Is a hybrid car still the most ecologically friendly vehicle?

[happyslug]

17. I did look at the Fusion, when I looked for a new car last year, decided on the Cruize

Last edited Tue May 14, 2013, 09:13 PM - Edit history (1)

I liked the Cruize for several reasons:

1. It is USA made, the Fusion are made in Mexico (Through the engines for the Fusion are made in the US). Please note while the Engine for the Cruize and the Cruize itself is made in the US, if you opt for the ECO manual transmission that is made in Austria (Automatics and other manuals transmissions are made in the USA for the Cruize). The six speed manual transmission for the ECO is design to maximize fuel efficiency in sixth gear, to a noticeable higher level then the regular sixth gear on the regular Cruizes.

2. United Auto Workers made (I am a UAW member, but that is because the UAW help organized Legal Service organization throughout the US). Here is the List of UAW Union Made Cars:
http://www.uaw.org/sites/default/files/2013vehicles.pdf

3. 42 mpg on the Highway in a Manual Transmission.

4. A Manual transmission (I hate Automatics, I can hear the gear switch while after I would have shifted if it was a manual).

I did look at the Fusion, other then the above it meet my expectation for a new car, thus the Fusion may be the right option for you.

I did drive a regular Cruise with its 1.8 liter engine and and a Standard Transmission, and I liked it. I live in the Mountains of Pennsylvania and took it up a steep hill near the dealer, no problems taking the hill. When I opt for the ECO, I expected a weaker performance, but the Turbo charger more then made up for the smaller engine. In fact with the Turbo charger the ECO with its 1.4 liter engine can produce more horse power then the larger 1.8 liter engine.

Please note the 1,4 liter engine used in the ECO is the same as used in the Chevrolet Volt (Through the Volt's engine, being just a generator does NOT have nor needs a Turbo Charger).

A 2.0 liter Diesel option for the Cruise is available in May 2013 with 46 mpg:

http://www.automoblog.net/2013/04/22/chevy-cruze-diesel-vs-vw-jetta-tdi/

Now, I have a prejudice against diesels, since I drove them in the Army. Compared to a Gasoline engine, they get better fuel economy and last longer (and when "done" mostly just need some parts replace and then a "new" engine unlike a gasoline engine which has to be overhauled inside and out). The down side is their produce more noise, the fuel tends to freeze if the weather goes below the freezing point of water (and thus the engine need to be "heated" before you start it in cold weather) and you have to be careful about water in the system (The fuel tends to collect in Diesels more then in Gasoline, and if the water gets into the engine it can do some real damage).

Diesel not only need a more extensive fuel filter then a Gasoline Engine it needs a more extensive Air Filter. As to the Fuel Filter, in my old 2 1/2 ton Diesel Army trucks we had three filters on the fuel system that we had to drain of water every day, mostly the first filter caught most of the water and the other filters, when drained, had no water in them, and if all three filters had water coming out of them, the Truck had to go to the shop. The Air Filter could also be a problem, but rarely was for it was huge. In an car the size of the Cruize where do to put the Fuel Filters and the Air Filters given you are talking about a 2,0 liter engine in place of a 1.8 liter engine? When the Army switched from Gasoline to Diesel in 1959 (With the Adoption of the M60 tank), the M113 Armored Personal Carrier (APC) had the room to have installed a larger Diesel engine to replace the Gasoline Engine that equipped the first M113s. The M114 tracked Scout Vehicles adopted about the same time did NOT have the room and thus remained Gasoline engined till retired in 1973 (and not replaced by a track vehicle till the M3 Bradley Scout Vehicle was adopted in 1981, through M113s were used in the role of being a Scout Vehicle in addition to being an APC).

You need a larger diesel then a gasoline engine to produce the same level of low end torque to get a vehicle started. Thus when the Army replaced the Gasoline engined 2 1/2 tons trucks with Diesel engines, the Diesel engines were about 25% larger then the Gasoline engines they replaced.. This was the same with Tanks, APC and any other Vehicle the Army decided to re-engined from a Gasoline to a Diesel engine. I bring it up just to point out why the Diesel has to be 2.0 to substitute for a 1.8 and a 1.4 liter gasoline engine in the Cruize.

My old National Guard Unit in the 1980s, had all three types of post WWII M35 2 1/2 ton trucks, Gasoline jobs from the late 1940s. "Multifuel" M35s and Diesel M35s.

Here is the Wikipedia site on the M35, please note it states the M35 production started in 1949, but I drove M35s with Manufacturer date plates from 1946 and 1948 (These were used ONLY on the early Gasoline models, the later "Multifuel" M35s and Diesel M35s did not have the date plates). Thus the 1949 date is in error, but the rest of the article seems to be on correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M35_2%C2%BD_ton_cargo_truck

We hated the "Multifuel" M35s being unreliable, the Diesels were the best, for most of them were less then 20 years old and thus newer then the older gasoline M35s we had. The Gasoline M35s actually outlasted the "Multifuels" in my old unit. When the Gas Jobs ran, they ran very good, you good sense the greater ability to go cross country with the more powerful, smaller and lighter, Gasoline engine. The only problem is the engines were at least 40 years old and thus long past the time they should have been replaced (Thus the reliability issue with the Gas jobs, or I should say the lack of reliability when I was driving them). Diesels had more low end power, but the Gas jobs had better acceleration and just did better cross country then the Diesels.

Now the M35s "Multifuels" were Diesels designed that in a pinch you could use gasoline mixed with oil in them. I think the ratio was two quarts of oil for every 20 gallons of Gasoline. The Army adopted the "Multifuel" M35s during the early 1960s and justified the use of the "Multifuels" M35s in situations when you had gasoline but no Diesel for the trucks. The down side is they were still Diesels but with this additional potential problem of having been run on gasoline (and the redesign of the engine so gasoline could be used). My unit did have to use the system once, we ran out of Diesel on the way to Summer camp, but by the 1980s it was clear gasoline was on the way out and since the 1970s the Army had switched to plain diesels given that with the switch to Diesels for tanks, it was gasoline that was going to be in short supply not diesel. The Additional parts for the "Multifuel" M35s made them less reliable then the older Gasoline Jobs, and thus most were rebuilt with diesel engines even as we retained Gasoline engined M35s (Through we finally turned in out last Gasoline powered M35 2 1/2 ton truck sometime before I left the National Guard in 1991, but not that much before, i.e. at best two years before but we still had then in 1988 when my National Guard Division had a "Full Mobilization" and we had to take them with us for out two week camp).

My point, if you had a Gasoline M35 2 1/2 ton truck that was running in top notch condition (a rare thing even in my days in the National Guard), you had a better cross country vehicle then the Diesel version. Both were slow on Highways (the transmission was design for cross country use NOT highway use) the gasoline, when they ran, just were nicer cross country.

Diesels tend to be less perky then even a smaller gasoline engine. When you switch from a Gasoline to a Diesel engine you have to accept that situation and adjust your driving around it. This is why you do NOT hear of Diesel powered Airplanes or Motorcycles (Both have been made, but in those applications the greater power of the smaller and lighter Gasoline engine wins out).