That's actually a bad sign.
Full ratings, BTW...
Manual: 7.0 L/100km (34 mpUSg) urban, 4.8 L/100km (49 mpUSg) extra-urban, 5.6 L/100km (42 mpUSg) combined
Automatic: 8.6 L/100km (27 mpUSg) urban, 5.5 L/100km (43 mpUSg) extra-urban, 6.7 L/100km (35 mpUSg) combined
Compare to a Golf 2.0TDI 140PS...
Manual: 6.1 L/100km (39 mpUSg) urban, 4.1 L/100km (57 mpUSg) extra-urban, 4.8 L/100km (49 mpUSg) combined
DSG: 6.7 L/100km (35 mpUSg) urban, 4.5 L/100km (52 mpUSg) extra-urban, 5.3 L/100km (44 mpUSg) combined
Now, to extrapolate the error...
US EPA ratings for the Golf TDI: 30/42/34, both transmissions
That comes out to, for manuals: 130%/136%/144% greater on the NEDC cycle
For DSGs: 117%/124%/129% greater on the NEDC cycle
I'll throw out the DSG and automatic numbers, no fair way to compare, but I will keep the manual numbers.
You're looking at 26 city, 36 highway, 29 combined on a manual transmission diesel Cruze on the EPA cycle. And, with those fuel economy numbers, it just plain doesn't make sense to sell a diesel Cruze here - the worst gasser Cruze, the 1.8L automatic, gets 22/35/27, and if we're comparing apples to APPLES... the 1.8L manual gets 26/36/30 - BETTER than a manual diesel would get. And the manual 1.4T Cruze Eco? 28/42/33. (Even the automatic 1.4T Cruze Eco is rated at 26/37/30.)