Advertisement

2011 Chevy Cruze Eco Gas Mileage: We Get 34 MPG--Which Is Fine

 
Follow John

2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco, New York City, March 2011

2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco, New York City, March 2011

Enlarge Photo

Related Photo Galleries


See more photos »

With political uncertainty in oil-producing states, and the rising gas prices that brings, you can expect to see a lot more headlines saying "40 MPG!"

We just did a quick overnight road test of a 2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco with the six-speed manual transmission, which the EPA rates at 28 mpg city and a stunning 42 mpg on the highway cycle.

Did it get us 42 mpg? No, of course it didn't.


Highway rating vs. real world

You're most likely to approximate the EPA's highway mileage rating if you are driving at the speed limit (or lower) on a nice, flat piece of well-paved highway with no head winds, the windows fully raised, and none of the car's accessories running.

2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco, New York City, March 2011

2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco, New York City, March 2011

Enlarge Photo

That, unfortunately, is rarely a realistic situation for how we all drive these days.

Chevy cheats a little, providing an "instantaneous mileage" display in the cluster. It flickers from 14 mpg (acceleration up a hill at speed) to 99 mpg, the most it will register, when the engine is doing essentially no work. The figure is diverting, but also distracting.

Cumulative mileage: 34.4 mpg

The more important number is the cumulative gas mileage. Our results: On a 275-mile overnight journey, in temperatures from 20 to 50 degrees F, we averaged 34.4 miles per gallon.

That's actually slightly better than the EPA's combined 33-mpg figure for the six-speed Cruze Eco. The highway-heavy mix of travel (we only spent perhaps one-fifth of our miles on around-town and low-speed stop-and-go driving) probably accounted for that.

Looking only at highway mileage, it's possible to average as much as 44 mpg for long trips with no stopping and starting. Again, though, very few people spend all their miles on Interstates, much less uncrowded Interstates where traffic flows freely and no one ever has to jam on the brakes.

33 vs 40 mpg? Don't obsess

2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco, New York City, March 2011

2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco, New York City, March 2011

Enlarge Photo

Just for perspective, the difference in gasoline consumption between 33 mpg and 40 mpg is half a gallon every 100 miles--or less than $2 at current gasoline prices. If you drive 10,000 miles a year, that's less than $200, or about $4 a week.

While we wouldn't advise you how to manage your money, we think that for all practical purposes, 33 miles per gallon is a perfectly respectable fuel efficiency rating.

$19,745 out the door

The 2011 Cruze Eco we tested had a sticker price of $19,745. That's a base price of $18,175, plus a $525 connectivity and cruise-control package, $325 for the very dashing Crystal Red Metallic Tintcoat paint, and a mandatory $720 delivery charge.

By comparison, the 2011 Toyota Prius--a midsize hatchback, not a compact sedan, with a combined 50-mpg rating--has a base price of $23,810 including shipping.

40 is the new 30

The 2011 Hyundai Elantra, which the EPA rates at 40 miles per gallon on its highway cycle, is leading Hyundai to challenge other carmakers to report how many vehicles they sell rated at 40 mpg or better.

Ford has two separate non-hybrid models that get 40 mpg or better on the EPA highway cycle. To be fair, like the Cruze Eco, they're special option packages--the base versions don't quite hit that magic number.

And indeed, 40 seems to be the new 30 (mpg), or the magic number carmakers want to tout in their ads.

+++++++++++

Follow GreenCarReports on Facebook and Twitter.





 
Follow Us

 

Have an opinion?

  • Posting indicates you have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
  • Notify me when there are more comments
Comments (19)
  1. The 2011 Cruze Eco we tested had a sticker price of $19,745. That's a base price of $18,175, plus a $525 connectivity and cruise-control package, $325 for the very dashing Crystal Red Metallic Tintcoat paint, and a mandatory $720 delivery charge.
    cheap chevys
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  2. John. Did you check your mileage by filling the tank afterwards, or just use the mpg calculated from the cars computer?
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  3. @Greg: That was from the car's trip computer, since we had no way of knowing how full the car's tank had been to start with.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  4. While I appreciate the effort here, this is typical of people making too much out of the MPG from one trip and one driver. The number mentioned will not be comparable with anything else. Best off to stick with the EPA numbers until something else comes along that is worth discussing.
    Reminds me of all the silly Prius drivers reporting 60 mpg or something. Well, great if it is an average over many trips, but often times it is not. Also, it probably doesn't represent what most people will experience. Stick to the EPA numbers.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

     
  5. EPA numbers are right on the money with my Cruze Eco. 44MPG in Ohio to the border and 40MPG for the WV mile leg of the trip. My MPG matches from filling up the gas tank to gas tank and matched the computer mileage. That being said, that was at 65MPG and 70MPG, when I slow down and drive at 50 - 55 MPG, my gas mileage jumps to 50MPG
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  6. It is too easy to brush off the difference between 33 and 40 MPG.
    But think about it for a minute. 40 MPG is 21% more efficient than 33 MPG. The USA uses 136,000,000,000 gallons of gasoline per year. 21% of that is 28,000,000,000 gallons per year. At $3.50/ gallon that is US$100 billion/year. Add to that a 21% reduction in auto based CO2 and 21% reduction in pollution, and you get the idea.
    Achieving 21% reduction is a $100 billion/year reduction in expense, now THAT is respectable.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

     
  7. Agree!
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  8. I bought a Cruze Eco on 2/12/11, and I track my mpg by how much I fill into the tank and the odometer (using a spreadsheet). So far, I've been averaging 34 mpg (33.9 mpg) combined over 2000 miles. Mostly highway, and I tend to go a bit faster than the speed limit. All in all, I'm pretty happy with the car with a few exceptions.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

     
  9. My average is actually 41.5 on my computer and it matches my gas receipts for the first 2000 miles on my car. I do a mixture of highway, country, and back country driving. I have a standard and I do coast down hills, helps a lot I guess.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  10. In 1992 I did a trip from San Fran. Ca. to Jax,Fl. in a 1991 4-dr Suzuki Swift with wife, 2 kids and a stuffed trunk. Had a 5-spd manual and A/C. We averaged 42 mpg on that trip. I was very surprised the car got such good numbers and checked them twice. Nearly 20 years later you need a hybrid to get that. Any info on the tubine generator power?
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  11. Not good, In 1963 the Ford Falcon 170 CID with single barrel carb got 34 MPG. That's without the emissions and computers controlling everything. We still can't get that mileage in this age. What a waste of technology.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  12. @Jim, @MJBTV: For the record, the cars you're citing are, by today's standards, both gross polluters and appallingly devoid of safety equipment. Neither of them could legally be sold new today. And, @MJBTV, I'm highly skeptical of a 34-mpg figure for a Ford straight-six. Can you provide references, please?
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

     
  13. I remember Dad had a Ford Falcon 4cyl and it didn't even get 30, it was in the high 20's. I remember this by checking gas mileage on trips.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

     
  14. Maybe 28 - 29mpg, of course, there was a lot of WVA driving in it up and down hills. My 4cy 2.3 Ford Mustang I consistently got 36MPG on that one, though I'm not sure what the standard model was truly rated at, that was Ohio driving though.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  15. http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/FORD_USA/FALCON_USA_1gen/FALCON_USA_1gen_FUTURA_2-Door_Sedan/1963.html
    The most efficient model listed shows.
    "Fuel consumption: official: , a-c pred. average combined: 11.7 l/100km / 28.1 mpg (imp.) / 23.4 mpg (U.S.) / 10 km/l"
    So 23.4 MPG combined, so I suppose 34 mpg highway is possible if a bit of a stretch.
    But also shows 0-60 of 17 seconds. Remember that next time you say a modern car accelerate slowly.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  16. http://www.ehow.com/facts_7720893_ford-falcon-170-cid-performance.html
    Says 32 MPG with the 144 cu.in. engine.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  17. Ooh, I got it now. Ford actually advertises it as 30 MPG in a commercial on YouTube.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u43ExlkXmQs
    time marker 1:30
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  18. My experience is that it's easy to meet or exceed EPA highway mpg figures (2008 EPA method). With average real world driving, I find that EPA highway mpg figures are too conservative.
    My 2009 VW Jetta Sportwagen TDI M6 has averaged 41.5 mpg over the last several thousand miles, in mixed driving on highways & the suburbs. It is EPA rated 30/41 mpg. On the highway I drive a bit above the 65 mph speed limit, and there it gets about 45 mpg. The owner reported average on fueleconomy.gov is 39.6 mpg.
    My 2006 Toyota Tacoma 4WD TRD Offroad V6 A5 pickup, which always carries several hundred pounds of gear, has averaged 19.5 mpg over the past few thousand miles. Under the 2008 EPA mpg method, it is rated 16/20 mpg. On the highway, driving slightly above the speed limit, it averages 21-22 mpg.
    If the ECO Cruze cannot get at least 42 mpg driving 65 mph on the highway, then perhaps GM built it to excel in the EPA test cycle and not the real world.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  19. @Laura: Great comments, thank you. FYI, the Jetta TDI is thought to get better mileage in real-world duty than the EPA ratings would indicate:
    http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1019256_volkswagen-jetta-tdi-much-more-mileage-than-epa-admits
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

Advertisement
Advertisement

Find Green Cars

Go!

Advertisement

 
© 2013 Green Car Reports. All Rights Reserved. Green Car Reports is published by High Gear Media. Send us feedback. Stock photography by Homestar, LLC.