By on September 24, 2015

cruzediesel

Volkswagen may not be the only one that was cheating on their emissions testing. Reports coming out of the European Federation for Transport and Environment are shining light on other manufacturers which could be putting out dodgy emissions figures. I found the Vauxhall Zafira Tourer on one such report and decided to take a look at the Chevy Cruze Diesel due to related engine technology. I was surprised by what I found.

The Zafira Tourer can be equipped with a choice of two diesel engines. The lower trim features a 1.6-liter mill that produces 134 horsepower. The higher trim features a 2.0-liter engine that produces 163 horsepower. The 1.6-liter engine was mentioned in the T&E report as producing 9.5 times more emissions in their real world test than the law allows.

While General Motors may have some explaining to do for the 1.6-liter diesel in Europe, the 2.0-liter may actually be as clean as it promises.

The Cruze Diesel 2.0-liter engine is based on the one of the same size used in Europe, but many changes have been made including a new intake manifold, throttle body system and ceramic glow plugs. The fuel system was also modified to run at 1,600 PSI instead of the 2,000 PSI they see in Europe. Changes in the emissions programming were also made in order to meet U.S. emissions requirements. Both engines employ a diesel particulate filter (DPF) along with a urea injection system.

vcdi

GM may have paved the way for a Volkswagen fix since they were able to lower the NOx output from their engine by making a few hardware changes and adjusting the emissions programming to reduce fueling. These changes are apparent when you look at the specs for the vehicles.

The European engine produces 163 hp and 260 lb.-ft. while the US engine produces 151 hp and 250 lb.-ft.

The fuel economy is also noticeably better for the European version with the heavier Zafira Tourer enjoying a 40 mpg combined rating while the Cruze Diesel is rated at 33 mpg combined by the EPA. All of these changes fall in line with a reduction in fuel injection timing. Reducing the timing causes a decrease in power and fuel economy, but also reduces the NOx output.

One other hint to the changes lies in the CO2 output ratings which put the Zafira Tourer at 220 grams per mile while the Cruze is at 307 grams per mile. This goes in line with a lower NOx output rating for the Cruze as due to the inverse relationship of CO2 and NOx output.

The dirty piece of reducing the injection timing is that more soot is created, which is why many are against such a fix for the Volkswagen diesels. This side effect is apparent in the Cruze as many have complained about soot buildup and the ability of the diesel regen cycle to clean it. The regen cycle in the Cruze burns additional diesel to heat up the particulate filter and clear out the soot, but dealers are running manual regens or increasing the regen cycle to help combat these issues due to the heavy soot build up on some vehicles. While the longer regen cycles will help to combat soot, they will also reduce the fuel economy as more diesel is dumped in order to heat up the filter.

The last piece of the puzzle lies with the aftermarket tuners and how much power they’ve been able to add with just a change in programming. The tuners were able to add 39 horsepower and 50 ft-lbs of torque to the Cruze without making any hardware changes, which likely equates to an advance in the fuel injection timing along with a change in the transmission torque management. The tuner further advertises that soot and DEF fluid usage are reduced while fuel economy is improved, which falls in line with a reduction of CO2 and an increase in NOx. The tuners have basically created a tune for the Cruze to turn into a calibration similar to what Volkswagen TDIs and the Euro-market Zafira Tourer are currently running.

[Image Credits: General Motors]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

132 Comments on “Tech Dive: How the Chevy Cruze Diesel Stays Clean...”


  • avatar
    FormerFF

    The more I read on this topic, the more I’m convinced that diesel is not the way to go for light passenger cars. Save them for medium and heavy trucks.

    • 0 avatar
      Nicholas Weaver

      Yes. Diesel is really bad for cars. The only reason its so popular in Europe is not efficiency but fuel taxes: the taxes (especially taxes per joule of energy since diesel is more dense) on diesel are vastly less than those on gasoline.

      The advantage of diesel over gasoline in efficiency comes from behavior under part-load: a full open throttle gasoline is effectively as efficient as a full open throttle diesel. Its part throttle where diesel shines.

      Thus the proliferation of drive by wire and 8+ speed (or CVT) transmissions in the car space: you lug the engine and you get the efficiency on a gasoline car.

      EG, a quick check on EPA shows the difference modern engineering makes and the effects of diesel’s density. Take a Corolla Eco (CVT). EPA is 30/40/34. Compared with 31/45/36 for a Jetta TDI. But the estimates for “oil use” and CO2 are actually less for the Toyota, because gasoline is less dense, so the Corolla is, in the end, more efficient.

      If this kills the idea of diesel cars in the US, GOOD.

      Oh, and you can’t compare US and Europe fuel economy figures. Not only is the fuel economy in Europe an easier test, but British gallons are significantly larger than US gallons.

      • 0 avatar
        steven_vc

        Bollocks. The main reason because diesels are more popular in Europe is because they’re better and we don’t have Caliephonya Democrats.

        Fact: Diesels have turbo’s and have higher torque output which is what you want as a normal driver. You don’t have to change gear so often, you don’t have to change down for overtaking, the gears are longer than a petrol transmission so at motorway speeds you’ll have at 2000rpm less noise and drive a LOT more economical than a petrol engine which is doing 3000 rpm
        Fact: Diesel in the UK costs MORE per litre than petrol but still diesel cars contribute nearly 50% of UK sales, so it isn’t cheaper… That’s France, Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany you’re talking about
        Fact: they sell on much quicker than petrols
        Fact: they last longer than petrol engines and need less maintenance (the pre Euro 5 models at any rate)
        Fact: They are much more economical than petrol engines particularly at motorway speeds and on country road.
        Fact: If you drive long distances and don’t drive in town you’ll be better of with a diesel engine

        This site is called The Truth About Cars, not The Lies About Cars

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          Fact: conversing in this manner reminds me of Dwight Schrute.

          For starters, these two articles don’t align well with your fact list:

          http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/22/the-rise-diesel-in-europe-impact-on-health-pollution

          https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/03/no-fixed-abode-stupid-paris-stupid/

          It’s a tough time to be a diesel fan.

        • 0 avatar
          Rudolph

          “Fact: If you drive long distances and don’t drive in town you’ll be better of with a diesel engine”
          ▲ CORRECT ▲
          BEND,OR → COLUMBUS , OH via I20 → I84 →I80 → I74 → I70

          Best tank 55.5 mpg ; worst tank 42.7 mpg (65mph)

    • 0 avatar

      Diesel engines have longer strokes than gasoline engines and thus generate more torque in general. That’s why they are so good for trucks.

      SMALL CARS have small engines.

      Small cars benefit from diesel because they provide more torque than an equivalent gasoline engine would.

      Diesel engines typically have truncated torque curves so turbochargers are added to spread that torque longer.

      The reason Europe went diesel over gasoline is because THEY ARE BEING TAXED UP THEIR ARSES by their SOCIALIST GOVERNMENTS.

      This is ALL about government policies.

      And the middlemen sitting back trying to get rich off of regulations that most vehicle developers can’t match.

      And the moment you do meet those regulations, they’ll just dream up more ways to tax you more.

      The GLOBAL WARMING LIE is nothing more than a tax on the taxable.

      The human population itself uses energy and as that population rises, CO2 levels will rise simply because there’s more people.

      Letting them “tax” humans on CO2 expenditure is like charging a tax on trees to drop pine cones.

      And yet people are stupid enough to allow it.

      • 0 avatar
        moorewr

        “GLOBAL WARMING LIE”

        Go away, obvious (and oblivious) troll.

        • 0 avatar

          That’s not trolling.

          You people blindly believe what you’re told and are being TAXED TO DEATH.

          Many of you can’t even afford cars so you don’t even care.

          • 0 avatar
            moorewr

            I see. Although I’m an academic with climate scientists in my immediate family, I’m a blind follower. On the other you have SPECIAL INSIGHT into world climate and emissions from modern industrial society. I bow to your searing intellect.

          • 0 avatar

            It’s OK – you people just don’t get it. I’ll just do my thing and watch you drown in liberalism.

            It’s not like most of you produce anything anyway.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Yep, I guess we don’t need farmers to produce anything.

            Attention, anyone from upstairs: Is this the kind of rational discourse you want from the “B&B?”

          • 0 avatar
            moorewr

            I mean, if BTSR wanted to convince people that high atmospheric CO2 levels are not dangerous, that would be one thing. He’d b e wrong, but at least there would be something where we could get down to points of scientific evidence.

            Arguing over whether it is a “pollutant” is significant only to whether the law governing the EPA covers those emissions. It’s a process argument, not a scientific one, and as far as automobiles go, the EPA clearly does have authority to mandate limits on exhaust emissions.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “It’s OK – you people just don’t get it. I’ll just do my thing and watch you drown in liberalism.”

            How about we just watch you drown in the ocean as sea levels continue to rise?

          • 0 avatar
            Quentin

            “It’s not like most of you produce anything anyway.”

            Strong words for someone that makes videos with the production value on par with that of a drunk 9th grader with Parkinsons.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “So again, combining the argument of man-made global warming with ALL anti global warming is simply wrong.

            This way of twisting an argument is every it as asinine as the anti all global warmers.”
            ————————————————————————-

            Denying that mankind has had an effect on the RATE of global warming is as asinine as the argument that there is no global warming.

          • 0 avatar
            dantes_inferno

            >You people blindly believe what you’re told and are being TAXED TO DEATH.

            A side effect of liberalism.

          • 0 avatar
            Piston Slap Yo Mama

            Dear BigTrucks, Dante and the others who repeat that old saw about being “taxed to death” in the USA: you’re full of shlt. We’re the LEAST taxed 1st world nation. Now go soak your head. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/international.cfm

        • 0 avatar
          TrailerTrash

          Oh…and I come from a family of highly trained and skilled skeptics…

          This is nonsense. Not just your response, but the entire twisting and shell game of your words.
          ANYBODY who says global warming does not exist should be banned from voting and having children. They can’t grasp the basics.
          HOWEVER…ANYBODY who discusses global warming and tries to twist the discussion from natural warming into the very same/all inclusive man-made global warming is equally as idiotic and deceitful.

          This is the very same hurtful twisting of terminology used when combining conservationism with religious hardliners.
          Not even related.

          Of course there is global warming…or the Ice Age would still be here!
          And there is global cooling…or the Earth’s temperatures would never fall.

          Really…let’s get truthful here.

          So again, combining the argument of man-made global warming with ALL anti global warming is simply wrong.

          This way of twisting an argument is every bit as asinine, idiotic and irrational as the anti all global warmers.

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            “HOWEVER…ANYBODY who discusses global warming and tries to twist the discussion from natural warming into the very same/all inclusive man-made global warming is equally as idiotic and deceitful.”

            Unfortunately, the top few degrees of the greenhouse effect, which is subject to our unintentional manipulation, is very significant. For many species, it will be the difference between habitat and not-habitat.

            Twisting the science to suggest that natural warming occurs, therefore anthropogenic warming is unimportant is either ignorance or deceit.

            And discussion of climate alone ignores the other result of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 increase: ocean acidification, which is not going to be doing us any favors, either.

          • 0 avatar
            TrailerTrash

            Kixstart

            That can be discussed.
            And it is not wholly accepted as fact like you seem to suggest. It is a/THE main disagreement by many important scientist regardless of the attempt to destroy and humiliate any that do disagree.
            Dissertation and conversation will not take happen when any disagreement about the cause is turned hateful and religious like emotion take over.
            Not when as a few days ago a few ridiculous leftist environmentalist demanded all scientist that disagreed be jailed for harm to the people.
            Major university research professors have lost their positions for publishing opposition to the man caused global warming argument.
            This is, as I submit again, horrible and stops all science and logic.

        • 0 avatar
          VW16v

          Moorewr, bottom line. You cannot fix stupid. The bubble people are just entertainment. God speed.

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            “It is a/THE main disagreement by many important scientist regardless of the attempt to destroy and humiliate any that do disagree.”

            Who? And did he write a letter or issue a press release or did he actually produce a body of research that indicates something contrary to the IPCC prediction? And did you read their papers yourself or did you just accept at face value some political source’s assertion that it “turns global warming on its head?”

            I ask this because you will find political sources that blow the conclusions of various papers out of all proportion.

            There is very little real disagreement among the principal researchers and that’s just the way it is. And they don’t disagree because of some conspiracy.

            Stop there a minute… If there is such a conspiracy, what’s the reward? Most of these guys don’t get paid much and much of the spend is in data acquisition and analysis, which we’d do no matter what the conclusions were. In fact, the GOP-controlled Congress has let portions of the data acquisition go dark, while claiming, “We need more data.” That’s rather curious, don’t you think?

            They agree on the big picture because the fundamental science is simple, much of the natural variation is understood and, after you factor out the known natural variation, the observed change in climate is in line with the original 100-year-old theory.

            More CO2 leads to more warming.

        • 0 avatar
          Piston Slap Yo Mama

          Refuting a blowhard like Big Trucks? Why on Earth would you waste your time better spent doing any other conceivable activity? His posts make me long for the days of Bertel Schmitt who would summarily axe the accounts of commentators with nothing to add to the dialog. Man, I miss Bertel.

        • 0 avatar
          skwat

          Gotta love all these gawker/jalopnik trolls dragging this once great site down into the liberal ash heap of history…

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            What would you like to discuss? Are you interested in having a conversation?

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            “Gotta love all these gawker/jalopnik trolls dragging this once great site down into the liberal ash heap of history…”

            skwat, I dunno that gawker/jalopnik trolls even come to this site.

            But I do know a number of people who left on their own since Robert Farago sold the site to VerticalScope.

            They weren’t gawker/jalopnik trolls. They were men and women who actually worked in the US auto industry.

            They may have felt that this site had become too Canadian and no longer reflected the values of the US auto industry.

            I do know that in its day, ttac was widely read by people in the US auto industry.

            I miss reading input from Buickman, Dave Ruggles, Marcelo de Vasconcuelos, Steve Lang et al. Those guys have “been there and done that.”

          • 0 avatar
            geozinger

            HDC, I believe what chased off those folks who were industry insiders were these same Best and Brightest who would castigate those insiders because of their own beliefs. They ganged up on the contributors when they posted something that ran against their opinions. Why does TTAC only ever have occasional women posters? Because the boy’s club here will harass them until they go away. Bertel was no great savior, there was no debate with him, he just cut everyone off at the knees. He wasn’t the only one, but the Japanese bondage photos were a pretty clear signal to any women to stay the hell away from here.

            I’ve been on this board for 10+ years now and all of my old friends (and enemies) have left. I still find it occasionally interesting, but the level of discourse diminished years ago and I mostly check in out of rote habit.

      • 0 avatar
        wmba

        “Diesel engines have longer strokes than gasoline engines and thus generate more torque in general”

        Right, sure. Torque is a function of displacement, not stroke. For a given displacement, if you have a relatively long stroke, the piston area compensates by being less than usual to give you the expected displacement.

        This hoary old wives’ tale about long stroke engines giving more torque is repeated wherever no technical knowledge whatsoever runs rampant.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        Diesel cars get better Fuel Economy and are better at towing. Yes they use cars for towing in Europe

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Even medium truck drivers are complaining about that regen cycle effectively stranding them for up to an hour at a time if they run a route.

      Personally, I think diesel is headed for a not-so-slow death in anything less than a heavy truck or commercial transport function such as OTR trucking and railroads.

      • 0 avatar
        balreadysaid

        i just rented an excavator with a regen procedure that will make it run for an hour and if interrupted needs to restart. It blows crap out of the exhaust that smells horrible. I bet that it makes up for its cleanliness over the 10 hours of use in that one hours of self cleaning. Makes no sense to do it like this! I would rather see a removable brick I needed a pitchfork to pull out of the box and I could use it for partial synthetic fire wood……

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      “The more I read on this topic, the more I’m convinced that diesel is not the way to go for light passenger cars. Save them for medium and heavy trucks.”

      That’s been my belief all of my life.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        Same here. The promise of “clean diesel” is apparently as valid as the promise of “clean coal.”

        For trucks applications due to the reliability, durability, and gobs of torque, it makes plenty of sense. POTENTIALLY for some CUV/SUV and midsize truck applications it might make sense if the intent is to use those vehicles as a truck. A Toyota Land Cruiser diesel – that makes sense in my brain. A Honda Pilot diesel – maybe. A HR-V diesel – your nuts, zero reason.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          Still a lot of fleet customers that may benefit from the extra torque and fuel economy of a diesel stay with gas engines. The GM 6.0L and Ford 6.2L V8s are cheaper than their diesel counterparts to acquire and maintain. The are true workhorses.

  • avatar
    sirwired

    So, in summary, to meet US emissions requirements, VW will have to cripple the power and hit the MPG so much that it removes any reason to buy a diesel at all. I think that it’s becoming less and less likely that the “remedy” in the US will simply be anything but a generous buyback program (and the cars will be exported to countries not as picky.)

    (I remember when the Cruze diesel came out, there was a TTAC article talking about how the payback period was 20 years or something vs. the gas engine…)

  • avatar

    The “Global Warming” lie is nothing more than a tax on the taxable.

    Middlemen in government getting rich by passing ridiculously strict regulations on car companies – making them less competitive and waiting to profit on their inability to meet the requirements.

    Middleman who use more energy in one day than I’ll use in a year – flying in their corporate jets and being chauffeured in their luxury cars and yachts.

    Unless you go EV for ZERO emissions, you can’t beat them.

    When you do, they’ll just hike taxes on EV.

    CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT, NOR WILL IT EVER BE.
    CO2 is a consequence of using ENERGY – even if you take the cars out of the equation…animal life needs to exhale.
    Those controlling ENERGY USE control the world.
    The “Global Warming” lie is nothing more than a tax on the taxable.

    Middlemen in government getting rich by passing ridiculously strict regulations on car companies – making them less competitive and waiting to profit on their inability to meet the requirements.

    Middleman who use more energy in one day than I’ll use in a year – flying in their corporate jets and being chauffeured in their luxury cars and yachts.

    Unless you go EV for ZERO emissions, you can’t beat them.

    When you do, they’ll just hike taxes on EV.

    CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT, NOR WILL IT EVER BE.
    CO2 is a consequence of using ENERGY – even if you take the cars out of the equation…animal life needs to exhale.
    Those controlling ENERGY USE control the world.

    I only regret that so many people have been indoctrinated from birth to believe these scam artists.

    And before someone tries to quickly comment about “how this is about NOx and not CO2” – they’ve already gotten the BULLSHIRT BALL rolling by attacking CO2. NOx goes. Then what’s next?

    Eventually they’ll come up with reasons why you should have to share your car with other people – or why you shouldn’t be allowed to use the left lane – in favor of rich people with Model S P90D’s being driven in Ludicrous Mode.

    And then you’ll wake up to find yourselves SLAVES in a land that your progenitors conquered.

    I only regret that so many people have been indoctrinated from birth to believe these scam artists.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

      Here you go.

      • 0 avatar

        Considering I hold an M.S. in Geology and an M.S. in Physics…I already know how to talk to the skeptics and I also recognize that the majority of these IDIOTS are parroting information they hear on MSNBC, CNN or FOX.

        It’s gotten so ridiculous that these IDIOTS over at Fox are buying into the lie just so they can get elected…since these USELESS IDIOTS can’t do anything beyond be talking heads/senators/congressmen.

        ALL OF THEM EQUALLY USELESS.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          Did you read any of it, though? If you’re not interested in having a discussion, that’s perfectly understandable.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            BTSR,
            How about we let the actual scientists do the science stuff while you continue to sell mortgages in Queens, OK?

            If I wanted to hear climate denial from a someone who can’t tell the difference between his fantasies and reality, I’d turn on a Republican debate.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Funny how Marxists are always squawking about those who deny what they believe and they so often they deny the existence of God.

            Personally I’d rather listen to the scientist who doubts the GW claims and then has to investigate them himself than the ones whose livelihoods depend on producing data to fit a narrative.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            It’s sort of amusing that something as basic as the carbon cycle has become politicized by the right.

            Next thing you know, gravity will be exposed as a leftist plot to keep all of us down.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “gravity will be exposed as a leftist plot to keep all of us down”

            That’s gold, Jerry! Gold!

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            “Personally I’d rather listen to the scientist who doubts the GW claims and then has to investigate them himself than the ones whose livelihoods depend on producing data to fit a narrative.”

            And who would that be? Even the big names in skepticism who really do work the science don’t actually disagree with the effect CO2 has on the atmosphere; they are quibbling over the exact magnitude and whether or not other atmospheric effects will serve to moderate the increase.

            It’s not like some giant conspiracy of opportunists noticed in 1999 that temperature had increased lately and invented an effect to account for it. The properties of CO2 have been known for over a century and the notion that we’d put enough CO2 into the air to change the climate was proposed back around 1900 or so. What we’re seeing today is confirmation that the theory is fundamentally sound.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Apparently these people differ from the official narrative:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

            This man claims up to 40% of “qualified scientists” question it (although even if his figure is wrong, 10% is still quite a bit):

            https://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming

            Finally 22% of meteorologists do not agree with the common narrative:

            “A substantial number of expert AMS members—22%
            of the most expert group in our sample—do not subscribe to the position that global warming is mostly human caused.”

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

            Personally I think its a good idea to hedge our bets as a society and slowly reduce carbon consumption over many decades if only in the interest of advancing technology. I think ignoring it completely it not wise but I think what AGW zealots advocate for is committing economic suicide which is precisely why BRICS nations to date have not agreed to anything in regards to climate change.

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            “Apparently these people differ from the official narrative:”

            Have you read their papers? I mean, they’ve done actual research on the topic, right? Not just, “we don’t know” or “we can’t know” or “it’s unknown” but, “Here (list) are the reasons why the conclusion of all you other people are wrong and here (pile of data) is the evidence for that?”

            There’s two names on that list with some chops in the field… Curry and Lindzen. I’m not too familiar with Curry’s record (But is it not possible that she merely gets off on dropping turds in the punch bowl? In any community of a few thousand people, would it be surprising to find a few such people?) but Lindzen has had a number of papers retracted and he’s also published climate papers in pretty obscure and off-topic journals (where his conclusions are not on-topic).

            And, of course, they could well be right. Maybe CO2 has nothing to do with climate. No one has demonstrated that’s the case and the bulk of research finds that, once you’ve figured out and eliminated natural variation, CO2-driven warming fits the observed change pretty well. Keep searching for an alternative, if you like, but if enough research tells me that smoking is bad for my health, then I’d be wise to quit.

            And what’s our punishment for reducing CO2 emissions? New industries and jobs. Oh, the horror!

            I find the reaction of coal miners to be the most pathetic. Since the late 1800’s, coal miners would tell you they don’t want their kids going into mines… and yet the subsequent generations have done just that. We’re at a point where we can close the mines and bring manufacturing jobs (wind turbines and solar panels must be built somewhere) to Coal County, USA, and still they cling to coal mining and dismiss the science as evil.

            Most people interested in this topic would willingly cut a deal, by the way, for a revenue-neutral tax change. Institute a C/CO2 tax and reduce some other tax to match it. It’s not about taxING pEOPle to DEAth, it’s about fixing an insidious and difficult problem.

            Too bad we’ve had the re-purposed tobacco lobby blowing smoke up our butts about this for decades, we could have made a difference by now.

            We’ve built tens of thousands of homes in my town in the last 20 years. Every one of those could have been built to take advantage of active and passive solar heating techniques and they could all have negligible heating bills for the life of the house… yet none do. Pity.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            You are way to into this my friend, please take a breather as a person’s health is invaluable. I’ve never heard of the scientists on that list and frankly I don’t care. The point is there is an opposition comprised of more than one or two professionals. There is a real danger of herd mentality which is why its important to have a viable opposition even if they are wrong.

            “And what’s our punishment for reducing CO2 emissions? New industries and jobs.”

            Like Solyndra? Like Fisker? Like Tesla or SolarCity who continue to exist because of tax credits and corporate welfare? The whole jobs situation in the US is quite complicated but those who cooked up numbers of XXXXXX new jobs in new industries was selling snake oil. The fact is more and more people are being imported both legally and illegally while the number of available -real- jobs is shrinking. I’m sure you’ve seen the statistics showing America’s fastest new growing job was bartender/server. I wish I had a solution but ultimately unless something like solar panel construction requires alot of lower skilled workers, I don’t see the jobs coming.

            I agree with you in solar panels on homes and solar farms in Appalachia as a missed opportunity, such a thing could work. A better use of Federal tax credits on high end hybrids (ie Lexus) and Teslas would be to just give people solar panels for their homes instead of help keeping Musk’s stock price afloat.

        • 0 avatar
          KixStart

          “Considering I hold an M.S. in Geology and an M.S. in Physics…”

          From the “Close Cover Before Striking School of ‘Syents?\'”

          Presuming you’re telling the truth about these advanced degrees (on the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog), then you may be qualified to explain why the known optical properties of CO2 are not responsible for the warming we have seen and why they will not be responsible for any future warming.

          So, do so.

          And the answer is not just “it’S nATurAL VARiaTION,” you must quantify each of the natural processes and their effects, correlate them to reality, and explain what’s really going on with the heat that lab experiments tell us should be retained by the extra CO2 and where that heat went if it’s not busy warming the planet.

          That’s basically the work that is being done. People with a clue have been examining both CO2 effects and all the natural ones and trying to reconcile them with observed reality. It’s not easy and it doesn’t pay well. Most of these guys have the computational skills to make money in Manhattan, if money was what they really wanted.

          • 0 avatar
            Piston Slap Yo Mama

            BEST interactive graphic I’ve yet seen explaining man’s relationship to global warming: http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

      • 0 avatar
        TrailerTrash

        WE should stick to the discussion of cars and in this specific case…the diesel.

        This crowd simply does not have the ability or space to discuss global warming.

        And since anybody who does try to really look at it is immediately branded as a heretic then tarred and feathered, tossed out into the outer limits.

        The fanaticism of the man-is-bad-is-destroying the earth are just as ridiculous and mean-spirited/hateful as the Inquisition mobs set sent out to kill all the sinners by the Holy City.

        Holy City? What in hell is a holy city?

    • 0 avatar
      MattPete

      The “Sewage Treatment” lie is nothing more than a tax on the taxable.

      Unless you go IV for ZERO emissions, you can’t beat them.
      When you do, they’ll just hike taxes on IV.
      SHIT AND PISS is NOT A POLLUTANT, NOR WILL IT EVER BE.
      SHIT AND PISS is a consequence of using ENERGY – even if you take the cars out of the equation…animal life needs to shit and piss.

    • 0 avatar
      notapreppie

      So, what flavor is that Kool-Aid you’re drinking?

      • 0 avatar

        Orange Strawberry Banana.

        Because I was sold on fewer than 100 years worth of Satellite data and Al Gore’s movie…

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          http://grist.org/climate-energy/one-hundred-years-is-not-enough/

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          Al Gore’s movie is old enough now that most of his predictions have had the time to reveal themselves as false, but believers are unmoved. Sickness.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            I bow before your superior wisdom. But just in case, here’s a refresher:

            http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

            I never claimed any faith in Al Gore’s movie, because there are better proofs elsewhere. Tell me, where do you get your data?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Wait, the Earth doesn’t have a fever?

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            “Wait, the Earth doesn’t have a fever?”

            I heard that the only prescription is more cowbell.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          “Because I was sold on fewer than 100 years worth of Satellite data and Al Gore’s movie…”

          I was sold on 7 days of personal observation… and never saw Al Gore’s movie. But then, I also saw the effect on air pollution in my home city back in the 60s, when before the pollution laws took effect, you couldn’t see a mountain 20 miles away but is now the landmark it used to be every single day.

          That “100 years of satellite data” (really only 50 years or so) is just evidence that helps to prove what our own eyes have been seeing for 200 years. If you bother to do some research in historical writings–even fiction of all places–you can see that the pollution was being observed and the effect it was having on the land even then. Moreover, verbal history from then into biblical times and before proved what different forms of pollution–granted, natural pollution–could do to global climate just in the short term of days that affected the weather for years. The history is out there, it is up to us and our descendants to learn from these events and find ways to minimize the human impact on our world. Because if we don’t, our world will certainly destroy us.

    • 0 avatar
      Tomifobia

      If global warming is a lie, can you explain why the glaciers are melting?

      • 0 avatar
        cartunez

        This is like asking if God is real why can’t you see him. If you want to discuss real science then lets do it but cut the hyberbole from both sides you look like idiots.

        • 0 avatar
          Tomifobia

          Glaciers are melting. That is not hyperbole. It is clear that the planet is getting warmer. I don’t know what’s causing it, but to totally dismiss it is plain foolishness.

          • 0 avatar
            cartunez

            Yes glaciers are melting but without knowing why anything you do is just ridiculous. Are you a ready shoot aim type of person? Tons of others reasons why the earth might be warmer (or cooler) at any given moment in time other than car emissions. Maybe you have heard about a lil natural thing called Mount Vesuvius which has at various points in history put out more in terms of pollution than all of mans recorded history combined. As I stated earlier check your nonsense and government based voodoo against real science and you will be much better off.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            @cartunez:

            http://grist.org/climate-energy/volcanoes-emit-more-co2-than-humans/

            http://grist.org/climate-energy/natural-emissions-dwarf-human-emissions/

            There ya go. Also, don’t use ad hominem.

          • 0 avatar
            Tomifobia

            @cartunez: I never said anything about cars causing it. I said “I don’t know what’s causing it.” It could be cars, it could be volcanos, it could be a natural cycle of the planet. Mr Bigtrucks seems to feel that nothing is happening at all, which is contradicted by visual and scientific evidence all around us. Okay?

          • 0 avatar
            cartunez

            HOW TO TALK TO A CLIMATE SKEPTIC: RESPONSES TO THE MOST COMMON SKEPTICAL ARGUMENTS ON GLOBAL WARMING

            @Drzhivago138 This is not a site I can take seriously. Read the tagline. This climate change nonsense has taken the form of religion with most people which means trying to get decent discussion is impossible. I didn’t say that the climate isn’t changing hell I hope its is changing but I disagree with this voodoo science nonsense being trotted around as science. I suppose you are part of the homoapthic crowd that thinks we can just chant and pray away illnesses as well. The ignorance is the worse part of the human condition because the ignorant have (and continue) held society back for so long.

          • 0 avatar
            05lgt

            Dr. Z, I don’t trust grist.com the way you do. USGS (not run by BTSR) says the opposite. Clearly and unequivocally.
            “http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php”

            Stop telling me things you read on a gum wrapper while your sitting on the biggest library ever made. Choose better food for your brain. Grist is junk food and has left you with an unhealthy mind.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            I only use Grist because it’s got the easiest UI. Would you like to look at the data presented by NASA?

            http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

            If you’re resorting to ad hominem attacks (“homeopathic crowd,” etc.), you must not have anything better to say. Thanks for being a mature adult about the issue.

            @05lgt: Did you even read the page?

            “While sulfur dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has occasionally caused detectable global cooling of the lower atmosphere, the carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has never caused detectable global warming of the atmosphere. […] Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.””

      • 0 avatar
        Toad

        “If global warming is a lie, can you explain why the glaciers are melting?”

        Yet yesterdays Washington Post had a headline “Antarctic Sea Ice Hits 35 Year Record High.” That is not supposed to happening according to current scientific theory. Apparently the science is not quite so settled.

        I have lived through various supposed environmental emergencies: The Population Bomb, The Coming Ice Age, Global Warming, and now Climate Change. The problems are always different, but remarkably the solutions are always the same.

        • 0 avatar
          moorewr

          @Toad

          That article is from 2013, not yesterday. Some information on Antarctic ice:
          https://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      The core of Logic is Cause and Effect. There are many of us who use logic, not emotion, to determine our lives and the world around us. Logic, not emotion, demonstrated just how much we as humans are polluting our atmosphere and CO2–in excess–is a pollutant, though not THE pollutant. A certain amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is needed to support life, but in excess becomes a poison just as deadly as chlorine gas, albeit bringing life to a slower and more painful death.

      Ever wonder why there are CO2 scrubbers on submarines and spacecraft?

      But I personally experienced a far more visible and dramatic effect of mankind’s pollution on September 11th, 2001, when civil aviation was grounded in the US for a full week. Within a mere 48 hours our skies cleared and temperatures dropped roughly 5 degrees below forecast temperatures until the planes started flying again.

      Cause and Effect. Logic. We ARE affecting our world’s temperatures, whether you want to believe it or not. The proof is out there. I cannot make you change your mind with mere words, but the world itself will make you change your mind if you only bother to pay attention to it. Either that, or it will kill you in your conceit.

      • 0 avatar
        Matt Foley

        “The planes stopped flying and we had a week of sunshine and cool weather; therefore, AGW is real”?

        How is that any different from the conservative argument “We’ve had three really cold winters in a row where I live; therefore, AGW is false”?

    • 0 avatar
      carlisimo

      This issue isn’t even related to global warming. NOx produces local pollutants, especially ozone, a lung irritant.

      • 0 avatar
        EAF

        The amount of human induced CO2 output into our atmosphere, since the dawn of man’s existence, is the equivalent to the CO2 output of striking a match in a 20′ x 20′ x 10′ room.

        I’m not a scientist, I only read what popular scientists have published.

        I go back and forth on the topic, either side can easily convince me, unlike the topic of the invisible magic man who dwells in the sky.

      • 0 avatar
        moorewr

        @carlisimo
        “This issue isn’t even related to global warming. NOx produces local pollutants, especially ozone, a lung irritant.”

        Give this man the Internet.

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    Even if VW issues a recall to fix all the disputed engines, it won’t be long before the aftermarket comes up with a way to fix the fix that provides more power, lower fuel consumption and fewer engine deposits at the expense of higher emissions. Unless you live in a state with emission testing, you won’t even need to temporarily put the car back to stock for the test.

    In the late 1970s, I knew of a couple of engineers who had a side business ripping off emission controls so that the cars would run decently. It’s not the problem it was back then but it’s clear there is more to be had if you ignore emissions limits.

    • 0 avatar
      moorewr

      “Removing the cats” is still a routine modification by car nuts.

      • 0 avatar

        That was one of the first things that popped into mind as VW tuners were already selling DPF and Adblue delete kits and I am sure enthusiasts will jump on them if the parts are changed out. Even if it is just a software fix, many will go to tuners to get the original calibrations

        • 0 avatar
          Luke42

          I can often smell those cars when they go by during my morning jog.

          There aren’t many cars with pollution controls removed. Most of them are people who are too poor to be able to maintain a vehicle properly.

          It’s a small minority of people who do this, and my state does not have emissions testing.

  • avatar
    th009

    “The European engine produces 163 hp and 260 lb.-ft. while the US engine produces 151 hp and 250 lb.-ft.”

    Is that 163 hp DIN vs 151 hp SAE? If yes, then there really isn’t much of a difference between the two numbers.

    • 0 avatar
      moorewr

      This is the most reassuring thing I have yet read about what the revised TDI will be like. All right, VW, hand the EPA a car to test and hand your owners a stack of free engine cleanings.

    • 0 avatar
      toplessFC3Sman

      On a similar note, are the quoted MPG numbers from the same test? It seems unlikely since the Zafira isn’t sold in the US, and the Cruze diesel (if it exists in Europe) would most likely have the European version of the 2.0 liter diesel. Not only is the European test much easier, but if the MPG numbers are from a British source, they use a larger “gallon” than the US uses

  • avatar

    Hey Bozi,

    What are the differences between the Family Z(Cruze) and Family B(Zafira) engines?

    • 0 avatar

      Hi Derek,

      My understanding is that the US Cruze diesel (LUZ) is built upon the the Family B architecture like the Zafira.

      The Family B (JTD) engine is 83×90.4mm bore and stroke and displaces 1956cc while the Family Z engine is square with a 86x86mm bore and stroke and displaces 1998cc.

      The Cruze does use the Family Z engine in other markets and looking at the specs for the Australian model which uses the Family Z motor I see it outputs 283 grams of CO2 per mile which is slightly lower than the Family B motor used in the US at 307 grams per mile which means that the Australian model likely produces more NOx.

      Both of the motors ran 16.5:1 compression initially but the Family Z engine was lowered to 16.3:1 along with a few other changes a few years in an effort to reduce emissions.

      The Family Z engine runs a Mitsubishi TD04L10 turbocharger in most applications while the Family B runs an integrated Garrett unit.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        You can’t compare the Aussie fuel economy/ CO2 test results to the EU or the US, either.

        You need to understand that these tests are not comparable to each. They’re all different. You can compare US to US, EU to EU, and Australian to Australian, but don’t mix them together.

  • avatar
    seth1065

    It seem that the correct thing is all TDi’s are just traded in for Hellcats so the air we breath would be much better off.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    Looks like GM did their homework in bringing their small diesel to the states, and followed Google’s original motto “Don’t Be Evil” [at least in this one instance]

    As for aftermarket tuning of the diesel Cruze, I wonder if any owners have enough of a sense of humor to slap “DZ24” badges on their modified rides.

  • avatar
    dwford

    The regular old gasoline engine is looking better and better. There is so much room in gasoline for economy improvements – most engine still don’t have DI, cylinder deactivation, start/stop, etc. There’s lean burn cycles that can be used. Diesel just doesn’t seem to be worth the costs.

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      You start using lean burn and you’re going to have the same NOx problems as diesel.

      • 0 avatar
        JD23

        I’m curious whether gasoline DI engines will eventually be proven to emit excessive NOx. My Audi’s DI engine certainly has a problem with particulate emissions based on constantly filthy tailpipes.

        • 0 avatar
          Bangernomist

          Yes, there have been NOx issues with GDI engines already. It’s the heat of combustion in a high compression engine that is the problem…the N2 molecular bond dissociates and the newly single N atoms hook up with some random O they met at the party.

          One more place where efficiency and clean air are dead set against each other. Mazda reduced the compression on their Skyactiv-D diesel to get by NOx standards without an AdBlue injection system. They still couldn’t quite meet EPA limits and scuttled their USA intro. I bet they’ve been wondering what VW did up until last week.

    • 0 avatar
      Piston Slap Yo Mama

      Lean burn was phased out from the 1st gen Insight for the very same increased NOx reasons. It’s interesting driving one – when conditions are optimal, flat road, right speed, certain temperature range your efficiency gauge suddenly jumps from 50mpg to 70mpg. It’s too bad that emissions laws preclude that feature.

    • 0 avatar
      nickoo

      DI is bad bad bad. The nanoparticle soot from DI is a horrible pollutant and the fact that it is completely unregulated is a huge failure by the EPA/Government.

      We should be using electrolysis created hydrogen injection into the air intake on all cars as part of the emissions control system. It can be added to a car for a few dollars and you simply need to fill your water tank every now and then to keep it running. Hydrogen when mixed with the intake airstream (and eventually the gasoline) creates significant soot and pollutant reductions by significantly increasing mixing which creates more complete combustion.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Cruze Diesel sounds like a nice deal. You get the somewhat competent Delta II platform and a diesel which is not being held to scrutiny and yet can be chipped to be all around awesome.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      Sadly the Cruze Diesel is accounting for about 2% of sales and (I believe) has been cancelled with the platform update.

      On Autotrader the dealers I see that have one either think you should pay full sticker or are perfectly willing to knock a few thousand off.

      I always thought it was a good deal because once you accounted for the fact that Diesel Cruze’s start at the LT2 trim level the price premium for the diesel was very low.

      • 0 avatar
        philadlj

        According to the Detroit News, the 1.6 diesel will indeed be offered on the 2017 Cruze.

        I imagine the plans are to modify it in a similar fashion to the 2.0 for states duty.

        The U.S. is even getting a hatchback version, perhaps to better do battle with the Focus.

        • 0 avatar
          JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

          Focus and Civic, which will also offer a 5 door soon. Im glad harchbacks have made it back to this segment, and offered in three of the best cars in the segment (to include the redesigned Cruze and Civic of course). Id just like to see 3 door hatches on offer, but Ill take what I can get.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        MY15 Cruze Diesel trades 17,7-19,6 (highest showing 10K lowest 60 miles) with MY14 not showing a diesel option. Considering it starts at 25,6, perhaps an opportunity in a year or so.

      • 0 avatar
        jonnyanalog

        with diesel prices so low and most dealers selling well below sticker (I’ve seen them as low as $19500) this is heck of a deal. Plus, a Cruze will probably hold up better than a Jetta long term anyway.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          Honestly (feel free to laugh) part of the attraction for me is hp and torque numbers that best the small block V8s that were in family cars during my youth.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            But with much better fuel economy. Diesel works when things are reasonable and not dictated by zealots who are against the technology in all forms.

          • 0 avatar
            psarhjinian

            “Diesel works when things are reasonable and not dictated by zealots who are against the technology in all forms.”

            Diesel works when we don’t need to concern ourselves with things like breathable air.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I guess you’d rather starve then since the majority of the food we buy comes in on diesel trucks and diesel-electric trains.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      With the Cruze, you are still better off with the 1.4T with the manual. The Cruze Eco, despite it’s stupid name, is an excellent package with the manual transmission. I find it much less excellent with the automatic. 28/42 is as good as what you’ll get with the diesel, and it’s cheaper.

  • avatar
    moorewr

    This was a great article. It’s the first time that I have felt like I had handle on what changes VW will have to make on their cars with urea tanks to be legal, and how bad the performance hit will be.

    If the situation is like the Euor- and US-diesel Cruze, the 2.0 liter VW ends up around 140 hp and 240 lb-ft., and roughly the EPA MPG numbers.

  • avatar
    niky

    I would not directly compare European economy claims with EPA claims, due to the gross differences in testing, but the differing power levels and CO2 levels basically paint the picture.

    VW had a very easy fix early on to meet US EPA standards, but they were pushing to be a leader in diesel sales, and wanted to keep the performance and economy they felt they needed to attract buyers.

    Shame. That 2.0TDI is a much better engine than the 2.0VCDi in the Cruze, economy-wise. Not for much longer, now.

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      CO2 levels are no more comparable than fuel efficiency. They are directly related and completely dependent on the test cycle. The Euro cycle routinely gives lower CO2 emissions/higher fuel efficiency.

  • avatar
    kvndoom

    Buy back the cars, sell them to ISIS and cut your losses.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    “The fuel economy is also noticeably better for the European version with the heavier Zafira Tourer enjoying a 40 mpg combined rating while the Cruze Diesel is rated at 33 mpg combined by the EPA.”

    This is apples and oranges. You cannot compare the two test cycles because they are totally different.

    The European ratings are always considerably higher than the EPA ratings. One example:

    Toyota Prius in Europe: 60/60 (US mpg)
    Toyota Prius in US: 51/48

  • avatar
    VoGo

    Just wanted to thank Bozi for all he does to make TTAC worth a look every morning. Great insight, as usual!!

  • avatar
    1998redwagon

    can anyone comment on how the north american cruze handles nox modification? does it use a nox trap like the golf/jetta or urea injection like the passat?

    if the latter the passat fix seems to be ecu modification and there may not be enough that can be done for the golf/jetta that just use the light nox trap method.

  • avatar
    W.Minter

    Some more data.
    Cruze Diesel US (ULEV) vs. Cruze Diesel UK (EURO 5) (there was one MY12-14).
    Both ATM, sedan.
    The difference isn’t dramatic despite different cycles.
    I can’t find any NOx value from the USDM cruze, so I opt for maximum. LEV II ULEV sez: max. 50 mg/mi –> max. 31 mg/km (Euro 5: max. 180 mg/km).

    Mod | Cruze Diesel (Sedan) ATM US | Cruze Diesel (LNP) (Saloon) ATM UK MY12
    hp | 151 US | 163 EU
    FE | 7.1 lhk* | 6.6 lhk**
    CO2 | 188 g/km (recalc) | 175 g/km**
    NOx | max. 31 mg/km*** | 118 mg/km****

    The EU Cruze does not use / AdBlue. No SCR.
    The US Cruze has a SCR System. 4.5 gal / 17 l tank*****. Good for 10,000 mi / 16,000 km = 1 l / 1,000 km.

    Read: You need a lot of Adblue to reach nice NOx levels.

    Sources:
    * http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33578&#tab1
    ** http://www.chevrolet.co.uk/pdf/manuals/Cruze_J300_EU_MY12_gb_en_RHD.pdf
    *** https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_ca.php
    **** http://www.nextgreencar.com/view-car/41227/chevrolet-cruze-saloon-2.0-vcdi-lt-auto-diesel-automatic/
    ***** More on the engine: http://articles.sae.org/11789/

    Add.:
    http://www.chevrolet.com/diesel-vehicles.html
    http://www.chevrolet.com/cruze-compact-car/specs/trims.html

  • avatar
    RS

    How did the river polluting EPA miss this for so long? What’s their punishment?

    As far as global warming goes…”I’ll believe global warming is a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis start to act like it’s a crisis themselves.”

  • avatar
    jthorner

    In other words, diesel is a poor technical solution for small vehicles.

  • avatar
    steven_vc

    Could someone tell the author that he is wrong about the very basis of his article?

    The GM diesel put in the US Chevrolet is not the 2.0 CDTI engine of Opel at all

    It is the Family Z engine developed by GM Torino (Italy) and manufactured in South Korea by Chevrolet. The Opel engine is a derivative of a FIAT engine. They are NOT the same engines at all. Even the compression ratio is different.

    The Opel Antara SUV (Saturn Vue) does use a 2.2 CDTI engine from the Family Z engine lines since it is also an imported Daewoo/Chevrolet. This engine is seperate from the 2.0 CDTI engines.

    The Chevrolet engine is called VCDI and when it was sold here in Europe, the press was unanymous that it was worse than the 2.0 CDTI from Opel, The new 2.2 Family Z CDTI was however a vast improvement.

    • 0 avatar

      You are correct in regards to the European engines but the US engine is different.

      The Euro Cruze had a 1991cc RA420 engine and was later replaced with the 1998cc Family Z engine and was backed by a GM 6T45 automatic transmission along with various manual transmission options.

      In the US, it has only been available with the 1956cc LUZ (Family B) Engine and an Aisin-Warner AF40-6 automatic transmission.

      More info on all US engines and transmissions here: http://www.gmpowertrain.com/product_guide/REV_FP_2014_Information_Guide_102213.pdf

  • avatar
    415s30

    Well I like my W123, how does it compare :P

  • avatar
    Rudolph

    I believe I’ll keep the 1.9l , 5 manual for a while •

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • FreedMike: I don’t mind motorcycle content, but calling this a “review” is quite a stretch –...
  • el scotto: Chargers at the organic grocery store (duh), chargers at the normal grocery store, even chargers at...
  • SCE to AUX: “That’s somewhere between $3,750-$6,250 per EV.” That’s clever. Here’s a...
  • el scotto: OK, I’m getting real tired of the pop-up Lexus ad. More importantly, why do we have a motorcycle...
  • FreedMike: @Art: Don’t get banned over this clown. Seriously…he ain’t worth it.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber