2013 Chevy Cruze 2.0L Turbo Diesel for U.S.
 

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/21/r...irmed-for-u-s/

I can confirm this... :yum:

That's a good start, but where's my diesel-powered half-ton pickup?

What is the benefit to having diesel, when diesel fuel is more expensive than unleaded? They're talking about 34mpg, but for that size of vehicle, 34mpg is pretty standard, isn't it? So, why would you want a 34mpg diesel when you can have a 34mpg unleaded, which is cheaper fuel?

Longer lasting engine.

Which will cost a good bit more and should require more maintenance...

Totally. And good luck getting one in CA.

You can make diesel out of anything

good for GM.



ive never understood why we dont have more diesel vehicles in this country.

Long lasting engines dont mean much when gas engines last just as long.
The problem is everything else attached the car (vw...i'm talking to you)

The draw ofthe t-diesel in the cruise should be the torque\power delivery.

GM had one close to being offered but when obutthead took over GM, it was scrapped/tabled.

How come GM has a diesle that gets 34mpg, while the VW diesles are advertising 10mpg more and getting in the 50's mpg?

Add to that the general cheaponess of GM cars and you see why the US auto industry is crap

I also thought that the cruz was gonna be disconinued in favor of another crappy small model?

The interior is "ok" but has too much of that Civic sci-fi styling, with blue lighting, fake metal trim, and hard-to-read gauges. Trying to appeal to people in their 20's I guess.

The faux metal trim and colored lights are a non issue for me, every manufacturer now uses them from the top end mercades down to the bottom crap chevy. Its the cheap plastic look and feel, impossible to read gauges, chrome dash trim that reflect directly light into my retina, and non side supportive seats.

Really most small car companies manage to cheap out on their interiors, some do a decent job, VW, Mini, Honda, Ford come to mind off the top of my head. Ford is the only american car company that has come out with a decent interior in the last 20 years, first with the focus, and now with the fiesta. And most euro and japanese brands are pretty good at designing small cars.

really my issue is mainly with Dodge and Chevy, who both manage to associate their names with producing feces. I mean really, when you think of the Dodge Calibur or the Chevy Cobal do you really think "Yeh I'd like to own that one day, or do you think "Yeh I'd like to rent that one day"?

Give me a Civic any day, and I'll turn the blue LED cup holders off.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_JpAzjGpfpp...e-interior.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__kjL7rUis0...2Binterior.jpg

Much rather have a Golf.............Easy to read gauges........Large numerals that stand straight up, instead of being angled around the gauge..............Not much faux metal at all..............No ghey "portholes" that bury each gauge 6 inches deep into the dash.................and gauge lights that are are red or green........not blue

Because VWs aren't advertising 10mpg more. Both the Golf and Jetta diesels have the same 34mpg combined that Chevy is claiming.

Sorry, 8mpg more not 10

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OpsZNbWxFM...lf+sticker.JPG

Yeah, and it was a great setup from what I understand. Unfortunately, even before the project was killed, it would have been unsuccessful because the diesel was going to add something like $8K iirc to the price of a truck, which makes it cost-prohibitive.

I do know I've seen turbodiesel Ford Rangers in Europe and the Middle East, so I know it can be done and cheap. I'm sure the EPA is fucking us, but I'm fairly certain that what I want could be done here if a manufacturer really wanted to do it.

There's a difference between highway mileage and mixed mileage. ;)

See this part where it says "Combined Fuel Economy" and "34 MPG"? Chevy is claiming the same 34mpg combined.

Ok I'm mistaken on that point. But I'll still only believe it when I see it, and until that point I will look at their track record to guide my thoughts which leads me to not trust their claimed numbers

The Cruze ECO is supposed to get 42mpg and I would guess the diesel powered Cruze will get the same. Diesels inherently can get much better mileage because they are not forced to run at a fixed a/f ratio like gas. Also, the fuel content has more energy.

And diesels are just cool. redflip

A 2.0L diesel IF calibrated by GM should easliy attain those numbers. They should have went with a 1.6L or 1.5L TD engine instead.

As predicted..
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/ceo-c...ry?id=14131519

The U.S. EPA has a hard on for both oxides and particulates when it comes to diesels vs. Euro EPA has a hard on for fuel economy and CO2 emissions. In order for diesels in the country to meet US EPA regulations, they HAVE to fun slightly lower A/F ratios to reduce the NOx output and subsequently add in a particulate filter to catch the particulate matter. Then, diesel fuel needs to be injected post compression in order to heat the converter up so these particulates can be burned. Both of these equate to lower fuel economy.

The Europeans on the other hand allow for higher oxides and higher PM, but require lower fuel consumption and lower CO2 output. In order to lower CO2 output, you can really only lower HC/CO output by reducing fuel usage.

This just in: us epa is a bunch of fucking corrupt assholes.

Duh :lol:

I realize this is an old comment, but as long as the thread has been resurrected...

Do you really want a GM to last longer? :lol: Seems even now the engine outlasts most of what surrounds it.

I bet you think you're funny, don't ya?

True - it's the suspension that goes all to crap. :lol:

And the interior.....