra couple $100 at that point. It would have lasted another 1-3 years if I left in the original.

Stick is just more fun to drive. Speaking from my own experience, I'm always reminded how much I love stick whenever I go on vacation for a few weeks and have to drive rental with an automatic. I get so excited to drive stick again when I get back. Automatics are boring. Especially in an underpowered car.

I'll list you 5 advantages:
1 - more fun
2 - cheaper to purchase
3 - cheaper to maintain
4 - you pick your gear (engine control)
5 - more fun

RE: Manual?
By mcnabney on 2/8/2013 10:46:17 AM , Rating: 2
That is pure BS.

Manual transmissions are far far far more reliable than automatics. Always have been. Always will be. The most obvious reason is that they have far fewer moving parts and points of failure. And even in the event of a failure - if you drive like Fast & Furious - replacing a clutch is really cheap. Replacing an automatic transmission is serious money. In fact, that is probably the #1 reason I have seen people scrap an otherwise good car. Transmission breaks and the $3k repair cost is more than the car is worth.

By bug77 on 2/7/2013 8:14:00 AM , Rating: 2
Not bad, for the price of two cars...

RE: Nice
By Manch on 2/7/2013 8:26:25 AM , Rating: 5
How much is the urea? Can I just piss in the tank?

RE: Nice
By FITCamaro on 2/7/2013 8:35:32 AM , Rating: 2
It's relatively inexpensive. You can buy like gallon jugs at Walmart for a few dollars. But it still sucks to have to buy.

RE: Nice
By FITCamaro on 2/7/2013 8:40:48 AM , Rating: 2
Locally its $15 for a 2.5 gallon jug at OReillys. You need 4.5 gallons to fill up the urea tank. So $30/10000 miles means it costs you an extra three hundredths of a cent per mile.

RE: Nice
By Manch on 2/7/2013 9:19:28 AM , Rating: 2
That's not too bad. At least you're not pissing your money away.

What happens if you don't have the urea? Will it damage the catalytics?

RE: Nice
By Busboy2 on 2/7/2013 10:14:51 AM , Rating: 2
Vehicles just go into a limp mode or wont start at all. I know on the new Cummins Rams if you run out of DEF(urea) it slows you down eventually to 5mph.

RE: Nice
By protomech on 2/7/2013 10:23:12 AM , Rating: 2
3000 cents / 10000 cents = 0.3 cents/mile. But yeah, it's more of a hassle than an expense.

RE: Nice
By bug77 on 2/7/2013 10:37:19 AM , Rating: 2
The real hassle is it's eating in the trunk space. In this class, trunk space is at a premium anyway.

RE: Nice
By ElFenix on 2/7/2013 12:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
cruze is an EPA midsize car, with a relatively large 16 cubic foot trunk. that's 4 cubic feet larger than a corolla.

losing the chunk of trunk space will knock the diesel down into EPA compact, though.

RE: Nice
By FITCamaro on 2/12/2013 3:34:27 PM , Rating: 2
Only in liberal fantasy land is the Cruze a midsize.

$26k for a Cruze?!
By Tabinium on 2/7/2013 9:04:00 AM , Rating: 2
GM, you've moved out of your market. Who would buy one of these over the $20k Cruze Eco?! You have the same mileage, same interior (well, they may add a gauge or gadget to try to justify the price bump), have to deal with Urea AND pay $6k more? I'm dissapointed.

My girlfriend's mid-level Cruze drives and looks great for a <$20k car. However, when I went into the market for a new commuter car, I narrowly chose the $25k TDI Golf over the Cruze Eco. The Golf has a more refined ride, subjectively better looks, a torquey engine and an overall feeling of quality, whereas the Cruze Eco is just a point or two lower in every category.

RE: $26k for a Cruze?!
By Spuke on 2/7/2013 9:23:46 AM , Rating: 2
GM said that they're targeting present diesel owners so you wouldn't be their target customer.

RE: $26k for a Cruze?!
By tilandal on 2/7/2013 9:39:42 AM , Rating: 2
Who exactly are present diesel owners if not Golf TDI owners? Its not like Mercedes owners are going to get a Cruze.

RE: $26k for a Cruze?!
By Spuke on 2/7/2013 11:19:56 AM , Rating: 2
You chose the Golf TDI over the Cruze ECO not the diesel.

RE: $26k for a Cruze?!
By Pneumothorax on 2/7/2013 1:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
Why would someone cross-shopping lower priced diesels pick this car over the Jetta TDI? The Jetta has a cheaper starting price, guaranteed much higher resale than the cruz AND passes EPA regs without urea...

RE: $26k for a Cruze?!
By superstition on 2/13/2013 11:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
Urea is a good thing, not a bad thing. It cuts down on acid rain and doesn't cost much in comparison to the benefit it provides.

RE: $26k for a Cruze?!
By GotThumbs on 2/7/2013 10:05:43 AM , Rating: 2
Another advantage of Diesel engines is their longevity. over 200,000 miles on a gas engine compared to a diesel, the diesel will prevail. I realize not many people keep their cars more than 3-5 years (Car dealers love these people), but I have averaged 10 years for my vehicles as I have always chosen carefully and never consider re-sale value since I know I'll own it for years and years. Why buy a brand new car when you can have multiple vehicles for less?

My current stable consists of:
1996 Mazda Miata M-Edition ~138,000 (bought in 2003 w/68,000- Paid off)
2003 Dodge Ram 3500 Quad ~134,000 miles (bought in 2006 w.98,000 Paid off)
2010 HD street Glide - 22,272 miles (recent purchase)

Best wishes on your future purchases and have fun with it,

RE: $26k for a Cruze?!
By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/13, Rating: 0
RE: $26k for a Cruze?!
By messele on 2/7/2013 4:23:07 PM , Rating: 3
In fact Diesel engined cars are more expensive all over the world. They are more expensive to develop and build than petrol equivalents and while there may be other factors in the USA (don't know either way) they will never be as cheap. They do generally hold their resale value better though.

Volkswagen diesels have been plagued by high pressure fuel pump problems and also I understand there can be issues with the timing gear being unreliable. Both are incredibly costly when they are go wrong.

German is not a byword for quality that some would have you think...

Deja vu all over again?
By Inmate34287 on 2/7/2013 10:01:16 AM , Rating: 1
Chevy wants to compete with volkswagen? Again? Remember the Corvair? That was chevy's answer to the Beatle. What a huge success the Corvair was. Chevy gonna make a diesel car? Remember the Oldsmobile 5.7? It was an insult to diesel engines. General motors wouldn't make a pimple on Volkswagen's ass. I mean, if you take a VW to a GM shop, those clowns can't even work on it. They should stick with what they are good at, making mediocre cars.

RE: Deja vu all over again?
By ianweck on 2/7/2013 11:08:01 AM , Rating: 2
Not a fan huh?

RE: Deja vu all over again?
By Ammohunt on 2/7/2013 11:40:25 AM , Rating: 2
I agree Chevy making a Diesel engine worth buying? I would not want to be an early adopter. One thing they have going for them is even the European diesel cars/engine need a ton of maintenance so Chevy will fit right in there. I will never buy another GM vehicle but its good to see that American car companies are getting smart about diesel.

RE: Deja vu all over again?
By killerroach on 2/7/2013 3:16:22 PM , Rating: 2
Beyond that, at this price point it's going up against the VW Golf TDI, a vehicle with greater power, torque, and fuel economy. Unless you see these sold at dealerships below MSRP (which, seeing as the Golf TDI often sells above MSRP, seems doubtful), I don't see where this particular vehicle comes out ahead apart from those looking for the bowtie logo on the grill.

what this article DOESN'T tell you...
By alpha754293 on 2/7/2013 12:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
"...the MSRP will net you a leather interior, 17-inch alloy wheels and an Aero Performance Package, as well as a two-year maintenance plan and five-year, 100,000-mile powertrain warranty"

A comparable Jetta will START at $25,995 and it comes with a 4 year/50k mile basic warranty, and a 5 year/60k mile powertrain warranty. By comparison, the Cruze has a 3 year/36k miles basic warrant and a 5 year/100k mile powertrain warranty.

RE: what this article DOESN'T tell you...
By Spuke on 2/7/2013 3:46:21 PM , Rating: 2
What's the maintenance plan cover?

By alpha754293 on 2/8/2013 12:16:22 AM , Rating: 2
You can find the details at the respective manufacturer's websties or at their dealerships. But here's what I could find online for you.

Why not electric/diesel?
By Dug on 2/7/2013 2:47:43 PM , Rating: 2
Why not a hybrid diesel? Or is that too expensive?

RE: Why not electric/diesel?
By alpha754293 on 2/8/2013 12:29:21 AM , Rating: 2
They do have them. Just not in the US. Cuz they're dumb like that.

In the UK, you can get a Peugeot 3008 HYbrid4 (diesel-electric hybrid) for around 27,000#. (~$42.5k US).

You can also get a Volvo V60 diesel-electric plug-in hybrid. But it's also 48,775# (~$77k US) which, yes, is VERY expensive, (it starts to encroach on the Tesla Model S Performance price range). But fundamentally, the technologies exist (obviously). Why they don't do it? Because car companies think that they won't sell and that they're too expensive to produce/manufacturer. I happen to disagree with the OEMs, because I think that that's really more like code for them being lazy. But that's my opinion.

(There are a few other concept diesel-electric hybrids out there. Some are also plug-in, some aren't.) But it's DEFINITELY doable.

RE: Why not electric/diesel?
By superstition on 2/13/2013 11:06:07 PM , Rating: 2
Diesel hybrids are ideal for a lot of busing needs. For passenger cars, they are really only a good idea for a cab driver who does a lot of highway driving in addition to city.

By Sivar on 2/7/2013 4:52:48 PM , Rating: 2
If a diesel-powered car and its gasoline powered version both are rated at 42MPG, they do not at all have the same fuel economy.
Why do most people care about their car's MPG? Cost, of course.
Diesel costs at least 30% more per gallon in most areas, so the diesel would need to get around 54MPG to be cost-comparable.

Hefty Premium
By on 2/8/2013 3:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
What is GM thinking? I'd take the Cruze diesel hands down--if the prices were the same. Maybe this shows how good of a job GM did with the ECO? I have a hard time seeing American's dishing out an extra $5,000 without any gain in highway MPG (not to mention the more expensive fuel!).

Against all odds...
By Beenthere on 2/7/13, Rating: -1
RE: Against all odds...
By GotThumbs on 2/7/2013 10:43:54 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree to some extent, is the MPG comparison using US Gallons for both or Imperial Gallon? There is a difference. The Imperial Gallon is larger (~20%) than the US Gallon.

The imperial gallon (4.54609 litres (L)) is 20% larger than the United States liquid gallon (3.785411784 L) Source: Wiki

Still a supporter of more diesel engine options needed in the US.

RE: Against all odds...
By Spuke on 2/7/2013 12:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
Not only is the gallon different but the testing methodology is different too. In order to get a real comparison, you'd have to get two identically equipped cars, a US one and Euro one, and run them through both tests. Car and Driver makes comments about the Euro mpg testing all the time and they've yet to do a comparison themselves. Might settle a few things.

RE: Against all odds...
By theapparition on 2/7/2013 12:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
That's exactly what is happening. When converted, the numbers are almost identical.

"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

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
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 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