In the latest website redesign for its all-new Elantra compact sedan, Hyundai asks the following question:
“Why do some compact car makers charge your more for higher MPG models?”
The question is followed by the tagline:
“The 40-MPG Elantra. Snap out of it”.
While Hyundai doesn’t directly mention Chevy or the Cruze by name, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that the bow tie brand’s Delta II-based sedan is at the center of that message. Reading Hyundai’s marketing blurbs, however, caused me to ask the following question: why in the feral heck does Chevy charge more for the most fuel-efficient Cruze of them all — the Cruze ECO?
Sure, the fuel-sippin’ Cruze achieves a record-setting 42 MPG on the highway; and we all know about the über-cool grille louvres, the ultra-low rolling resistance tires coupled with the lightweight 17″ wheels, and the aerodynamic underbelly. But why are those features more expensive than the bottom-of-the-line Cruze LS? In other words, why does Chevy charge more for improved fuel economy — and why aren’t the features of the Cruze ECO standard across the entire Cruze range?
According to the folks at Chevy responsible for the Cruze, the lack of the ECO variant would thin the Cruze line — causing it to have “less depth.” But why is this relevant in the first place? Does the consumer care about such marketing mumbo-jumbo as line breadth or depth? Or does he simply want a compact fuel-efficient vehicle that’s affordable and makes it simple to configure (options) at the same time? The answer, I believe, is an obvious vote for the latter.
But here’s the crescendo: when that same consumer compares the Cruze line to that of the Elantra, he will easily see that Chevy is desperately trying to make an extra buck on the ECO while Hyundai’s Elantra offers the extra value from the get-go… no special (ECO) trim levels needed.
That said, we must also take into account the underlying theory behind increased fuel efficiency: from a purely financial perspective, improved fuel economy should lead to a decreased fuel spend. So isn’t it only fair for Chevrolet to ask more for an increased value proposition?
I’ll let you be the judge of that: is Chevy right to ask for more of your hard-earned cash in return for a more fuel-efficient vehicle while the competition is offering comparable fuel efficiency standard? Let us know in the comments below!
[nggallery id=252]
Comments
Well, the Cruze Eco does offer a lot of standard features. Load an Elantra with the same features and I can imagine that the price difference wouldn’t be that much.
But the root of the issue is that the Elantra has great fuel eco standard — while the Cruze offers it as an option with the ECO. So what’s Chevy’s reason for doing that? Why not include the features of the ECO on every Cruze — standard — so that every one of them can achieve +/-42 MPG?
Seriously though I think it’s because the ECO wasn’t ready at launch. I think everyone will agree that all models should have the ECO technology minus the manual transmission. Now that ECO is out, Chevy can’t just suddenly put ECO tech on all models, that wouldn’t be fair to, and it would probably upset most of if not all the people who already bought a Cruze. So for now it will have to live on as a trim level. I bet eventually all Cruze models will have the ECO tech minus the manual transmission as standard equipment.
Probably next model year.
You’re probably right about the reason behind the ECO being its own trim level. But it’s really a terrible excuse for GM — since they had all the time in the world to get the Cruze launch together. From what we’ve been hearing, the Cruze launch is the worst launch in The General’s last 10 years!
Maybe a mid-cycle refresh will offer the ECO features on all Cruzen, but then again — I would like to see a choice of manual and auto trannys on all Cruze trim levels as well. That said, I’m hoping that you’re right and that the next model year will bring these changes rather than a mid-cycle update.
Alex
As a Chevrolet dealership employee I am disappointed Chevrolet did not have the ECO version of the Cruise available at the cars introduction. They have hipped the 40+ m.p.g. for months but when we were able to order the Cruise we were only able to order the non ECO models. Now people ate disappointed when they see the 35 or 36 mileage ratings in the cars we have in stock.
Yepp, that’s the other problem with the Cruze line — they hype the 42 MPG mark but then people come in, see the better-looking Cruze with the RS package, and are then disappointed that it tops out at 36 MPG. What Chevy should have done was combine the RS and ECO packages into one and make it standard across the entire lineup. Then they could advertise — like Hyundai — without any asterisks that it gets 42 MPG… And not having the ECO at launch proves that this is one of the worst launches in GM history!
I agree with you 100% Alex!
Great minds think alike! (or something along those lines)
Not sure what the fuse is about, every single automaker from Honda, Toyota, VW, Ford, Chevy and even hyundai up to this point always offered more fuel efficient models in separate format so they can offer a lower price point for the base model. Instead of saying wtf to Chevy, you should say well done Hyundai. What they’re doing may become a industry standard for the segment before long but I don’t have a problem at all what GM did with the Cruze. The Cruze is selling quite well and I expect it to sell increase all year.
The fuss is about exactly what you described above! Why is it that Hyundai is setting the industry standard with its vehicles and NOT Chevy? For far too long, GM’s been playing catch-up. They’re doing it with Chevy (Cobalt – Cruze, Aveo – Sonic, current Impala, Equinox 1st gen – Equinox 2nd gen), Cadillac (the entire lineup sans Escalade), and Buick (entire lineup). Why can’t they set the standard for once?
The worst part is, when GM came out of bankruptcy and Whitacre appointed Reuss and Docherty to be the top dogs of GM North America, both Reuss and Docherty told the media that their sole goal is to make “the world’s best cars, trucks, and SUVs.” They’re not living up to that statement by following… they need to lead. Let Honda and Toyota follow. That’s what the fuss is about, mate. Stop following the leader… be the leader. And sales will follow.
Hyundai has come a long way, and their cars are starting to look good i.e. The Genesis Coupe and new Sonata. BUT, it’s still a Hyundai. I give them props for coming a long way, but in the end I would still drive a GM car over a Hyundai. GM is getting a little on the expensive end. Think about this though, paying more gets you a more solid car. We all talk about how heavy GM cars are, and yes, this can decrease performance, but GM cars are some of the most durable cars out there. Slam a Hyundai door, and then slam a GM door. The GM’s door sounds solid. The Hyundai’s sounds tinny. I guess it’s all in what you want. I paid $22,500 for my Cooper S. People thought I was crazy for such a small car. It’s one of the best handling and engineered cars out, and one of the most troublesome cars I’ve ever owned. Could I have bought a Honda Fit or some other cheap hatchback? Sure, but it wouldn’t have been as fun to drive. In the end, Hyundai needs to get their cheaper cars a little more sporty.
Tim — while I really appreciate and side with your opinion, the reality is (unfortunately) quite different: Hyundai vehicles haven’t only come a long way, they’re literally taking over their respective classes! The same goes for Kia.
What’s more, I wouldn’t say that just because a car is heavier should automatically make it more “solid”. With today’s durable weight saving materials, curb weight is less of a focal point, with frame rigidity and torsional stiffness replacing that metric. With today’s most modern vehicles, something can be lighter but be even more stiff and “solid” — than a heavier counterpart. What’s more, the door slam test on the new Hyundai vehicles is simply impeccable — the new Elantra’s door slam sounds the same as that of my 2011 Cruze! And don’t even get me started on matching up the Malibu and new Sonata — there’s simply no comparison: the Sonata feels as solid as a rock while the Malibu feels dated, plastic, and full of crappy glue.
At the end of the day, I don’t think we can measure quality based on the principles that defined it over the last decade (such as weight) and brand (for example, Korean = great value but inferior quality).
PS: I love the Cooper. Was considering getting one over the Cruze, but decided I wanted American instead. 🙂
What in hell are you talking about? The Malibu feels dated, plastic and full of glue. I think you’ve been sniffing some if those r your thoughts. It wasn’t long ago that the Malibu was considered with the Accord as the class leader and now a few short years later you’re calling it a pile.
Well, have you ever driven the Accord… Let alone spent some quality time inside one? How about the midsizer we all like to pick on — the Camry.
Try closing the door (from the inside) of a Malibu and compare it to one of the above. It’s a huge difference — simply because the Malibu’s pull handle and trim piece seem to be glued to the door — resulting in a nasty “glue separating” sound. Not the case with the competition, which seem to have the handle and trim piece connected to the door with hardware!
That’s just one example — but one with which the driver will come into contact every single time they get in and close the door! You’d think that would be one of the areas that Chevy would get perfect! Not the case…
I have more examples, if you like. In the meantime, I’ll go sniff some more glue!
Typicaly U.S. automaker bashing that is erroneous – hybrids cost more at Honda and Toyota
But the Cruze ECO is NOT a hybrid.
It’s about culture
The US sees itself as a falling empire, Koreans see themselves as the next Japan.
Americans want instant gratification in a world they know will not last PostINDUSTRIALISM see gREAT Brittan as an example, that’s were we got our culture from. Koreans and their enterprises are run with an enthusiasm and hope that are hard to explain, see Japan 1950’s through 1990’s. it’s a bit lke the US vs Viet Nam or the US vs Japan circa 1970. America is a melting pot and when things are going well we have diverce tallents to draw upon for what allways is a better answer. see IBM and Microsoft. Unfortunately when things go wrong Americans are all devided by class and culture and so on, we spend too much time trying to beat one annother up and not focusing on defeating our national enemys. Korea on the other hand is a homogenious society, everyone knows there place and works for the glory of the greater society. America is good at making top athaleates and entertainment stars, because of our ephasis on intermural competition. Nations with national identetys make better everything elce, period … see Germany
Americans and Aussies have our day sometimes with our steampunk OHV V8’s and the like but the reallity is that not only are we erelevent in the automotive spheere, we do’nt even want to be relevent, we do’nt even respect the work. listen to anny tea party or even republican lately and they speek of people with labor jobs as being the scumb of society, not even fit to own their own homes, the British are right there with us in the middle classes dirision of the working class.
A house divided cannot stand
My 2010 Malibu is not dated and full of crappy glue Alex! It was redesigned in 2008.
It’s my newer car and I enjoy it very much. The Malibu won awards when it first came out. What has changed? Why is any car obsolete or dated two or three years after a complete redesign?
William, not every “car is obsolete or dated two or three years after a complete redesign.” It’s great that the Malibu won awards upon its debut in 2008 — but it’s 2011 now — and the car has gone without a refresh since then. Here’s my data: I’ve already had two press Malibus from GM — both were 2010 model year vehicles. One was an LTZ and the other a 2LT. Both had less than 10,000 miles on the odometer. Compared to the new realities of the segment — most notably, the Hyundai Sonata, Kia Optima, and Ford Fusion — all of which I have driven — the Malibu is, in fact, dated. While the exterior has aged well (very well, in fact — it’s one of my personal favorites), the interior and the 4-cylinder ECOTEC — no so much.
For instance, the design of the interior is great — but the materials are subpar. The arm rests (door and center) are wrapped in soft-touch materials that are unfortunately hard underneath, making it uncomfortable during long trips. This is not the case with the competitors I mentioned previously. And when I refere to the “glue” in my previous comment, I was specifically referring to the heinous sound that originates from pulling a door of the Malibu shut. This is especially noticeable in the summer (and hot environments in general, like Florida). When pulling a door shut while sitting in the cabin, there is a noticeable and ugly noise that sounds as if the glue holding the part that contains the door handle connected to the door is being separated from the door itself. This — to my great dismay — is very noticeable and is not an issue on the competition — even the older players in the segment such as the Camry, Altima, Accord, and last-gen Legacy. Event the [insert negative connotation here] Sebring doesn’t have this problem.
And don’t even get me started on that 2.4 ECOTEC that harkens back to the 1990s. It’s one of the worst engines in the class! It’s important to keep in mind that the ‘Bu was redesigned in 2008 — but not completely, as it still rides on the same (yet stretched) Epsilon I platform as the last-gen Malibu. The upcoming ‘Bu will, however, ride on the Epsilon II chassis.
I would love to be able to say that the Malibu is not dated — but it really is — especially when compared to the newest vehicles in the segment. GM should have brought the Opel Insignia over as the new Malibu instead of the Buick Regal – then it would have been the best in its class.
Honestly — go drive the cars I mentioned. I think you’d agree with me then that the ‘Bu is — at the very least — dated. And that sucks!
WOW Jason!!! Very powerful and I never thought of it that way. Awesome!!!
I see your point Alex. I think it’s because I WANT the American car brands to succeed. My first car was a 1981 Buick Skylark. I wasn’t impressed, however, the year I bought it was 1994 and I was 17 (lol), so I really couldn’t complain. Ever since that car, I’ve been a Suzuki fan. That’s why I still have my 1996 Suzuki Sidekick that I bought brand new. The car looks horrendous inside and out, but it still runs like a champ. This is after I used to take it off road when I was stationed at Ft. Bragg years ago. I used to jump it, take it through puddles I shouldnt have. This was before I knew about the damage that could be done to the drivetrain etc. Guess what, 15 years later I’m still on the original clutch and I’ve NEVER had a mechanical problem with it. I have only had to do necessary maintenance, I.e. oil changes, coolant flushes, brakes, etc. Needless to say, they don’t make vehicles like this anymore. My 2005 Cooper S on the other hand is an extremely fun car, big has been nothing but trouble. Right now I have a clogged catalytic converter, slipping clutch due to a bad rear main engine seal, and a faulty low speed fan setting due to a bad resistor. That’s the current problems. Don’t let me get onto the past problems. So, now I shall try my luck with a Buick Regal GS when it comes out. I’m expecting something pretty decent. I wish the best for Detroit. They’re a dying breed.
P.S. Don’t by a Cooper!!!!!
I hear ya loud and clear Tim. I want to believe that certain manufactures still do make tough and durable cars like your Sidekick…. even if it’s out of naiveté than anything else.
I didn’t get a Cooper (pictured in the gallery above) — got a 2011 Cruze instead and love it! But I hear the new ones are a lot more reliable. Is this true?
Alex, assuming you looked at both the elantra and cruze what made you chose they chevy?
Good question! The Elantra is a colossal improvement over the last generation… But it’s still an Elantra — meaning that fun driving characteristics are not in the cards. Not that the Cruze is a sports car… but it’s more of a true driver’s car — it feels more composed, handles better, and is more peppy with the 1.4 turbo. The Cruze just has that “put together” look and (driving) feel that I didn’t find in the Elantra. It’s kind of like the difference between the driving characteristics of the Corolla and the Cruze, with the Elantra being more along the lines of the Corolla.
After that, OnStar MyLink played a big role (and remote start) — as did the Cruze’s styling — which I prefer to the Elantra’s (especially with my 17″ flangeless wheels).
Currently, however, the Elantra beats the Cruze as far as infotainment is concerned… But the 2012 Cruze will take care of that.
At the end of the day, I get a few less tech features for a much better driving experience with the Cruze… Along with more elegant styling. The Cruze ended up being about a grand more than the Hyundai though.
Does that help?
PS: drove an Elantra earlier today just for fun 😉
Yes it does. Graduate from college on the 23rd and although still unemployed, realized I have no way of getting to a job anyway. Torn between the Cruze Eco and Elantra at the moment so am looking for tie breakers.
Although I’ll be getting considerable help from my parents and grandparents, it was a good indicator and help that the Hyundai dealer outright told me (in front of my father no less) that the elantras are selling so well and are so hard for dealers to get, I’m paying what they ask or I’m not getting the car. Hows that for a sales pitch?
I looked at the Golf TDI, Elantra, Cruze Eco, and 2012 focus. I don’t care what the numbers say, the Cruze feels the peppiest (aside from the 2 door version of the golf) and the nicest.
Wow… check you guys all out. I am From NZ and after being in the motor vehicle industry for the past 14 years and working with Ford, Holden, Suzuki, Renault, Saab, Hummer, Mazda, Toyota, Daihatsu and Volvo I have learnt over the years that every car is suited to the individual. We are all impressed with what we own and always this the car that we own is far better then others… However with the Korien market stepping up it’s game with all productions and moving very quickly to be top, they still lack in build quility. As to the Chev Cruise… In NZ they are classed as a Holden Cruise and are made by Daewoo motors (VIN number starting with KL) Holden and chev have gone this way so it will not cost so much to make the cars but can sell them still for top doller as it will have that badge on it… I love my holdens but this is a big shame… As to Hyundai… The build quility is absolute crap and this company will never be top producers in the coming years. Toyota’s are expensive cars to buy but you will end up with a life time of ownership… Mazda is one of the best cars I have driven and this they will come a long way to… What we spend on a car will determin how long we own it for… this all goes back to what we (as humans) would prefur to own or what we have been educated by others to what brand is better to what we buy… Just have fun to what you own and make the most of it… allways keep service 🙂
Well, I guess they charge more because of the billions of dollars owed us U.S. taxpapers who bailed them out. Now, I own both Ford & Chevy. My older Malibu Maxx wagon gives me about 34 mpg on the road with the 3.5 V-6. Now Chevy thinks they’ve done something with the ’13 Malibu Eco giving a solid 39 mpg. Now with that said lets look at the other side of my Fleet, the ’11 Fusion with the std 2.5 I-4. My Fusion and I’m not making it up routinely give me 40.2 to 40.5 mpg going to Orlando to see my son. My wife’s ’09 Ford Escape gives me 32 to to 33 mpg with the same 2.5 I-4 engine. The conclusion GM has gone backwards with fuel economy technology when a ’07 Malibu’s V-6 gets within 5 mpg of the up and coming ’13 Malibu with all the bells an whistles. For those who haven’t seen one yet the new Ford C-Max Hybrid has better interior room (think head an leg) and better performance than the above mentioned ’13 Malibu …. that cost more. By the way the less expensive C-Max is rated at 47 mpg. My driving style (France Rental Car) gave me close to 52 mpg. I’m on top of the fence between Ford & Chevy. I own both, and feel GM and do better.
Brad, if we’re going to talk numbers, let’s stick to real-world to real-world or paper to paper comparisons and not mix up the two. I, for one, always get higher economy on the highway than what the car is rated.
So the 39 MPG highway economy in the new Malibu is likely higher in the real-world driven at a fuel-economy-friendly speed (at or below 70).
Alex Luft … I guess I’m the Ford & Chevy burr under your saddle, and yes I do live in the real world. You know as well as I do EPA/MFG fuel economy numbers are done in closed conditions, no hills, no head winds, a constant speed on the roller-mac machine to give the vehicle the best possible chance. That isn’t the real world. In the real world you face the above conditions. I own both Ford and Chevy, the neighbors across the street own Chevy and Toyota, this Alex “Is” the real world. I own both so I show favor equally to both. My cousin owns a ’11 Malibu exactly like mine, heck even the engine, colour is the same. On a trip to Orlando she in hers, me in my Fusion running the same speed I got 4 almost 5 more mpg. Again Alex … the real world.