Chevy Cruze's 42mpg highway passes up the Ford Fiesta's 40mpg..

The 2011 Hyundai Elantra will get 29/40 in both manual and automatic. Manual is $3,000 less than Cruze Eco which means your first 1,000 gallons of gas are "free", not to mention 100,000 mile powertrain warranty.


2011_Elantra_Press_Release

 

Manuals are almost always more efficient on the highway. In the city a modern automatic is better then a manual.

 

The Elantra does sound like a great car. The Eco Cruze is an achievement for GM, but for the majority of non-manual drivers the high mpg choice will be the Elantra.

 

From what I have read, the Cruze is a bright spot in GM's stable. OTOH, I do not understand why/how GM lost their way, and did not utilize more Cruze components in the Volt? Again, from what I have read, the Volt's ICE is a step backwards? (high test fuel and emissions)

BTW, body panels do not impact drag much in city driving. The success must lay elsewhere.

And, I have never understood GM's reasoning to discontinue the Saturn line? I never owned one, but they were attractive, and the early hype made it sound like GM's future.

 

Saturn was not profitable in the beginning, not sure if the division ever was. Their sales mostly cannabilized from sales of other GM divisions. And their cars never measured up to competing small cars, in the middle years the engines and drivetrains were primitive compared to other manufacturers cars in the same segment. Just for starters...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Corporation]Saturn Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

Yes they are, much more. Here where fuel is 2-3 times more expensive a six speed manual can make a significant difference to fuel economy. A lot of my taxi driver friends still insist on driving a manual diesel, despite most trips being in town, because of the fuel economy savings. (they don't make their life hard driving a manual just for the sake of it, but because it saves then significant money. Why they don't have a Prius is another matter! )

One thing I have noticed is that 5 speed manuals are still the manual option in the US & Canada, whereas here in Europe virtually all are 6 speed. Often 6th gear is a high ratio to achieve low mpg's at highway speeds.

 

From what I can tell the difference in fuel economy between manual and automatic is approaching irrelevance. There are more than a few cases where an auto gets better.

 

Greenlings: Why do automatic transmissions now get better fuel efficiency than manuals? — Autoblog Green

There are US some cars where the manual version gets inferior mileage compared to the CVT and automatic, at least on EPA test cycles. Per Side-by-Side Comparison, here are the EPA ratings for the 2010 3.5L V6 Altima:
6MT 18/27, 21 combined
CVT: 20/27, 23 combined
You can't get the manual on the 4 banger.

2006 3.5L V6 Altima:
6MT: 18/26, 21 combined
5AT: 18/27, 21 combined

Here's the figures for the 2010 Lexus IS250.
6MT: 18/26, 21 combined
6AT: 21/29, 24 combined

I wouldn't be surprised if some of it has to do w/the gear ratios they picked on the manuals.

 

I noticed this on rental cars quite a long time ago. The manual transmissions remaining in this household are, unfortunately, geared for performance. They spin higher RPM at highway speed than their automatic counterparts, thereby sufffering greater pumping and other losses.

They are still more efficient overall than the automatics of the same age, but the situation has flipped on numerous more recent models. Too many car makers believe that anyone buying anything above the basic econobox wants a manual transmission to burn rubber, not to save fuel / weight / maintenance.

 

I was turned off Saturns from day one by the cult-like commercials. Even as a kid I knew better.

That is, until I drove one in the 90's. And by God if it wasn't just the worst car I'd ever driven. Wow, unreal terrible. Then I was really turned off.

That said, Saturn was not all bad, their plastic panels despite not having the closest tolerances due to the specifics of the material ensured you'd never have rusted body panels. I wish other manufacturers would look at this option

 

GM took the cruize engine then removed the turbo, not exactly a design decission that makes much sense except to the brass at GM. Originally the cruize engine was supposed to have DI, and that would have made the transition less painfull, but GM hit the fuel economy goal on cruize without it, and decided to save the money. Thus undersized, there was not the hp to give it atkinson valve timing. Add the lack of torque, the direct drive does not hit until high speed, not used on the epa testing. In city cycles the volt will of course do better than the cruize.

Light weight with an efficient turbo engine and low rolling resistance tires.

 

At 2011 Chevy Cruze: L.A. to Vegas and Back, they drove an automatic 1.4L turbo (only 138 hp) and got 27.4 mpg on the 1st tank and 30.1 mpg on the next tank. EPA ratings are 24/36. They did seem to like the drive though.

But, if you look at 2011 Chevrolet Cruze LTZ Archives - Long-Term Road Tests, they had a problem w/a leaky trunk, from the start.

I am a bit shocked that their, as equipped Cruze was so much.

From http://www.insideline.com/chevrolet/cruze/2011/long-term-test-2011-chevrolet-cruze-ltz.html

Paying MSRP for a CHEVY?!?!? That seems crazy. On the plus side, if GM can keep demanding such prices on their Cruzes, besides enriching their dealers, at least they shouldn't need to slap on incentives.