Cruze Diesel proves to be the superior ride in the lineup. But is
it worth the premium?
The questions surrounding the introduction of a diesel engine into
the Chevrolet Cruze lineup
are, of course, manifold.
Can the Americans build a small diesel worthy of
competing with the Europeans? (Cruze Diesel revelation No. 1: They don’t have
to, they just sourced it from their Germany-based subsidiary, Opel.)
Can the
Cruze Diesel compete with Volkswagen’s segment-dominating Jetta TDI? (No. 2:
The CD offers more power with better highway fuel economy for less money.)
But,
perhaps most importantly, why would anyone buy the diesel version of the Cruze
versus the distinctly lower-cost LS and the supposedly almost-as-frugal — if
you believe anything Natural Resources Canada has to say about fuel economy —
Cruze Eco?
Indeed, considering how niche the diesel segment remains compared
with mainstream gasoline-fueled products, why would anyone buy any diesel?
Surprisingly, the first reason that comes to mind, at least in
this comparison of Cruzes, is that the diesel-powered CD is the more satisfying
drive.
This comes as a bit of a surprise: While it was easy to envisage that
the CD’s little oil burner would be livelier than the base LS’s thoroughly
pedestrian 138-horsepower 1.8L four, that it has more get up and go —
substantially, even — than the turbocharged Eco engine is surprising.
The Eco’s
1.4-litre turbo — also with 138-hp but with more torque, 148 pound-feet versus
125 — has deservedly garnered praise as much for its comportment as its
frugality.
People’s Test Drive: 2014
Chevrolet Cruze Diesel
Nonetheless, it was immediately apparent that the CD’s 2.0L
high-pressure turbodiesel’s 151 horsepower and the claimed 264 lb.-ft. (280
lb.-ft. for short bursts) of torque provided more urge than either of the
Cruze’s other engines.
It’s more than a little odd to think of the diesel as
the sportiest engine in a lineup, but in the Cruze’s case it’s true.
Acceleration, officially timed at a slightly deceiving (diesels are a little
slow for the first 10 metres off the line) 8.6 seconds to reach 96 kilometres
an hour (60 mph), is easily up to any comparison in the segment and, passing
acceleration (a much more realistic measure of real-world performance) is
stellar.
Rest assured, one doesn't need to trade performance for fuel economy.
Nor civility. As with the latest generation of Volkswagen TDIs,
there is little to mark the CD’s lack of spark plugs.
On start-up, there is a
little clatter, but that soon disappears as the engine warms up. Inside the
cabin, there’s precious little to indicate that this Cruze is fuelled by
anything other than diesel (though, be sure to remember that when refuellling).
Those thinking that The General might be at a deficit to Volkswagen with its
first (North American) diesel offering will be surprised.
There’s
nothing surprising, however, about the compression-ignited Cruze’s fuel
economy, though. Not surprising is that it thoroughly trounced the base LS,
though that car’s 8.0 L/100 km observed average fuel economy was nonetheless
impressive.
But even the Eco model, impressively frugal at 6.8 L/100 km overall
in our 150 kilometres city and highway drive, was trounced by the CD’s 6.1
L/100 km average (please note that our real-world fuel economy figures were
biased by having driven more highway miles than urban).
On the
highway, the diesel recorded the same 5.1 L/100 km at 100 km/h as the Eco did
at a slower 80 km/h (the LS not all that far behind at 6.2). At 115 km/h the
gap widened, with the Diesel recording 5.8 L/100 km while the Eco and the LS
managed only 6.8 and 7.8 respectively.
None of these figures present any great
revelations — diesels are renowned for their long distance cruising abilities —
but they do confirm that Chevrolet’s oil burner is on par with Volkswagen’s
(the Jetta TDI posted similar numbers to the CD).
The conventional gas-powered Cruze got 8.0 L/100 km.
The Eco Cruze got 6.9 L/100 km.
The diesel Cruze got 6.1L/100 km.
However,
the Cruze Diesel’s parsimony at lower speeds did surprise, all the more so since
NRCan rates the Eco and the Diesel almost the same — 7.8 L/100 km for the Eco
automatic versus the Diesel’s 7.5 — in the urban cycle. However, once again
confirming that the official figures are biased in favour of turbos at the
expense of diesels, the CD managed a creditable 7.6 L/100 km about town while
the Eco needed 8.5 litres for every 100 kilometres of city driving (the LS,
unsurprisingly, was the laggard at 9.8 L/100 km).
Putting
all of this in perspective, it’s worth noting that against its direct
competition — again, Volkswagen’s diesel-dominating Jetta — the Cruze offers
more performance and similar fuel economy for slightly less money (the CD
starts at a smidge under $25,000, though most are priced closer to $30,000).
No comments:
Post a Comment