The 2011 Chevrolet Cruze that owner Farah Mocquais bought for commuting to work hasn't achieved the fuel economy ratings that the Canadian arm of General Motors advertised, CBC News reports, and the couple is accusing GM Canada of misleading them. Instead of burning 5.5 liters of gasoline per 100 kilometers on the highway, which GM Canada advertises for the 1.4-liter Cruze, she and her husband, Pierre-Yves, have struggled to use any less than 7.9 liters of gas per 100 km of highway driving.

The couple reportedly claims the car was driven 99 percent on the highway, commuting between Calgary and Lethbridge. They say that the fuel consumption display consistently showed 8.5 liters per 100 km, and when a CBC News correspondent with a camera went along for a highway drive, it showed 7.9 liters per 100 km. A trip to a Chevrolet dealership failed to produce an answer to explain the discrepancy between the Mocquais' fuel economy numbers and the ones GM Canada advertises.

Independent fuel economy tests performed by Consumer Reports on a US-spec 2014 Cruze with the 1.4-liter engine found that city/highway combined fuel economy of the car was the equivalent of 9.05 l/100 km, a third higher than the combined rating GM Canada advertises, according to CBC News.

The Canadian government approves the consumption numbers that automakers advertise, but the mandatory fuel-economy tests are performed by the manufacturers and reportedly have been criticized for "not being as realistic as US tests done by the same automakers there."

To bring Canadian fuel-economy testing up to US standards, the government is imposing changes on test procedures that are expected to be in place for 2015 models. Jacinthe Perras, a spokesperson for Natural Resources Canada, says, "The resulting new approach will provide Canadians with fuel consumption ratings that better reflect 'typical' driving conditions and driving behavior."


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
  • 71 Comments
      Joey
      • 1 Year Ago
      Fuel mileage is just an ESTIMATE !!!! There's no way to consistently obtain exact mileage. There are too many variables to factor in to be EXACT !!!! Get a life, you whining douche bags !!!!
      Tom C
      • 1 Year Ago
      5.5 liters per 100 km = 43 MPG. 7.9 liters per 100 km = 30 MPG. 9.05 liters per 100 km = 26 MPG.
      WWM
      • 1 Year Ago
      Canadian here. I've owned seven cars in the last few years and none of them have ever gotten close to the claimed highway fuel economy. This is based on the Government's official numbers. During the winter, the numbers aren't even close. During the summer, the numbers are about in line with the EPA's numbers but still worse than the Canadian numbers. Contrast this to the city economy, where during the winter they're about in line with the EPA numbers and well above the Canadian numbers. And during the summer, the numbers are actually about in line with the Canadian numbers and below (better) the EPA numbers. This is based on suburban driving though which is much more economical than true city driving. The Canadian highway numbers are clearly junk for two reasons. They don't take into account cold weather driving, which is absolutely stupid considering the country we live in. And they also assume people are driving 80-100km/h on the highways, when the reality is that 90% of traffic is doing 110-130. My guess is that they get away with this because highway speed limits are technically only 100km/h even if it doesn't match the reality of traffic conditions.
        Astutent
        • 1 Year Ago
        @WWM
        Canadian here too. I solely use EPA numbers. They're far more accurate than ours. I've also heard people here complaining that their cars don't get near the mpg figures that are claimed. They don't realize that our mpg numbers are based on imperial gallons, not american gallons. Always gives me a laugh.
          PeterScott
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Astutent
          I think gas was last sold by the gallon over 30 years ago. But the car companies still advertise MPG (imperial), and since we get US TV, and see ads in MPG, they two get hilariously compared. Like a US Prius commercial showing 50 MPG, and Canadian Cruze Eco commercial showing 61 MPG highway.
          sirvixisvexed
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Astutent
          "Like a US Prius commercial showing 50 MPG, and Canadian Cruze Eco commercial showing 61 MPG highway." THAT is funny! I'm a stone's throw from Canada, and didn't realize their economy numbers were this way. I know Japan's are highly inflated as well. The US EPA numbers actually got more strict/realistic/they got lower in 2008 when they were from the 3-cycle test to 5-cycle, lowering all cars projected EPA mileage at the time by around 10-20%. Funny thing, the new honda civic is now starting to show nearly the same EPA mileage as the 2007 model did! When in reality the new model is decently more efficient.
          PeterScott
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Astutent
          I think gas was last sold by the gallon over 30 years ago. So yes we are metric. But the car companies still advertise MPG (imperial), and since we get US TV, and see ads in MPG, they two get hilariously compared. Like a US Prius commercial showing 50 MPG, and Canadian Cruze Eco commercial showing 61 MPG highway.
      montegod7ss
      • 1 Year Ago
      My '10 MS3 says I average around 26mpg mixed, but real world is 24mpg. I've never seen a digital display read lower than actual.
      Jamie Elmhirst
      • 1 Year Ago
      As someone who sells cars for a living in Canada I welcome the switch to a more accurate fuel economy regime. Yes, there are some manufacturers who have actively tried to game the system (I'm looking at you Hundai), but most are simply following a flawed set of rules that don't reflect realistic, real world driving habits and mileage. With that said, there is infinite variety in the way people drive. I've been on test drives with folks in manual transmission cars where they never shifted out of second gear in city driving. Yep, driving at 50 km/h with the engine at 4,000 RPM+. I bet they complain about the mileage their cars get. I would prefer a system that gave a range of expected mileage, rather than a single hard number for highway and city driving. That would probably offer the consumer a more reasonable data set.
      gnvlscdt23f
      • 1 Year Ago
      The problem here is in the test. Canada doesn't have its own procedure. It uses the US EPA's system. But they still use the "old" US system, not the new, more realistic one that the EPA adopted for MY 2008. As far as powertrains go, there's not any difference between a US and Canadian spec Cruze, BTW. Emission standards are the same. Even most safety standards are the same, excepting DRL, which the Cruze has in the US anyway, and airbags, but most Canadian models now have as many as the US version. The Cruze has 10 in both countries.There is one other minor standard--I think it involves locks or an ignition lockout--that differs, but the true problem here is pretty obviously the test.
      Roscoe
      • 1 Year Ago
      As a Canadian, I can attest to the fact that CDN government "tested" fuel economy ratings are GROSSLY over-optimistic, regardless of the vehice, engine, or fuel type being tested. The test methodology itself is so hideously unrealistic and nowhere near typical Canadian road and traffic conditions that it borders on criminal negligence. These morons who run our country still push the old Imperial gallon. WTF? Rage.
      Pat
      • 1 Year Ago
      8l/100 for highway driving seems like a lot ... At what speed do they drive? Is there wind? Hills? In comparison, this week-end we drove from Montreal to Sherbooke in our 2013 Focus and got 7.4l/100 --in low temperature conditions at 120 km/h with lots of hills. But if it makes the feel better, the same trip in my Wrangler is 12l/100 (and only at 100km/h lol)
      anthony_patrick2
      • 1 Year Ago
      it is always the way a person drives. with my 2012 impala, some days i get 32, other days i get 23 on my way to work. depends how fast you go, if you use cruise control, use the a/c, and traffic. many people do not even know that the defroster uses the a/c.
        Matt
        • 1 Year Ago
        @anthony_patrick2
        And the Highway numbers on a Canadian window sticker don't account for small towns, hills, stop signs on rural highways, etc. There are so many factors that are in play for fuel economy numbers. No matter how fuel efficient your car is, you can make the numbers look ugly in a hurry but just using your right foot. Not many people actually drive the way you would need to drive to hit the max numbers, and then they get angry at the manufacturer. Let's just place the blame where it belongs: Transport Canada and the EPA. Granted, the EPA's figures are more realistic, but they still aren't perfect.
          Matt
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Matt
          Oh yeah, and in cold climates, winter gas formulas also contribute to poor mpg readings.
      johnandy27
      • 1 Year Ago
      at the gas pump it may be shutting down at diff levels no way to guage exactly how full you get it filled could be a better part of a gallon makes a big diff
      Larry
      • 1 Year Ago
      Well 5.5L per 100KM is about 42.7 MPG. This compares to the US EPA rating of 42 MPG for a manual transmission ECO version. I regularly get around 50 MPG on the highway and high 30's MPG around town with my MT ECO but that 42.7 number seem too high. The car easily beats the US EPA ratings but you do need to drive somewhat sensibly. This is also on 87 Octane regular not premium as required on other high MPG cars. It has super low cost per mile if you drive it right.
      Avinash Machado
      • 1 Year Ago
      Your mileage may vary.
    • Load More Comments