This is a bit of a toughie, and will most likely boil down to not just preference, but whether or not the math works in your favor. But after Chevrolet released the official fuel economy numbers on the 2014 Cruze Clean Turbo Diesel, we thought it a good idea to compare it to the Cruze Eco.
First, we’ll examine the price of both models. The 2013 Chevrolet Cruze Eco equipped with an automatic transmission carries a starting MSRP of $21,685, while the 2014 Cruze Diesel with an automatic comes in around $4,000 more, at $25,695. However, the Cruze Diesel is significantly more well-appointed with standard equipment than the Eco, but we’re going to use the Eco automatic over the Eco manual in this comparison because the Cruze Diesel will not launch with a manual transmission.
Additionally, the buyer sees greater EPA-estimated highway mpg figures with the Cruze Diesel (39 mpg vs a segment-best 46 mpg) and far more torque at their disposal (148 lb.-ft. versus a max of 280 lb.-ft.) than the Eco with an automatic. Also, the Eco automatic carries a city mileage figure of 26 mpg, with a total combined rating of 31 miles per gallon out of its 1.4L turbocharged Ecotec engine. The diesel variant inches the Eco in city driving with a 27 mpg figure, with a combined rating of 33 mpg with its 2.0L turbodiesel engine — which is actually 1 mpg shy of the Jetta TDI’s combined rating.
From the looks of things, it would be drivers who spend most of their time on the highway that would see the greatest fuel economy advantage with the Cruze Diesel over its unleaded brethren. But it will always have a superior power and acceleration advantage, making it the more obvious choice for enthusiasts.
Now comes the variable fuel costs. In America, diesel is currently significantly more expensive than regular unleaded gasoline. Today, the gas station down the street (in Michigan) has regular unleaded selling for $3.79 a gallon, while diesel is $4.09.
For the sake of simplification, let’s keep driving habits, road characteristics, maintenance and other factors aside. With the 12.6 gallon fuel tank found in the Cruze Eco, it would cost $47.75 to fill up from bone dry to the brim. It would cost $67.80 to fill up the Cruze Diesel’s 16.6 gallon tank from empty to full.
Yet the Cruze Diesel advertises a 700 highway mile range per tank. The Cruze Eco automatic comes in at the 491 miles per tank. For the Eco automatic, that’s $.097 per mile, per tank, which could be rounded up to $.10 (ten cents). And for the Cruze Diesel, it’s $.096 per mile, per tank — also just under ten cents.
What we have here, apparently, is a draw in fuel costs, all factors excluded. So for the extra four grand, the Cruze Diesel provides more amenities, power, and overall driving range over the automatic Cruze Eco. All things considered, would you drive away with the Cruze Diesel, or the Cruze Eco automatic?
MEASUREMENT | CRUZE DIESEL | CRUZE ECO |
---|---|---|
MSRP | $25695 | $21685 |
EQUIPMENT | LOADED | WELL-EQUIPPED |
HIGHWAY MPG | 46 | 39 |
CITY MPG | 28 | 26 |
COMBINED MPG | 33 | 31 |
HORSEPOWER | 148 | 138 |
PEAK TORQUE (LB.-FT.) | 280 | 148 |
FUEL TANK SIZE (GALLONS) | 16.6 | 12.6 |
HIGHWAY RANGE (MILES) | 700 | 491 |
PER-MILE COST | $.096 | $0.097 |
Comments
Diesel toque takes this one home. 280lb-ft with that ‘overboost’ feature is hard to argue against.
Though both cars are easily ECU tuned closer to 175-200hp, it could push the diesel over 300lb-ft
idk GM’s marketing plans for the Diesel, but promoting it as something to satisfy those crying for more power would be a win-win with the bonus of even better mileage.
Also worth noting – it seems that real-world mileage on diesels more easily achieves or exceeds the EPA numbers. This isn’t something that can be advertised, but will show up on car reviews and will definitely lead to greater customer satisfaction – who wouldn’t be pleased with better than expected MPGs? Had they gone with the 2.0 gas turbo for the power upgrade, there would have been a significant mpg penalty for the extra hp, but similar torque.
Now please put something like this in the Colorado, where this torque can be fully utilized in carrying or pulling a load, or in daily driving nearly cutting the fuel usage in half compared to the old Colorado.
I dont think it will sell well. Chevy fails to mention
1. It needs a urea after treatment, Jetta does not
2. It does not have a spare tire, Jetta has a full size spare.
3. It comes in auto only, Jetta comes in manual.
Pricing the car in a luxury trim doesnt sell well. See BMW 335d
@VW snob
It doesn’t need to sell “well”. It just needs to sell and grow. At first, 10 percent:
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2013/04/gm-expects-cruze-diesel-to-make-up-10-percent-of-total-cruze-sales/
Let’s address your concerns one-by-one:
1. The Jetta doesn’t use a NOx reduction device because its engine is dirtier and doesn’t comply with the latest emissions standards. VW’s next generation 2.0 liter diesel engine (EA288) will utilize a urea system to catch up with GM.
2. Many cars today don’t have a spare tire and make do with a tire inflator/sealant kit. If a customer desires it, one can be purchased as an official dealer-installed accessory.
3. Given that most cars sold in the U.S. are automatics (VWs included), this is not a downside. Only a handful of people (including myself) buy manuals.
“Pricing the car in a luxury trim doesnt sell well. See BMW 335d”
Again, it doesn’t need to “sell well”. It simply needs to sell and grow. It’s incremental revenue and income for GM… as is the 335d for BMW.
Incorrect. No spare tire is available from Chevrolet as an official accessory for the Cruze Diesel. In addition there is no provision to safely mount a spare tire in trunk of Cruze.
Trunk is smaller in Cruze diesel, only 13.3 cubic feet compared to 15.4 cu ft in regular Cruze. Jetta offers 15.5 cu ft trunk space.
Perhaps Chevrolet will change the way Cruze Diesel stores urea in the next generation Cruze and offer larger trunk and spare tire with future versions.
Overall, Cruze Diesel is welcome addition to diesel offerings, it just needs minor revisions.
I say the diesel is as good as the Eco model. They both have their own merits that make either one acceptable. My brother has an Eco manual, and if I remember right when he bought it, the car did not come with a spare either. Just an inflator kit. He said that was un acceptable, that he had to have a spare. Ended up paying extra to get a space saver spare for it. My own personal preference would be for the diesel. Just for the power with economy benefit. The equipment level on it would justify the price for me.
Manoli, many thanks for what you and Alex do for us.
I do have a question on the fuel economy numbers. The 46 mpg hwy I’ve seen confirmed by GM. But I have not seen the 28 mpg city confirmed. As well the 33 mpg combined doesn’t square with the 45%/55% formula (= 36 mpg) I thought was used.
Not sure if you can help out.
Just trying to understand fully before I pull the trigger.
There is a website out there (TTAC) that ran the numbers, based on similar diesel higher costs, finding that the payback is 18 years. I’d do some calculations before pulling the trigger on that.
I like the Cruze A LOT, I think it looks great. But, you can get a V-6 Dodge Avenger for $19,700! That’s the same motor as the Charger- I bet that 283 horsepower really moves that smaller car which is about the same size as the Cruze. DOUBLE the horseys! No charge for red paint.
http://www.dodge.com/hostc/bmo/CUD201301JSDH41C/2DX/summary.do
I have seen 27/33/46 reported elsewhere, which still seems a little low for the combined.
@Tomko Thanks for the love 🙂
The city and overall numbers haven’t been announced by Chevy/GM publicly, but they have been indeed confirmed privately.
I would like to own a cruze diesel as the fuel economy numbers are great, and the hp/torque numbers are a dream come true but GM needs to offer this thing with a manual transmission
In theory the Cruze Diesel actually should get .89 cents per mile. Also you will probably fuel up less with the Cruze Diesel than with the Cruze Eco making it a little more compelling.
If Chevy would offer a stripper version of the Cruze Diesel it will be even more tempting or inviting over the Cruze Eco. But my feeling is that the price premium is not only because of the content found in the Cruze Diesel, but it is to keep it from stepping toes on the Cruze Eco and contend with the VW Jetta.
Personally the Cruze Diesel would be my option.
I own a Cruze Eco and would gladly trade it for the diesel to get the interior upgrades, automatic transmission and longer driving range. The only thing stopping me is knowing that the next generation Cruze is right around the corner and I am hoping the weight savings will mean a diesel model that gets over 50 mpg. There is also the issue of the seats being hard. Something I hope GM changes on the next generation.
And I bet the diesel will have better mpg than 46 highway if the people with jetta stories are true. That is the mileage is always better highway than the one assigned. A jetta friend claims he hits 50. I would presume that might be the same for the cruze diesel and if one travles mostly highway as myself, the diesel is better off. But I still do not like the timing belt instead of a timing chain..100k or not warranty rating. But Ill probably popping for a volt especially since a 10k credit direct at the dealership is in the 2014 budget if it passes and more so I will have enough solar panels to charge it up free every day besides cover my home electric bills with room to spare to do some space heating electrified to save additional oil burning. Yes solar costs but in NYS and all the grants, credits nys and fed wise, solar system payback is under 5 years for me and then its home free for the next 20years. To bad I really was looking forward to the diesel cruze and not much can change my mind at this point.
Any real car guy would opt for the diesel. Between the two choices only a “bean counter” would choose the eco over the diesel.
I’m curious as to why a ‘bean counter’ would choose the Cruze Eco?
Almost as good but for a bit less “beans” is what he’s getting at. Problem is the content level again, the diesel offers so much that can’t be had at any price on the Eco. That, I believe will put the two in completely different ball games.
Because of the initial price difference.
Where I live diesel fuel is $.50 to $.80 per gallon more than regular unleaded fuel.
Also most diesel engines have more expensive oil/filter changes (more quarts required) and water seperator filters driving up regular maintenance cost which must be factored in.
YMMV
Unleaded just took a huge jump here too, now diesel is now a few cents less than regular unleaded. It would be hard to make a long term cost comparison w/o having a clue what the petroleum companies are thinking. Here’s a little history: http://factcheck.org/2008/05/diesel-fuel-and-gasoline-costs/
I’m just glad GM doesn’t require Premium fuel to tweak out their 40 mpg ratings (aka Dart Aero!)
People excited about diesel technology may choose it, but cost of fuel or driving experience will convice few others to go the way of the D.
If all goes as planned, my next buy will be a diesel. The Cruze is obviously tops on my list, but that urea injection issue irritates me.
Well if GM gets all those on the web that said the would buy it if they built it they would be doing grand.
Even with out that if they make their 10% goal it will be all good. The fact is GM needs to grow this segment just as they are doing with the Volt.
Americans do not love Diesels and the Government treats them like second class vehicles with their EPA rules. It is a challenge to sell these but I think things will improve once they prove themselves in the public domain. they will never reach the numbers we see in Europe but it will be nice to have the choice.
People, although a small but vocal minority – have been calling
for the diesel here in the ‘States. Why? Well, you’ve covered
the torque and hp, but at what cost?
VW TDI’s have always been tempting as a commuter/ practical
family car. But many gas stations still do not sell diesel. One
Jetta TDI owner I knew filled 1/3 of her trunk with a 6 gallon
can of diesel fuel just in case!!!! That’s obsurd. I keep
reminding Americans that this is not Europe. In Europe , over
80% of their imported crude gets refined into diesel. In America
it’s the opposite – turn those figures upside-down. The 12-14%
of crude oil we do refine into diesel goes mainly to commercial
trucks and construction vehicles – not to mention commercial
marine use. This means that there is not a lot of diesel fuel
out there to spread around. This makes electric-assist, or
electric cars the way for North Americans because American-
made electricity is available at your home, workplace, and
everywhere else.
If you all went out and bought a diesel Cruze or Jetta TDI
this Summer when fuel prices soar – you’d be paying
over $5.00 per gallon for what?!!! There goes your economy.
The Eco Cruze would be the right choice if you cannot
afford a Volt.
Where are they making this engine?
Cruze Eco Diesel.
@James
I’m guessing that you are concerned with the environment, and therefore you would rather see more hybrids, or straight electrics on the road. All of are concerned about the environment James. If you look more closely… electrics don’t get away scot Free. What do you think will happen to the environment when millions to billions of batteries are junked or left to the weather while awaiting recycling? How do you think the populace will react when lithium battery’s start blowing up or catch on fire?
As in all things… there are pluses, and minuses. But in all things relating to this issue… diesel is the safest engine of all, while getting good mileage, and can work it’s butt off… for hundreds to thousands of miles. Its safe to say that diesels out last the rest of the vehicles components.
Does anyone know where the diesel is being made? I’m guessing it is being imported. I still don’t know why gm isn’t offering this engine on the equinox first.
The Cruze diesel is made in Germany.
Do not forget that a diesel engine will far outlast a gas and that the diesel fuel lubricates the engine.
Diesel is the obvious choice; do not get hung up on fuel cost!
Diesel is a long-term engine, that gas is disposable.
Richard in Canada
Pretty good for a 2 Liter turbodiesel. I hope it comes with auto start/stop and I hope it gets a CVT for an automatic eventually so the automatic can get decent city mileage. Hmm, only rated for 27MPG in the city and only 33MPG combined according to some sites (like gmauthority) due to the heavy 3475 pound curb weight + slushbox. Impressive 0-60 of 8.6 seconds with the diesel and the heavy weight.
It seems like too little advantage for the increased price, weight and reduced cargo space.
Increased weight: 3100 pounds for the regular Cruze, 3475 for the diesel.
Reduced cargo space: 4.5 gallon Urea tank for emissions takes up space.
Because of the increased weight and the slushbox automatic, city MPG isn’t improved. If you cut down the curb weight to something less than 3,000 pounds and took out the slushbox for a CVT or dual dry clutch and add auto start/stop. It’d be a better rounded vehicle. Maybe reduce the diesel to 1.6 liters if you can get the curb weight down enough.
I would take the diesel all day long. Especially in Canada where diesel is currently less than 1 cent more expensive per litre than regular 87 octane. Cost per mile (or km) should be significantly better in the diesel than the gas car. Unfortunately, we still pay higher prices for both types of fuel than Americans.
If thrift is not required, diesel hands down. Who wouldn’t want all that extra torque with arguably the same per-mile cost as the Eco auto?
If it’s thrift you’re going for, Eco manual all the way. Cheaper per-mile cost and far less to buy in the first place.
A couple of people above mentioned the urea tank and lack of a manual as potential drawbacks. I agree. Alex, you seem to believe these are non-issues, but I don’t think so. When VW eventually revamps their engine, it will likely be urea free as is the new upcoming diesel Mazda 6. Also, sure, very few people buy manuals, but I would venture a guess that a large portion of those who want diesels are also in the manual crowd. The people who don’t know or care will mostly just get the cheaper gas model. GM is making a mistake here IMHO.
Finally, I think the Eco auto needs to go away. With only 1 mpg higher than the standard Cruze LT auto, it seems rather useless to offer an Eco model with an auto, but I guess if it sells, it sells.
Wrong about people not wanting manual transmissions. If going to the trouble to maximize mpgs with a diesal, why would we not go one more step and get the manual?
The gas cruze eco manual gets 33MPG combined, the gas cruze eco auto gets 31MPG combined, and the diesel cruze (eco?) auto gets 33MPG combined.
It’s all bleh. The car is too heavy and the automatics aren’t CVTS or dual dry clutch. If there was a diesel manual option, or more efficient auto option, maybe the combined manual could go up to 35MPG combined like the manual Passat TDI.
Just buy a 4th gen Prius (2015) that’ll have a lean burn turbocharged engine and get superior MPG and decent power with strong electric motors.
Why do some schmucks have to come onto this site to push electrics, or CVTs? The question is… “Choose, Cruz’s Diesel or ECO”. No where does the author ask… “Or would you prefer a no handling, no stopping, no acceleration Prius?… Or do you prefer a scooter technology transmission CVT?”
My conundrum is … Cruse diesel or Colorado diesel. Like Alex, I prefer a manual. If it’s a Cruze, I’ll wait for a manual. If I hit the lotto… I’ll buy both.
Why didn’t they compare the eco manual against these two? It is the best of the three options, and five thousand less than the diesel and 1000 less than the auto eco.
I looked at both, and I’m happy I bought the chevy eco manual gas. $5000 less! and still plenty of power without diesel.
I own a 2013 Cruze Eco that I bought new. I also test drove a Cruze diesel. I am a Professional Engineer and a gearhead. Here is the real skinny: The Cruze Eco gets better than what Chevy advertises. With two people in the car and on relatively flat ground running 70-75 mph for 100 miles, I got 47mpg. On the return trip I was tucked in behind a Chrysler 300 SRT and cruising at 80mph…I got 44.1mpg. The car has 8000 miles on it so is not completely broken in yet. I just took it on a 600 mile trip, getting back today, with three people in the car and very mountainous terrain and got about 40.1mpg with it, running 75-80 mph.
The Eco is balanced nicely. It handles very well.
I test drove a diesel Cruze on a 40 mile trip. Yes, the diesel had much more torque. It is an automatic (whereas mine is a manual…I specifically wanted a manual) and never dropped out of 6th, even on steep mountains. I do not know what the mileage was, as it was a test drive. But, the diesel does NOT handle as well. The car is very nose heavy. As well, if you do your own maintenance (as I do), you will find that the diesel fills up the engine bay and is difficult to work on, whereas the Eco’s 1.4 turbo is small in the bay, with lots of clearance, and very friendly to work on.
I think both are great cars. But, I have gotten as high as 51mpg with my car in D.C. traffic where it’s 45mph follow the leader, and never less than 37mpg with 4 people, full baggage, and running 75mph.
For me, I like the gasser. But I think they are both winners. You won’t go wrong with either one.