Report: Diesel Chevrolet Cruze confirmed for U.S. - Discuss

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/21/report-diesel-chevrolet-cruze-confirmed-for-u-s/

According to the crew at GMInsideNews, General Motors is mulling the notion of introducing a diesel Chevrolet Cruze to the American market. Sources within the Lordstown, Ohio assembly plant responsible for piecing the compact sedan together have confirmed that a diesel Cruze will be built for 2013. If that's not enough to wipe the stink of skepticism off your person, GMI says that additional sources within The General's engineering team have confirmed that an oil-burning Cruze is on the company's schedule.

Production is rumored to kick off on the project at some point next year.

There's even rumor that GM is currently testing diesel Cruze models around the greater Detroit area right now. While no power or fuel economy numbers are available at the moment, GM is expected to make use of a 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine for the new model. That would be the same lump found in the Holden Cruze CDX, which turns out 147 horsepower and 235 pound-feet of torque with up to 34 miles per gallon combined.

sounds like an utter crapbox.....

If it can't see the ~40 that the ECO model already sees, it's a fail.

mistanfo wrote: If it can't see the ~40 that the ECO model already sees, it's a fail.

True.

However, I do wonder how many VW diesel owners buy them because they are the cheapest available diesels instead of because they're VWs. I recently read something like 25% of all Jettas sold here are oil burners. If GM can bring it in for a few grand under a diesel Golf/Jetta they might sell a few.

34mpg? Yeah, right.

mistanfo wrote: If it can't see the ~40 that the ECO model already sees, it's a fail.

That's HIGHWAY, not COMBINED. Combined the eco is 27. The Jetta TDI is a combined 33. So we're talking mid to high 40's highway.

wow...the naysayers here never cease to amaze me:

the forum said: we want turbo diesels...we want em now, and if you dont give em to us, we're gonna take you off the Christmas card list and stick out our tongues at you, and then fart in your general direction....so there! ...meanies. ZOMFGGIVEUSTURBODIESELSNOW!!!1!!11

So Detroit was all like: Abbracadabbrah!!

BBRRAAAZZZIIIIINNGGG!!!!

And what do ya know??...

the forum said: well not like that...thats dumb....big dumbheaded dumb dumbs. youre so dumb. Thats dumb. why would you be so dumb, with that dumb thing, which is dumb. Plus youre GM, so your stuff sucks, no matter what, unless its a 350. everything else sucks, except the supercharged 3.8, and 350. Yeah all that other stuff sucks, well except for your classic detroit stuff, and 350s, and boosted 3.8s...and this lamp, and this paddleball game...

Good lord, lets walk before we run. Dont be asses.

Just ran across this:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/02/20/chevy-cruze-eco-58-mpg-no-hybrid-magic.aspx

Yeah. This is the internet. We all know it's crap before it even hits the streets.

fasted58 wrote: Just ran across this: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/02/20/chevy-cruze-eco-58-mpg-no-hybrid-magic.aspx

Wow, Im glad the turbo is finally catching on for what it was intended to do in the first place - improve efficiency, not Dorifto JdMY0!!1! Im glad to see the general embracing it all over the place!

fasted58 wrote: Just ran across this: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/02/20/chevy-cruze-eco-58-mpg-no-hybrid-magic.aspx

"...It has taken us a few years here in the U.S. to understand that gas consumption of a car does matter and that there may have to be an end to gas-guzzling V6 engines in compact and midsize cars. There is a clear trend toward smaller, often turbocharged four-cylinder engines that may not sound as deep as a V6 but are just as responsive and much more fuel-efficient as the larger power plants..."

WTF, now a V6 is a gas guzzling monster????? THE END IS NEIGH!!!!!!!!!

diesel before an SS version? or the supposedly WTCC special version

I thought the point of a turbo was to increase BHP by lots

dankspeed wrote: Ohio assembly plant responsible for piecing the compact sedan together have confirmed that a diesel Cruze will be built for 2013. If that's not enough to wipe the stink of skepticism off your person, GMI says that additional sources within The General's engineering team have confirmed that an oil-burning Cruze is on the company's schedule.

Great humor on "the stink of skeptism"

The skeptic in me wonders if, yes, these will be built in Ohio (Lordstown) but not actually marketed or sold in the US.
Built here and exported only?

Always wondered how long it takes to recoup the extra cost of the diesel, plus the genrally higher cost of the fuel.

This sounds like a bad joke: How do you make a turbo-diesel 2L get worse mileage than a petrol engine? Put it in a Chevy Cruz.

thank you 4cylndrfury - thank you.

I do think a LARGE portion of VW TDi owners only own them because they are the cheapest way into fairly new diesel cars instead of being VW's. More cheap diesel options makes me happy.

There are a lot of TDI owners who bought their cars in spite of it being a VW. A common comment on TDIclub is "as soon as Honda comes out with a diesel, this POS is gone..."

One thing that keeps me in my current TDI (besides it being paid for) is that nothing else produced since offers the same mileage (high 40's combined) while a similar amount of cargo room.

I'm still not sure why Chevy is already replacing the Cobalt with the Cruz. Are they going to switch names every time there's a major refresh to Cavalier?

ReverendDexter wrote: I'm still not sure why Chevy is already replacing the Cobalt with the Cruz. Are they going to switch names *every* time there's a major refresh to Cavalier?

Hopefully...and hopefully with a name that isn't stupid, this time.

However, if I could get a Cruz turbo-diesel with stick in the $15-20K, I might be sold despite the name.

iceracer wrote: Always wondered how long it takes to recoup the extra cost of the diesel, plus the genrally higher cost of the fuel.

This is my question as well.

carzan wrote: However, if I could get a Cruz turbo-diesel with stick in the $15-20K, I might be sold despite the name.

This is my thought as well, provided I had a commute of any distance. If it's a slushbox, I have no interest whatsoever, and a GM dual-clutch I'd have to let sit for a year to see how it actually held up.

I'm still waiting for someone to hack the dual-clutch in the "auto" Fiestas and put some flappy-paddles in one of those things. Or for Ford to offer it as an option from the factory.

The Cruze is a very winning car from the driver's seat. It's very comfortable, the greenhouse vision is great compared to other similar cars, and the standard tilt/tele wheel makes a big difference in driver position. Huge trunk. Oh and 6 speed manual standard?

Only thing I didn't enjoy was the lack of a compact spare when you get the manual. And the bland exterior styling. TDI would be a win here, I think.

Considering that a Cruze LTZ with nav is already almost $27k (for a Cavalier v3.0!!!) with a 1.4 gas turbo engine I imagine the diesel version will be really close to $30k.

z31maniac wrote:

iceracer wrote: Always wondered how long it takes to recoup the extra cost of the diesel, plus the genrally higher cost of the fuel.

This is my question as well.

This is a tough call. Typically the pay-back is faster than similar hybrids, but it can still be awhile. Over the the time I've owned my car, it averages 5.7 cents/mile for fuel and 22.1 cents total (including purchase and all other related costs) and 12 cents for 2010. Yes, I've actually tracked this data since I bought the car in 5/03...

Since we're talking pennies per mile of difference, the pay back only works if you drive a lot over a fair length of time. I average about 3K a month. When I contemplated trading my car in for a R53 a few years ago (fuel prices were about the same as they are today), I figured it would cost me an additional $2000/year in fuel alone.