Hybrids challenged by regular cars on fuel economy: Washingtonpost.com

Hmm, so GM did nothing they couldn't have done 10, 20 or 40 years ago in response to losing sales to japanese (i.e. good) hybrids. and GM are supposed to be the good guys.......?

it's good for us though, since it means toyota actually need to make some minor efforts on making gen4 better. they were starting to look pretty lonely at the top of the mpg tree.

 

Typo. It should read "more than 40 miles per gallon". That's only on the highway and most of us live in the city. I don't know anyone who live on the highway.

 

Goebbels would have made a great business writer for the Post.

 

Without reading any of the posts ...........

BS BS BS BS BS BS !!!!

There is no conventionally powered car, not one with the size, weight and complexity of the 3rd gen. Prius that is anywhere near the

50 MPG AVERAGE

of the Prius. Stupid idiotic conventional car '42 MPG highway' figures do not count
because the corresponding average quickly turns into about 30 something MPG due to the stupic, idiotic gas engine running constantly, no battery traction and no regenerative braking.

 

The thing is that the difference between 40 and 50mpg is negligible for a lot of people and the improvement may not be worth the difference in cost between a conventional and hybrid version of a car. I mean, the logic for a lot of people goes: "well,this car gets almost as much as a hybrid but is a few thousand cheaper and I don't have to deal with battery issues." It doesn't have to be "the best", but rather "good enough" for the price for a large number of people.

 

Show me 1 conventional car that has a combined, average fuel economy of 40 MPG.

The Cruze ECO is 42 hwy / 28 city, so let's just call it 35 average, although it might be only 32 at the pump

AND with conventionals, you cannot beat the EPA in city driving, but with Prius, you can beat the city EPA MPG figure.

 

So, the Cruze ECO starts at $18,175 with a manual transmission. Big deal. And that's a crappy little 1.4 L engine.

I sat in a Cruze, no big deal. And it's a trunked sedan which is always cheaper than a hatchback anyway.

So, the Cruze ECO is $19,xxx w /AT. Bet it's not available. You get what you pay for. I'll bet it drives like crap.

Anyone catch the Ford Focus hatch commercials airing recently?

2012 Focus in not even available for 2 or 3 months. Stupid.

 

This Washington Post story: F*in marketing and media BS.

 

wow... great journalism... now someone goes and buys cruze eco and then what happens when they realize that combined rating is 33mpg? which prius beats by more than 50%.

but hey, down wind, if sun is shining right, it can get 50 mpg!!!!

 

Yep, just a bunch of BS poor journalism. Hopefully this bozo gets a lot of mails to set him straight along w/what's possible w/hybrids when hypermiling (e.g. Hybrid drivers complete run for mileage mark and FUSION HYBRID AVERAGES 81.5 MPG, SETS WORLD RECORD WITH 1,445 MILES ON SINGLE TANK OF GAS | Ford Motor Company Newsroom).

Per Side-by-Side Comparison, here are the stats for the 2011 Eco Cruze:
manual: 28 city/42 highway, 33 combined
auto: 26 city/37 highway, 30 combined

I wonder if the EPA test figures (on the auto) were achieved w/the aid of overly aggressive automatic transmission firmware that tends to be slow to respond or that wants to stay in higher gears. Not that this is the same trim level, but Edmunds noted issues with their automatic Cruze LTZ at 2011 Chevrolet Cruze LTZ: Cruising, which is rated 24 city/36 highway, 28 combined.

 

I want to to throw something at the TV everytime I see a

"40 MPG highway" commercial

How I'd love to edit their commercials to -

26 MPG city

and 40 MPG highway in thee smallest of fine print the kind you need a magnifying glass to read.

Better yet, market cars only on their city fuel economy

Cruze ECO - 26 MPG
Prius - 51 MPG HAH.

 

These 40 mpg highway cars are not 'Prius killer' if that is what the innuendo suggests, but I'm delighted to read that ICE only 30+ mpg overall cars are coming into the fleet. The US has mostly made done with 20 mpg cars for so long.

The larger trick is getting people into smaller cars.

 

let's track how many standard tranny cruzes gm sells. i bet it'll be a ton!

 

A) It's rated at 42 hwy, not 50, not even Euro gallons. That's the manual. Drops to 37 highway for an auto and manuals are moribund in the US in the extreme.
B) Weight is more meaningful in the city. A couple hundred lbs of weight doesn't mean much at highway speeds where wind resistance is the greatest thing to overcome.

Although 42 is historically a decent number for highway this is a small vehicle and not very fast. I notice the article does not also mention that a 2011 Highlander, with a 4500 lb tow rating, AWD, 7 seats, and a sub-8 second 0-60 capable powertrain, gets the same mileage as the Cruze in the city. If it's the manual. Compare to the auto Cruze and it beats it by two (Cruze 26), so how you like those apples?

Hybrids reign supreme.

 

Everybody typing giant fonts - chill

Go to the cruze chat site & you'll find the actual OWNERS complaining about their sucky mileage . . . . then you won't have to worry about tabloid journalism:

Anyone else getting terrible MPG? (Cruze, LT, auto) - Page 4 - Chevy Cruze Forum : Chevrolet Cruze Forums

.

 

LOL, that's some funny sheet.

 

RELAX

Take a deep breath.


A 15K car is not going to challenge the beloved Prius for supremacy.

 

This review says the Cruze Eco gets ~44 MPG at 80 MPH. That's good, but Popular Mechanics says the Elantra can do 50 MPG at that speed. This "at 55 MPH" stuff isn't all that helpful, because I think most people are concerned with freeway estimates.

 

50 mpg at 80 mph ? Downhill maybe, or in a concept car.