backtop


Print 89 comment(s) - last by StanO360.. on Apr 22 at 12:14 PM

Diesel-powered Cruze can drive for 10 hours on a single tank of fuel

The EPA has handed down its fuel economy estimates for Chevrolet's new 2014 Cruze Clean Turbo Diesel. The EPA is estimating the vehicle will get 46 mpg on the highway, making it the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid vehicle in America. General Motors says that the car will be available in certain cities this spring and around the country and Canada early this fall.

The turbodiesel version of the Cruze is equipped with a six-speed automatic transmission and has an estimated range of 700 highway miles on a single tank of diesel fuel.
 
The 2.0-liter turbodiesel engine is rated for 148 hp and 258 pound-feet of torque (the engine features a special over boost function that can increase torque to 280 pound-foot for short bursts as needed). The vehicle is capable of accelerating from a stop to 60 mph in 8.6 seconds.

“We harnessed generations of diesel expertise to adapt our world-class global engine for the North American market,” said Gary Altman, chief engineer, Chevrolet Cruze Diesel. “The Cruze Diesel is the best diesel passenger car out there. Chevrolet is redefining the meaning of great fuel economy with this car.”


The starting price for the car is $25,695 including the $810 destination charge. The Cruze Clean Turbo Diesel also features the Chevrolet MyLink infotainment system, 17-inch wheels, leather seating, a five-year 100,000-mile powertrain warranty, and a two-year maintenance plan as standard equipment.

Source: GM



Comments     Threshold


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

Nice but...
By FITCamaro on 4/18/2013 9:57:55 AM , Rating: -1
Given the $5000 price premium over a regular Eco which can get 40-42 mpg on the highway (70-75 mph), that's a long time to recoup the extra cost for just the car plus the higher price for the fuel. I'll be interested to see real world mileage. And shame for not releasing a manual version.




RE: Nice but...
By FITCamaro on 4/18/13, Rating: 0
RE: Nice but...
By Richard875yh5 on 4/18/2013 10:34:09 AM , Rating: 5
I own Aa Chevy Cruze and I don't have any shifting problem like you describe. The Chevy Cruze is the best in it's class!


RE: Nice but...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/18/2013 10:37:49 AM , Rating: 2
I'd argue that the Focus is best in class... as long as you stay away from the DCT. And at least you can get the Focus in a hatchback version.


RE: Nice but...
By Flunk on 4/18/2013 10:42:49 AM , Rating: 3
I'd have to agree with you the Focus is a better car than the Cruze. The Cruze can be had for a little less money but if you compare top-end to top-end the Focus is a nicer car.

Why they don't sell the Cruze hatchback they sell elsewhere here is beyond me.


RE: Nice but...
By daboom06 on 4/18/2013 11:21:15 AM , Rating: 1
my reason to buy diesel was the torque. i have a 2012 golf diesel that gets excellent mileage on the highway but also hauls ass from a dead stop. that's worth the premium on the engine technology. you can't get that from a prius or cheaper more efficient gas engine.


RE: Nice but...
By Nutzo on 4/18/2013 11:32:28 AM , Rating: 2
How about a Camry Hybrid? Doubt this diesel could keep up with the 200HP and a 0-60 time of 7.6 seconds, while still getting 40 mpg.


RE: Nice but...
By Samus on 4/18/2013 11:41:06 AM , Rating: 1
The Cruze Eco isn't a fair comparison to the Cruze Turbo Diesel because the Eco is only available (AFAIK) with a 6 speed manual.

I test drove one awhile back and the 6th gear is ridiculously low; it is virtually useless below 70mph requiring downshifts to pass, something I don't have to do in my SVT Focus (~32MPG) or my wife's Turbo Beetle (~35mpg)

The transmission on the Cruze Eco is about as bad as the Fiat 500 as well. The shifts are clunky and the pedal has no dead zone. I understand they're trying to make the 500 sporty, but what's GM's excuse for the Eco? Why does the pedal have a foot of travel and engage in the first inch?

The Cruze is just a disaster at all levels. I hope the 6T40E has its shifting bugs worked out in the diesel. Ford uses the same transmission in a bunch of its vehicles (including my 2010 Escape) and the last ECU update I received 2 years ago made a night and day difference whereas GM still has a number of complaints about their version of the transmission in a variety of cars.


RE: Nice but...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/18/2013 12:40:59 PM , Rating: 2
The Eco is available with an auto, but its fuel efficiency ratings get neutered.


RE: Nice but...
By FITCamaro on 4/18/2013 12:47:41 PM , Rating: 2
I've yet to drive a good stock clutch on any vehicle. But it works.

As far as the Eco manuals 6th gear, ITS SUPPOSED TO BE LOW. It's for fuel economy, not acceleration. But you can certainly use it lower than 70 mph. I shift into 6th at 42-43 mph.

On the highway I never have to downshift to pass if I don't want to. Sure I can't sprint around another car in 6th, but I don't need to downshift. There's nothing wrong with having to downshift either. It's this kind of laziness that is why many American cars don't get as good of mileage. Because people complain at the slightest effort of having to drive.


RE: Nice but...
By Philippine Mango on 4/18/2013 1:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
THANK YOU! Exactly my thoughts on the situation. It's people like that previous poster is why there are so many 4 cylinder cars that scream on the highway, it's because people like him don't want to downshift in order to accelerate! Hint hint, if you drive an autotragic, it does exactly that whether he realizes it (4th to 3rd transition) or not (6th to 5th transition).


RE: Nice but...
By Samus on 4/18/2013 2:40:06 PM , Rating: 1
I wouldn't call myself lazy. I've owned nothing but 6 speed manuals all my life. I'd installed to autobahn gearset and differential in my 04 R32 just to get the lower ratio. But GM poorly implemented it. The car doesn't produce enough torque at any speed to justify the 0.3:1 ratio (the lowest of any 4 cylinder petrol engine in production.)

I don't believe you FIT. I drove the car. The 6th gear is crippling. I couldn't imagine it with additional weight either. I predict massive flywheel failures in short time too. This is why they went bankrupt in the first place. Poorly engineered shortsighted implementations.


RE: Nice but...
By FITCamaro on 4/18/2013 3:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
I assure you its fine. Furthermore, I have a tune on mine which actually lowers the boost in the Economy mode from 16 psi to 14 psi. I still have absolutely no trouble on the highway. You won't accelerate quickly in 6th, but you can. I am in 6th at 42-43 mph and up. 65 mph is around 2000 rpm and then the car is at its peak torque and moves just fine in 6th. Again, no speedster but gets around just fine.

On top of it all, the 2012 actually got a numerically lower axle ratio than the 2011s which was how it got slightly better mileage at a slight sacrifice to acceleration. Mine is a 2012.

Been driving it every day for 13 months dude. Think I know how it drives.


RE: Nice but...
By Spuke on 4/18/2013 3:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Been driving it every day for 13 months dude. Think I know how it drives.
You can't learn everything about a car in a test drive IMO. You can get some basics and that's it.


RE: Nice but...
By Samus on 4/18/2013 4:18:39 PM , Rating: 1
LuK, the manufacture of the clutch system used in the MT6-75, specifically advises manufactures not to use their DMF's in low-rpm applications. This has bitten VW hard with premature diesel-application DMF failures over the last decade, and although DMF design has improved, no other company than VW uses DMF's in diesels.

FIT, I used to work for Ford as a transmission engineer. I know transmissions better than anybody on DT, which is why if you look at my history, I always comment on drive train articles (for better or worse) and even fuel-related articles, such as why 20% ethanol fuel won't make any difference to vehicles that already operate fine on 10-15%.

I can feel when a transmission is poorly implemented within minutes of a road test. The vibration under acceleration in the low gear, whether its 40mph or 70mph, in the Cruze Eco, makes it abundantly apparent the flywheel springs are chattering.

http://www.schaeffler.com/remotemedien/media/_shar...

The diagnostics for a broken flywheel spring or bearing plate clearly states it is due to low-rpm applications.

There is a reason all 4-cylinder vehicles have high rpm (above 2000) cruising speeds (automatics excluded) because most manufactures (GM and VW excluded apparently) know the wear on the drive train is unacceptable.

Replacing a clutch in the Eco is $2000. Expect to do it soon.


RE: Nice but...
By FITCamaro on 4/18/2013 11:56:06 PM , Rating: 3
Samus there were early issues with some of the clutches on the 2012 Cruze Ecos. For about three months. Luckily mine was produced after that. I get no vibration unless I am lugging the engine by being in too low a gear and going too slow(<1200 rpm).

There are already guys with over 50-60,000 miles on their 2012 Ecos. If their clutch or flywheel was going to prematurely fail, I think it would have by now.

And my issue with E15 or E20 remains that my owners manual states using over E10 voids my warranty and the lower fuel economy.


RE: Nice but...
By jjmcubed on 4/19/2013 12:35:17 AM , Rating: 2
Sixth gear is numerically lower, but is a higher gear. If you are in Sixth and call it to low it is the same as saying the rpm's are to high for the given gear.


RE: Nice but...
By Lord 666 on 4/18/2013 6:15:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
How about a Camry Hybrid? Doubt this diesel could keep up with the 200HP and a 0-60 time of 7.6 seconds, while still getting 40 mpg.


But if you step on the brakes in the Golf, it will at least stop. Not so sure about the Camry.


RE: Nice but...
By cyberguyz on 4/18/2013 1:14:36 PM , Rating: 3
tbh I have been really happy with the DCT on my '13 Focus. It very rarely gets out of sorts and never gets the shudders that people complained about in the 2012 model. If i pop it into sport mode, the shift points are high enough that the engine stays in its peak power band.

I only wish it came with the diesel that this Cruze has. That would make the car perfect.

I can understand GM only offering this in auto. You need an auto to keep the diesel inside of its really narrow power band (diesels are NOT revvers!!).


RE: Nice but...
By Cheesew1z69 on 4/18/2013 1:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
(diesels are NOT revvers!!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV0XJePUitI


RE: Nice but...
By cyberguyz on 4/18/2013 2:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
LOL Nice.

Diesel on NOS - and doing it without breaking 4000rpm.


RE: Nice but...
By SAN-Man on 4/18/2013 4:27:32 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't driven a Cruz but I have driven it's cousin the Buick Verano and it is VERY good. So good I have considered buying one. The handling is better than the Focus in my opinion and I have lots of butt time with both.

Full disclosure - I'm a Ford guy and always have been. It's hard for me to recommend any GM vehicle so for me to do it, it has to be good.


RE: Nice but...
By FITCamaro on 4/18/2013 10:00:35 AM , Rating: 1
And at least with the diesel you can use the full capacity of the gas tank from the factory. On the Eco, they have it limited to only 12 gallons unless you sit there for 5 minutes trying to get that extra 3 gallons in real slow.


RE: Nice but...
By GulWestfale on 4/18/2013 10:04:31 AM , Rating: 2
the power and especially the torque are nice for a car of that size, but the price is hardly worth it. plus, the cruze is hardly known for its quality, and it's not exactly a looker, either.
also:
quote:
Diesel-powered Cruze can drive for 10 hours on a single tank of fuel

well an escalade can do that, too, if you fit a large enough tank. what is that pointless comment supposed to mean?


RE: Nice but...
By half_duplex on 4/18/2013 10:08:48 AM , Rating: 2
I actually think it looks nice, but I drive an A4, and Chevy has pretty much copied the A4.


RE: Nice but...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/18/2013 10:13:50 AM , Rating: 2
How the heck does that look anything like an A4?


RE: Nice but...
By Flunk on 4/18/2013 10:21:21 AM , Rating: 5
It has 4 wheels, a trunk, a hood and drives down the road.


RE: Nice but...
By AntiM on 4/18/2013 10:25:51 AM , Rating: 2
I think the Cruze is a fairly nice looking vehicle from the outside, plus the interior is very nice.


RE: Nice but...
By superflex on 4/18/2013 1:29:23 PM , Rating: 2
Glad by B6 A4 looks nothing like that pile of poo.


RE: Nice but...
By DanNeely on 4/18/2013 11:06:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote: Diesel-powered Cruze can drive for 10 hours on a single tank of fuel well an escalade can do that, too, if you fit a large enough tank. what is that pointless comment supposed to mean?


It means they're using the higher MPG to boost the convenience factor by cutting the number of stops and making it easier to avoid buying gas in expensive states on road trips instead of just using a smaller tank and making you stop as frequently as in a less efficient vehicle.

ex With my current car driving I68W-I79S-US19S-I77S I can barely cross WV without having to stop for fuel; an extra 100 miles range would make it much easier to make sure I'm only buying the 20-30c/gallon cheaper gas in MD/VA instead.


RE: Nice but...
By FITCamaro on 4/18/2013 12:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think it looks fine. Way better than some others.

And almost 22,000 miles in 13 months on mine without a problem and an average of 42 mpg. I'm happy with it.


RE: Nice but...
By Spuke on 4/18/2013 1:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
I like the way the Cruze looks. And if it gets anywhere near that gas mileage, I'll pick up a used one in a few years to use as a beater car.


RE: Nice but...
By FITCamaro on 4/18/2013 3:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
Just gotta know how to drive it. Shifting at 2500-3k you're gonna get lower. I drive mine easy and it pays off. Big change in driving style from the GTO I used to have. But it's saved me about $300-350/month between car payment and gas. That's what I'm focused on right now.

And with the tune which gives me 180 hp at the flick of a switch, it does give the car enough oomph to make it a little fun to drive. But I rarely put it in that mode unless I'm trying to get around a semi quickly or something.


RE: Nice but...
By Spuke on 4/18/2013 3:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And with the tune which gives me 180 hp at the flick of a switch
That's pretty decent power and more than acceptable for a DD. Should be some tunes out for the diesel by the time I'm ready to buy. My Solstice gets 19/28 per EPA and I get 27-28 with some fun to boot. Got 33 on three different occasions. Keep boost below 8 psi, speeds 70 mph and below on the freeway, and not too many stops. Stop and go actually helps mpg in my car IF the go part isn't back up to freeway speeds. I spent a week in LA and mpg only dropped to 24.


RE: Nice but...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/18/2013 10:03:39 AM , Rating: 3
To be fair, GM tries to makeup the difference a bit by including leather, an automatic transmission, larger wheels, warranty, and a maintenance plan.


RE: Nice but...
By Dorkyman on 4/18/2013 12:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
Just wondering, what is the advantage of larger wheels? Is handling that much better? Won't tires be much more expensive, and the ride quality worse?

Or is it just for looks?


RE: Nice but...
By DanNeely on 4/18/2013 1:21:26 PM , Rating: 2
It affects handling a bit (IIRC better for racing worse for passenger comfort); but as long as the wheel well size doesn't change you're just changing the fraction of the diameter that's rim vs rubber. You're right that on mass market cars it's mostly just looks.

Italian tire maker Pirelli is predicting that over the next decade or two standard tires will change to really tall (>20" rims) narrow tires that look similar to the wagon wheel inspired ones used on early cars. Doing this will let them make the tires significantly narrower (for reduced drag/rolling resistance leading to better fuel economy) while maintaining a similar size contact patch so that traction remains similar to current tires. This will require major changes to wheel well sizes though and is different than the typical bigger rim fiddling you see today.


RE: Nice but...
By Solandri on 4/18/2013 2:48:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It affects handling a bit (IIRC better for racing worse for passenger comfort)

Yeah, more rim, less tire means a stiffer tire (relatively) and less dampening of bumps on the road. Very analogous to stiffer shocks.

quote:
Italian tire maker Pirelli is predicting that over the next decade or two standard tires will change to really tall (>20" rims) narrow tires that look similar to the wagon wheel inspired ones used on early cars. Doing this will let them make the tires significantly narrower (for reduced drag/rolling resistance leading to better fuel economy) while maintaining a similar size contact patch so that traction remains similar to current tires.

I have a hard time seeing that coming about. To maintain the contact patch size while moving to a narrower tire, the tire has to deform more when it hits the road. Tire deformation is the primary source of rolling resistance. So it would defeat the purpose of moving to narrower tires.

I'm curious if something analogous to an interferometer would work here. If two narrow tires placed side-by-side (so your car would have 8 tires in total) can provide similar performance to one fat tire of equal width, while giving most of the fuel economy savings of a narrow tire.


RE: Nice but...
By Spuke on 4/18/2013 1:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just wondering, what is the advantage of larger wheels? Is handling that much better? Won't tires be much more expensive, and the ride quality worse?
IMO, typically for looks or to fit certain sized brakes. Also, tires for 17" wheels are pretty cheap as a lot of cars have been running these for 20 plus years now. Even tires for 18" wheels are cheap now. But get above that and the price goes up quite a bit.


RE: Nice but...
By FITCamaro on 4/18/2013 12:54:48 PM , Rating: 1
Why not offer it without leather and the same wheels as the Eco which are only 17 lbs apiece?


RE: Nice but...
By Spuke on 4/18/2013 1:33:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Why not offer it without leather and the same wheels as the Eco which are only 17 lbs apiece?
Because it wouldn't change the price of the car by much. They throw in those "premium" bits because most people would bitch that GM is selling a $25k car (cause it would STILL be $25k) and it doesn't even have leather. Diesel commands a premium price here in the US, you want it you have to pay it.


RE: Nice but...
By Spuke on 4/18/2013 1:33:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Why not offer it without leather and the same wheels as the Eco which are only 17 lbs apiece?
Because it wouldn't change the price of the car by much. They throw in those "premium" bits because most people would bitch that GM is selling a $25k car (cause it would STILL be $25k) and it doesn't even have leather. Diesel commands a premium price here in the US, you want it you have to pay it.


RE: Nice but...
By Spuke on 4/18/2013 1:33:57 PM , Rating: 2
Double post fail.


RE: Nice but...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/18/2013 2:06:25 PM , Rating: 2
Besides what Spuke already said, it's likely that research (i.e. looking at Jetta TDI sales) showed that most people are ordering up nearly loaded models.

This is GM's first foray into a compact diesel in the U.S. in quite some time, and they're being cautious. They want to make sure that they hit their target market on the first go round, and not be stuck with a lot full of unsold stripper diesels that no one wants.


RE: Nice but...
By Spuke on 4/18/2013 2:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is GM's first foray into a compact diesel in the U.S. in quite some time, and they're being cautious. They want to make sure that they hit their target market on the first go round, and not be stuck with a lot full of unsold stripper diesels that no one wants.
BAM! And, IMO, I would add that their research also shows that the majority of Cruze Diesel sales will be conquest sales from VW (and possibly from Toyota hybrids). I doubt seriously that they'll bring in many new buyers.


RE: Nice but...
By Lord 666 on 4/18/2013 6:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
Was just about to pull the trigger on a TDI Passat coming from my TDI Jetta, but want to drive one the diesel Cruze's first.


RE: Nice but...
By piroroadkill on 4/18/2013 10:13:43 AM , Rating: 2
But at least you have to fill up a fewer number of times, saving your own time spent hanging around waiting for fuel to pump into your car.

I agree it should be available with a manual.


RE: Nice but...
By mcnabney on 4/18/2013 10:54:27 AM , Rating: 2
No amount of time will help.

The mileage increase is about 10% while diesel is usually 10-20% more expensive at the pump than gasoline. So that extra money up-front isn't going to amount to any savings over time - it will likely cost slightly more over time.

So the buyer is paying for a lot of extra torque and a few trim upgrades. Not the best decision.


RE: Nice but...
By BRB29 on 4/18/2013 11:17:58 AM , Rating: 2
it seems like they are trying to increase their margin through bundling. Bad move though because that only works if you actually have products in high demand or give the right bundle.

Who freaking buys a high MPG economy car and option it out above 25k?
That's like paying 40k for a honda accord. At that price, you might as well buy a bmw or acura.


RE: Nice but...
By superflex on 4/18/2013 1:54:00 PM , Rating: 2
Does the Cruze diesel have a urea tank that needs refilling every 10k miles?


RE: Nice but...
By Spuke on 4/18/2013 2:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does the Cruze diesel have a urea tank that needs refilling every 10k miles?
I read that it does require urea refills but it's covered by the two year maintenance plan.


RE: Nice but...
By Nutzo on 4/18/2013 11:28:28 AM , Rating: 2
And only 27 mpg in the city. Only 1 mpg better than the honda accord 4 cyl/gas and 2 mpg better than the camry 4 cyl/gas.

Of course if you are mainly driving city, look for a hybrid from Toyota or Ford that gets 40-50 mpg in the city.


RE: Nice but...
By cyberguyz on 4/18/2013 1:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that you are not only getting better mileage, but you are getting way better performance to go along with it.

Don't be put off by the HP numbers - HP really doesn't count for all that much. That 258 ft/lb of torque is what you would expect from a 3.5 liter V6 engine. To get that kind of grunt AND 48 mpg is nothing to thumb your nose at. It is also the reason you are seeing 0-60mph numbers in the same range you would expect for a V6 sedan. I would gladly pay the extra 5k premium for that!


RE: Nice but...
By FITCamaro on 4/18/2013 1:10:50 PM , Rating: 2
Trust me I know. I just wish they offered it with less premium trim (I prefer cloth seats to leather) and the Eco wheels as well as a manual. All would lower the cost and improve the mileage.


RE: Nice but...
By Spuke on 4/18/2013 1:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't be put off by the HP numbers - HP really doesn't count for all that much.
Um HP DOES count. LOL! A 248hp/258 lb-ft car will be much quicker than a 148hp/258 lb-ft car all else equal and even all else unequal. 0-60 in 8.6 sec for the Cruze diesel which is what I would expect for a 148 hp car given an estimate of the weight in this class (Eco weighs a bit over ~3000 lbs). A 248 hp car at similar weight would be in the 6 sec range. My Solstice stock weighs a little less than 3000 lbs and has 260hp/260 lb-ft. 0-60 is 5.7 seconds. HP counts.


RE: Nice but...
By BRB29 on 4/18/2013 2:32:11 PM , Rating: 3
People say HP doesn't count and torque is everything. That's true except what real motorheads care about is torque throughout the entire rpm range.

Diesel have massive torque at the start of the rpm range while gas engines tends to have it around mid and high end range.

The real torque # people seem to ignore is the torque that is at the wheel. You can have a low torque high revving engine that puts out massive torque at the wheel through gearing.

In normal city/suburb driving, I honestly don't care. On the track, I would rather have the torque in the mid and high range so diesel is out. On the highway, diesel is the king since you can have very tall gears to stay in the low rpm and save fuel.


RE: Nice but...
By superflex on 4/18/13, Rating: 0
RE: Nice but...
By Spuke on 4/18/2013 1:44:33 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
35 mpg all day long on the highway and I don't look like a douche driving a POS Chevy.
No, you just look like a douche driving a POS Audi.


RE: Nice but...
By superflex on 4/18/2013 1:57:13 PM , Rating: 2
Haha,
My POS has only required a new water pump and a new AC compressor in 135,000 miles.


RE: Nice but...
By Spuke on 4/18/2013 2:40:34 PM , Rating: 2
:) I have a Solstice with 118k miles and it's only needed a thermostat. I also have an ECU flash also which raised my torque to 360 lb-ft (330 hp).


RE: Nice but...
By FITCamaro on 4/18/2013 3:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
Still love the 2.0L Ecotec. Wish they'd put it in more vehicles.


RE: Nice but...
By Spuke on 4/18/2013 3:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Still love the 2.0L Ecotec. Wish they'd put it in more vehicles.
Me too. It's a great engine and could be tweaked to get a little better fuel economy in some vehicles while still providing great performance. It's reliable and cheap to maintain too.


RE: Nice but...
By FITCamaro on 4/18/2013 3:10:52 PM , Rating: 1
So those on more of a budget are douchebags instead of those who brag about driving an Audi?


RE: Nice but...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/2013 3:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My 1.8 liter turbocharged 4 banger in my A4 outputs 245 lb ft after a $500 APR ECU upgrade


Lawl, you could have had an STI bro :)


RE: Nice but...
By Spuke on 4/18/2013 3:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lawl, you could have had an STI bro :)
You wouldn't catch me dead in a 1.8L turbo Audi or VW. Sh!t engine.


RE: Nice but...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/2013 4:06:54 PM , Rating: 1
Sadly that's all Audi is today. Rebadged VW shit.

Dude took one of the worst turbo engines on the market, and cranked the boost up. Lmao, good call!


RE: Nice but...
By Spuke on 4/18/2013 5:53:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Dude took one of the worst turbo engines on the market, and cranked the boost up. Lmao, good call!
I wonder how many times he's had to swap out the coil packs.


RE: Nice but...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/2013 3:10:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah this is a fail product. It's barely more economical than the existing Cruze, it requires MUCH more expensive fuel, and it's price premium is ludicrous. Which, sadly, is typical in America for diesel vehicles. $5k more, for what exactly? An engine swap? Please.


RE: Nice but...
By Spuke on 4/18/2013 3:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know. VW is doing well selling their diesels even though it's a small market. I have said in the past that there is not much diesel demand because VW is a niche manufacturer. But I'm hoping that the only problem is that no one wants a VW and they're just waiting for another manufacturer to make a diesel. We'll see in a few years.


RE: Nice but...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/2013 3:53:51 PM , Rating: 2
Well I wouldn't touch a VW with a 10 foot pole covered in AIDS, that's for sure.

As far as diesel, well, I don't see the big attraction. Hybrid technology is superior to diesel fuel imo. You spend less time burning fuel, the fuel is cheaper (In America), and the vehicle costs are pretty even. Hybrids, on average, are more fuel efficient to boot.

Then you still have some diesel vehicles sporting absurd crap like urea tanks? Yeah I really want to pour a jug of animal piss into my car once in a while, lovely! lol. What's the point of all that hassle?

quote:
But I'm hoping that the only problem is that no one wants a VW and they're just waiting for another manufacturer to make a diesel.


Well there's been other diesel vehicles here besides VW's, but they've all failed for one reason or another.

I think the consumers just don't see a good ROI on diesel vehicles, and with the rise of hybrid technology, I can't really argue with them.


RE: Nice but...
By Spuke on 4/18/2013 6:02:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well I wouldn't touch a VW with a 10 foot pole covered in AIDS, that's for sure.
LOL! Well you know how I feel about VW/Audi.

quote:
Well there's been other diesel vehicles here besides VW's, but they've all failed for one reason or another. I think the consumers just don't see a good ROI on diesel vehicles, and with the rise of hybrid technology, I can't really argue with them.
They've all sucked before though. I don't want a hybrid unless it's in a 918 Spyder or a McLaren P1. Hybrids can KMA otherwise. I would prefer a diesel because I can flash the ECU and make a lot more power when I want it (turbo). Maybe I can even make my own fuel and run that in the car instead. Granted these are my own personal reasons. You know, maybe I can pick up a used BMW 335d instead. Fuel economy isn't as good and maintenance would be expensive though.


RE: Nice but...
By Masospaghetti on 4/19/2013 12:42:58 PM , Rating: 2
You have to compare it to the Eco automatic. Personally I love manuals but the take rate of them is low. Eco automatic starts at $21,565 - exactly $4000 less than the Diesel. I'm guessing the standard equipment is similar for both.

Diesel gets 27/46, Eco automatic gets 26/39 - That's pretty significant on the highway. Also the 280 ft-lbs is about double what the Eco has. While not much faster 0-60 it will feel much stronger, especially around town.

Is it worth $4000? Assuming price parity for gasoline and diesel, the Diesel will save about $150 a year in fuel costs. In other words, over 26 years for payback period. But the Diesel performs better so its not a simple comparison.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














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