Cruze and MMO

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: pbm
Wow! You are getting nearly double the MPG that I am with my Cruze.
My DIC says I'm getting 29 mpg but my calculator tells me it's closer to 25.
My Cruze is a very nice car but the mpg's haven't impressed me so-far.


Try some MMO?

Doing mainly rural highway driving helps too. It's common for my car to see 50-90 minutes of highway-speed driving going to/from work every day, depending on which sites I'm working at on a given day. This car is either parked or on the highway. It's easy to get astounding mileage when my average speed for the past 3-4 tanks has been 40 mph.

 

[ltslimjim]

Nice, your cars should last a while.

 

[Vikas]

Can you get your gauge to spit out the timing/knock retard parameter? Does your car support that? Note that this is different than the timing advance which all vehicles have.

Since you are using scangauge, I am suspecting you are setting it up using their hex-code programming at least for the boost as that is not a generic obd-ii parameter. Can you find if there is similar hex-code for retard?

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
Can you get your gauge to spit out the timing/knock retard parameter? Does your car support that? Note that this is different than the timing advance which all vehicles have.

Since you are using scangauge, I am suspecting you are setting it up using their hex-code programming at least for the boost as that is not a generic obd-ii parameter. Can you find if there is similar hex-code for retard?


The 4.16 firmware upgrade on mine supported boost right out of the box. There's an Xgauge for knock that I've been too lazy to input. I'll get around to that and see what it says.

 

[gathermewool]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Can you get your gauge to spit out the timing/knock retard parameter? Does your car support that? Note that this is different than the timing advance which all vehicles have.

Since you are using scangauge, I am suspecting you are setting it up using their hex-code programming at least for the boost as that is not a generic obd-ii parameter. Can you find if there is similar hex-code for retard?


The 4.16 firmware upgrade on mine supported boost right out of the box. There's an Xgauge for knock that I've been too lazy to input. I'll get around to that and see what it says.


Even if not, MAP sensor output is there. Subtract what it reads with the car off and there's your boost.

 

[Sunnyinhollister]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
Originally Posted By: Oregoonian
Originally Posted By: sciphi
Originally Posted By: Oregoonian
sciphi.....are you using 'premium' gas in that Cruze? Is that what the manufacture calls for?

If you are....IMHO...thats just overkill....and a waste of $$$...when 'regular' will do.

Glad your seeing the benifits of MMO. I've been using it for a year now in my Focus...and I see the same benifits as you do.


Being a small, hard-working turbocharged engine, it is indeed running premium. Regular "will do", and is what's stated as the minimum octane in the manual. I've noticed a power/MPG increase on premium. Gas mileage went from 41-42 on regular to 44-45 mpg on premium. It also accelerates faster uphill. Financially it's a wash since the added MPG cancels out the additional $2/tank.

The car has 2600 miles on it currently. I figure with the MMO this early it just might keep everything nice and clean.

IMO....pure plecebo! You either need prenium...or you don't. Possibly the MMO will increase your mileage....but not the preminum gasoline.


Not according to my gas mileage log. Fuel economy went up consistently, and stayed up consistently with premium over regular. No changes in driving style, and the same commute were used.

It's not just me, it's other turbo Cruze owners reporting the same thing too.


The eco must have a different program compared to the regular 1.4L turbo in the LT because I have not noticed ANY increase in MPG using premium in 20k miles. The ecos get waaaayyyyyy better fuel economy when compared to the regular 1.4L cruze. I average 31 mpg driving 90% highway at 63 mph. Pretty poor compared to the window sticker.

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: Sunnyinhollister


The eco must have a different program compared to the regular 1.4L turbo in the LT because I have not noticed ANY increase in MPG using premium in 20k miles. The ecos get waaaayyyyyy better fuel economy when compared to the regular 1.4L cruze. I average 31 mpg driving 90% highway at 63 mph. Pretty poor compared to the window sticker.


My bad on not checking this thread more often!

I've been averaging about 43-45 mpg every tank since using premium. Doing pure highway driving going 58-60 mph the other night my calibrated ScanGauge reported 51 mpg after a 40 mile highway drive. The only road trip we took using premium we got 49 mpg hand-calculated with the cruise control set at 62 mph.

I've been pleased as punch with the fuel economy of this car. It's consistently beat its EPA highway rating. Chevy really did a good job making a "fuel-economy queen" car with the Cruze Eco.

 

[steve20]

If you have to add an additive to a 2012 anything: car, lawnmower, snowblower, for it to work as designed that is not what I would call a good sign
No way on this green earth are you accurately going from a max of 10 psi to 14---a MERE FORTY PERCENT INCREASE IN BOOST just by using premium.
If the vehicle could achieve 51 mpg, or even 49, don't you think The General would somehow have found thAt out and worked that into their ad campaigns for the Eco? No, they'll just ignore it, and hope someone discovers it and post it on a message board somewhere.
I can sum up 3 pages of posts by saying either your calculator or your Scanguage is incorrect.
Case Closed

 

[greenjp]

Originally Posted By: steve20
... I can sum up 3 pages of posts by saying either your calculator or your Scanguage is incorrect.
Case Closed

There's some constructive input

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: steve20
If you have to add an additive to a 2012 anything: car, lawnmower, snowblower, for it to work as designed that is not what I would call a good sign
No way on this green earth are you accurately going from a max of 10 psi to 14---a MERE FORTY PERCENT INCREASE IN BOOST just by using premium.
If the vehicle could achieve 51 mpg, or even 49, don't you think The General would somehow have found thAt out and worked that into their ad campaigns for the Eco? No, they'll just ignore it, and hope someone discovers it and post it on a message board somewhere.
I can sum up 3 pages of posts by saying either your calculator or your Scanguage is incorrect.
Case Closed


Hmm, how come they match to within 0.1 gallons of each other the last 2 fillups? And how come Fuelly agrees with my calculator? Any answers for that?

Apparently you haven't heard of spark knock and computer controlled turbochargers, either. The turbo will only boost to what the computer allows it to. That's how GM programmed this engine. It won't put out all 16 PSI it's allowed on the OEM calibration until it's required. If the PCM calculates the car only needs 9 PSI of boost, it will only boost to 9 PSI. I see that behavior all the time when the car's under load.

Spark knock plays into this by the PCM only advancing timing as much as possible before detecting knock. Advanced timing is better for power. More boost is also better for power. More air plus increased turbocharger pressure means more power. But more boost increases the risk of spark knock. Anything that reduces knock, such as 93 octane fuel and MMO, means more power. More power needed means more turbocharger use. More turbocharger use means it boosts output as asked for by the PCM, and as dictated by turbine speed. Less spark knock means the PCM will command higher PSI before it cuts out.

In summary: Computer controlled turbocharger + less knock = more boost.

Happy?

 

[NateDN10]

Originally Posted By: steve20
If you have to add an additive to a 2012 anything: car, lawnmower, snowblower, for it to work as designed that is not what I would call a good sign
No way on this green earth are you accurately going from a max of 10 psi to 14---a MERE FORTY PERCENT INCREASE IN BOOST just by using premium.
If the vehicle could achieve 51 mpg, or even 49, don't you think The General would somehow have found thAt out and worked that into their ad campaigns for the Eco? No, they'll just ignore it, and hope someone discovers it and post it on a message board somewhere.
I can sum up 3 pages of posts by saying either your calculator or your Scanguage is incorrect.
Case Closed

The EPA highway cycle includes varying speeds with an average of 48mph. It's very possible to beat it. Ever heard of the phrase "your mileage may vary?"

 

[Rickey]

Originally Posted By: steve20
If you have to add an additive to a 2012 anything: car, lawnmower, snowblower, for it to work as designed that is not what I would call a good sign
No way on this green earth are you accurately going from a max of 10 psi to 14---a MERE FORTY PERCENT INCREASE IN BOOST just by using premium.
If the vehicle could achieve 51 mpg, or even 49, don't you think The General would somehow have found thAt out and worked that into their ad campaigns for the Eco? No, they'll just ignore it, and hope someone discovers it and post it on a message board somewhere.
I can sum up 3 pages of posts by saying either your calculator or your Scanguage is incorrect.
Case Closed


Well......Gosh!

My ECO and Dashawk must be suffering the same malady.
Several long (250 plus mile)interstate trips have netted >48 mpg calculated and indicated in my ECO with regular fuel. Premium only tried once netted >50 MPG on the same trip. Yes the General rated this automobile rather conservatively IMHO.

And to further my apparent insanity MMO quietened the fuel pumps in both my ECO and Solstice GXP.

Good day.

Rickey.

 

[Junior96Stang]

In my Mustang the fuel pump makes so much noise. I'll bet nothing will shut that up!