Chevy Cruze diesel delivers EPA-estimated 46 mpg highway
18 April 2013
GM announced that the new 2014 Chevrolet Cruze Clean Turbo Diesel (earlier post) delivers an EPA-estimated 46 mpg US (5.1 l/100 km) on the highway—better than any non-hybrid passenger car in the US. It will be available in certain cities this spring and nationwide and in Canada in early fall.
Equipped with a six-speed automatic transmission, the latest addition to the Cruze powertrain family has an estimated range of 700 highway miles (1,127 km) on one tank of diesel fuel, based on the EPA highway estimate and the vehicle’s fuel tank capacity.
Cruze Diesel offers a segment-leading estimated 148 hp (110 kW) and estimated 258 lb-ft of torque (350 N·m), and can go 0-60 in about 8.6 seconds.
The 2.0L turbo-diesel engine has an overboost feature capable of increasing torque to an estimated 280 lb-ft (380 N·m) for short bursts of stronger acceleration when needed, such as entering freeway traffic.
GM is strongly positioning the Cruze Diesel against the VW Jetta TDI automatic. With a starting price of $25,695, including an $810 destination charge, the Chevrolet Cruze Diesel is a better value than a similarly equipped VW Jetta TDI automatic, GM argues. Compared with Jetta, the Cruze Diesel offers standard equipment including the Chevrolet MyLink infotainment system, larger 17-inch alloy wheels, leather-appointed seating, a longer five-year 100,000-mile powertrain limited warranty, and a two-year maintenance plan.
Chevrolet has sold more than 2 million Cruze models globally since it was launched in mid-2010—more than 33,000 of those were diesel-powered (about 1.7%).
46 MPG diesel is equivalent to approximately 38 MPG gas in terms of energy content.
In terms of fuel cost (~$0.30 premium for diesel fuel) in $/km the equivalent gasoline figure would be 42.6 MPG. There's also a maintenance and upfront vehicle cost premium for diesel which would make this comparison look better for the gasoline version.
If you can afford it, the diesel would be more fun to drive and more cost effective over the ultra long term assuming the body doesn't rust out in 20 years or less.
Posted by: Trevor Carlson | 18 April 2013 at 10:58 AM
For comparison - The Cruze Eco Auto gas version gets 42 MPG highway and costs about $3,000 less up front (similarly equipped) not including incentives.
Since they are both the same model you can expect this to be as close to an apples to apples comparison as possible.
So the statement "EPA-estimated 46 mpg US (5.1 l/100 km) on the highway—better than any non-hybrid passenger car in the US." may be accurate in its facts but it's also misleading to the uninformed. The statement leads one to posit that it is therefore the most economical model. Economics must be tied to a currency to be relevant. However when you run those numbers the picture becomes much less clear-cut and such a statement many not be true.
Posted by: Trevor Carlson | 18 April 2013 at 11:16 AM
People don't think in terms of energy content (except in GCC), they think in terms of miles per gallon or miles per dollar.
In much of Europe, diesel is the same price or a little cheaper than gasoline, so it makes a lot of sense to buy diesels, once you are Ford Focus sized or larger (smaller cars remain petrol for purchase cost reasons). Diesel has about 70% of the car market in much of the EU. (And fuel is $7 - $9 / US gallon).
It always struck me that people in the US with long commutes should go diesel, but it seems to be happening very slowly.
In urban areas, hybrids would be better as they are cleaner, but in rural and outer suburbs, diesel would be fine.
Posted by: mahonj | 18 April 2013 at 12:44 PM
"If you can afford it, the diesel would be more fun to drive and more cost effective over the ultra long term assuming the body doesn't rust out in 20 years or less."
Yes, and the rust takes some of the fun out.
All true mahonj, but "It will be available in certain [US]cities this spring and nationwide and in Canada in early fall."
"$/km the equivalent gasoline figure would be 42.6 MPG."
Posted by: ToppaTom | 18 April 2013 at 04:37 PM
It's a shame that Bob Putz is no longer at GM to savour this moment.
Posted by: dursun | 18 April 2013 at 05:28 PM
Don't worry to much about Bob; he was involved in many a GM small car that had great promise.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 18 April 2013 at 10:22 PM