2011 Chevrolet Cruze – Click above for high-res image gallery

In late July, rumors of a U.S.-bound diesel Chevrolet Cruze were officially confirmed to be true by General Motors. We'll have to wait until sometime in 2013 to see the oil-burning Cruze, but GM insiders seem more than willing to dish out some details on the diesel Cruze well in advance of its debut.

Ward's Auto reports that "sources" have confirmed the oil-burning Cruze will achieve a highway fuel economy rating "in the range of 50 miles per gallon." Additionally, unlike the manual transmission-equipped, 42-mpg rated Chevy Cruze Eco (an automatic Eco is available, but its mpg rating is well below that of the manual), the diesel Cruze, according to Charlie Klein, GM's director of global mass, energy and aerodynamics, will be a fuel-sipping sedan regardless of which trans is bolted to the engine.

As for that engine, GM has unofficially confirmed that it will indeed be based on the 2.0-liter diesel that's found under the hood of the Holden Cruze CDX. In the Holden, the 2.0-liter mill pumps out 160 horsepower and 265 pound-feet of torque. One last bit of info: we hear that the diesel Cruze's torque will allow it to easily outrun the Cruze Eco.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 23 Comments
      Peter
      • 3 Years Ago
      VW is put on notice! GM Cruze CDX will out shine on torque, HP AND epa milage the TDI Jetta 2.0 (US spec) EPA city/highway driving: 30/42 mpg Power (SAE net): 140 bhp @ 4000 rpm Torque (SAE net): 236 lb-ft @ 1750 rpm
      paulwesterberg
      • 3 Years Ago
      And by 50MPG! they mean 50mpg*. * highway only, city mileage will likely be closer to 30.
        emperor koku
        • 3 Years Ago
        @paulwesterberg
        Hybrid haters always focus on highway mileage.
        uncle_sam
        • 3 Years Ago
        @paulwesterberg
        In stop and go it will be even worse, but as diesel is for free who cares
      JamesJ
      • 3 Years Ago
      265 lb ft of torque? That is about as much as the V6 engine in the Chevy pickup! They should put this engine in their compact pickups. It has the power to make it work.
      Rotation
      • 3 Years Ago
      Torque doesn't work that way. The 160HP versus 138HP of the Cruze Eco will ensure it outruns the Cruze Eco. 2.0L is too large to be honest, this should be a 1.6L or 1.8L for max mpg.
      Pete K
      • 3 Years Ago
      The Cruze Eco is rated at 42 MPG highway...not 43 MPG...does no one check this **** before it goes live?
      bvz
      • 3 Years Ago
      I'd like to see them add stop/start technology as well (love the idea of diesels being offered here)
      mavsguy842
      • 3 Years Ago
      To Rotation: Good thing you'll get see a greater than 10-15% drop in gallons used.
      Casey Jensen
      • 3 Years Ago
      Seems everyone likes to forget that Diesel generally costs 30-50c more a gallon, too. Pretty much negating that mpg difference.
        bvz
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Casey Jensen
        Negating it if your only concern is saving yourself some money. Still a valid difference if your priorities are expanded a bit.
      carney373
      • 3 Years Ago
      Who cares. Even if we all shift to high MPG vehicles, OPEC can just cut production to spike up the per-unit price, and we end up paying just as much to fill our little austerity-mobiles as we used to pay to fill up our big brawny Hummers. Higher fuel economy is the left's version of Drill Baby Drill - a non-solution that ignores the reality of OPEC control. What matters is not how much oil you use, but whether you can run on something OTHER than oil.
        winc06
        • 3 Years Ago
        @carney373
        I think you are not clear on the concept. The goal is not to lower the cost of fuel to save you money at the pump so you can choose to drive more, but to use less in order to slow down global warming. OPEC setting an artificially high price is to be expected because they want to stretch out their remaining supply. That is a good thing that will result in encouraging people to switch to alternative energy and saving the oil for the chemistry products that are its real value.
          carney373
          • 3 Years Ago
          @winc06
          Global warming is not the only issue here. OPEC's actions are not the farsighted noble restraint you portray. OPEC imposes artificial scarcity to create artificially high prices, purely from greed. It has squandered that wealth and continues to do so rather than prepare for a post petroleum era. Despite having brought in trillions since the early 70s, Saudi Arabia's tiny portion of its economy coming from non-oil sources has not budged upward. Instead they and the other oil rich states have lived in wretched excess unheard of in human history, not even by the most dissolute emperors. Hundreds of palaces, full size passenger jets bought as playthings, luxury cars, jewelry, yachts and mega-yachts, racehorses, high-end liquor, drugs, concubines, child slaves, consumed and discarded like Kleenex. With the leftovers, OPEC regimes buy consent with handouts, crush dissent with brutal repression, spread destructive radical extremist zealotry, and fund terrorism and armed movements, much of it directed at us. In its greed OPEC raised the price of oil from $10 a barrel in 1999 to $140 in 2008, a brutal 1,400% increase that dumped a "tax" burden of hundreds of billions on our economy, making the average family of 4's share of after tax income going to oil go from 3% to 33%. No wonder major purchases like cars and houses were deferred and the economy collapsed. That's more than enough "encouragement" and yet like an animal with its leg in a trap, we just suffer mindlessly because our feckless political class does anything and everything BUT get us off oil. Economic growth, population growth, and human nature create such growth in the demand for energy and fuel that even the most drastic increases in fuel economy are irrelevant. From 1976 to 1990 our fleet average MPG went from 13 to 20 yet our annual gasoline consumption went from 89 billion gallons a year to 103. The solution is to GET OFF OIL, not try to use less of it.
          Marco Polo
          • 3 Years Ago
          @winc06
          @ Carney373 have you been bitten by a rabid Bat?
      Rotation
      • 3 Years Ago
      To what? Diesel also emits 10-15% more CO2 per gallon burned. And it emits more of other trace pollutants and particulates too.
      GeorgeS
      • 3 Years Ago
      Why not add e-asist to the cruze.
      emperor koku
      • 3 Years Ago
      If so, that's amazing and puts the car on my short list. But I'm not going to hold my breath. I'll believe it when I see it.
    • Load More Comments