Sign In Join 



2007 and newer Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon

3125 messages,  Last post on Nov 27, 2009 at 6:32 PM

You are in the Chevrolet Suburban & Tahoe Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester

What is this discussion about? Chevrolet Tahoe, GMC Yukon, SUV


Messages Page 205 of 313
1
...
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
...
313
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#2040 of 3125
Re: Why are you surprised? [bk777] by valvestud
Oct 18, 2006 (7:29 pm)
Reply

After all this discussion, I'm just excited to be getting 12.7 to 13.2 mpg (all city), in my Denali XL with the 6.2, 380 hp engine. I agree it would be nice to achieve EPA numbers, but they never have and likely never will be real. Gas mileage wasn't a consideration when I bought the vehicle. I moved from an Excursion V10 that got 10-11 mpg, so I'm up 25+%.
 
Joe
#2041 of 3125
Re: 1 Week in Heaven [rhame13] by phustead
Oct 18, 2006 (8:30 pm)
Reply

Replying to: rhame13 (Sep 19, 2006 7:24 pm)

Dear Rhame13,
 
I hear you on two issues, mud flaps for the retractable running boards and IPod interface. The dealer told me the new mud flaps that GMC has had to make to accomodate the retractables are coming. That was 4 weeks ago. Any news on this issue on your end? Frustrating for sure as its hunting season and I'm driving gravel and mud.
  
In terms of IPod interface, I got one of those sticks that goes into the DC hole and powers it, and then it sits up near the radio. Stiff stick so it doesn't shake too much. Then I went crazy trying to find a short male/male 1/8" cord to attach it to the auxillary jack - all the ones available ones are 6 ft.! I finally found an 18" on the internet, then Car Toys had one that is retractable - much better. Then I stumlbed into one about 3" long laying around my house that came with some device. Problem solved, though the whole setup is not as clean as I would like. any news on that front?
#2042 of 3125
Re: Why are you surprised? [valvestud] by 07denali
Oct 18, 2006 (8:51 pm)
Reply

Replying to: valvestud (Oct 18, 2006 7:29 pm)

13 mpg city! I only get 7.7 to 9.5 depending how heavy my foot is with my Denali XL. Best I've averaged is 12mpg 50/50 city & highway.
#2043 of 3125
Re: Why are you surprised? [07denali] by valvestud
Oct 19, 2006 (6:13 am)
Reply

Replying to: 07denali (Oct 18, 2006 8:51 pm)

Wow! I've never been below 12. I do admit, I am pretty carefull about keeping my foot out of it. Given the response when I do punch it, I can imagine my mileage would drop significantly if I wasn't careful.
#2044 of 3125
Coastel Tech Nav Bypass by twernst10
Oct 19, 2006 (6:56 am)
Reply
Any of you who have installed this DVD bypass and done the "clipping" for the Nav bypass having wierd feedback in the rear speakers? I get a thumping coming only from the rear speakers when the volume is turned up, it is not so loud that the speakers are blowing. The fix for it seemd to be to turn the rear audio on, which actually deactivates the rear speakers. I need help on this.
#2045 of 3125
Re: Why are you surprised? [rspencer] by 73shark
Oct 19, 2006 (5:51 pm)
Reply

Replying to: rspencer (Oct 18, 2006 10:44 am)

Update: A recent trip to the Lake of the Ozarks (round trip of ~400 mi 60-75 mph with lots of hills) gave me 19.1 mpg. Have about 3K miles now. In town is now running 13-14. These are calculated numbers. DIC is always within 1 mpg.
#2046 of 3125
Re: Why are you surprised? [rspencer] by jerrywimer
Oct 20, 2006 (2:18 am)
Reply

Replying to: rspencer (Oct 18, 2006 10:15 am)

As I said, I usually get better than average. But I also pointed out to you that it only proves that these vehicles *can* get numbers like what the stickers show. Not that everyone will. It's almost a crime to have to say this again though- where you drive and how you drive affect the mileage you'll see more than any other single thing you can do. So regardless if others are getting lower mileage than me or not there are only a few cases where it's due to some "defect" in the vehicle, and none where it's false adverstizing. BTW, I filled up at just under a half tank (was heading out of town on a long trip yesterday so I topped off). The calculated mpg was back at 17.8 already. So it looks like I was right there too. DIC had 18.3 at the time (so .5 optimistic).
 
So far the DIC is showing around 19.8 since I got back from the trip. I still show more than half a tank this go round, so I'll see where I end up with a greater than usual % of all highway driving when I fill up again sometime next week.
#2047 of 3125
Re: Why are you surprised? [bk777] by jerrywimer
Oct 20, 2006 (2:33 am)
Reply

Yes. It was weird. Mainly annoyed with folks that aren't just skeptical, but nearly offensive in their posts. If we weren't being "told" that it's impossible to achieve the EPA ratings on the window sticker it'd be possible to have more respect for what is being said though. I know lots of people don't get what's on the sticker. And I even agree that the EPA needs to revise its tests so that the tests are closer to the way *most* people drive now. (that being more rabbit starts / stops, lots more idling at stoplights, higher speeds on highways, etc., evidently)
 
My disclaimers were to make sure everyone knew I wasn't talking about a Tahoe, but a close relative of the Tahoe (my 07 Av), and that I know that I tend to be above average on my fuel economy results. I'm not trying to say the Tahoe owners will get exactly the same results I do, nor that I don't believe the low numbers being posted here by others.
 
But like it or not, the current Suburban (and the past several generations) are not much more than stretched length Tahoes (hence heavier) with a few more available drivetrain options (2500 series, for example, 6.0l available in 1500s now, for another). And the Avalanche is nothing more than a modified Suburban. The drivetrains under discussion are the ones shared in common by all three though (5.3l, 4L60E, etc.). The only significant differences would be length, my bed (vs. a rear hatch), and an almost insignificant weight difference (which btw, is in the Tahoes favor, at at least 200 pounds less weight). Therefore it's possible to compare numbers.
 
My EPA sticker is 1mpg lower than the Tahoe sticker (based on posts here) at 15/20. If I'm getting highway numbers equal to or better than Tahoe owners are getting, then either someone has mechanical issues (highly unlikely given the number of complaints) or people aren't driving them where or how they will achieve the better results. That doesn't mean that there's something wrong with either the owner or the vehicles. Maybe where you drive or how you have to drive forces you to make more stops and starts, very slow speeds, lots of idling, and drive at 10+ over the speed limit on the highway.
 
My only real argument is that the numbers GM advertizes and the EPA posts on the sticker aren't false. But because most don't drive conservatively (or aren't able to) and / or not in areas where it's possible to cruise at a steady 55-65 mph for long periods of time, their vehicles don't come close to those numbers in their driving.
 
Suing GM won't fix the problem. Moving / driving differently will help. And EPA changing the way it gets the numbers can make it closer to the real world results most are getting, but won't change the results those people see 1 bit.
 
And my stretched / chopped Tahoe (aka Avalanche) numbers for my more recent trip were posted above. Overall I'm around 19mpg for all tanks. I still have to update the fueleconomy.gov site with info for the last ~2 months- I'm too lazy to average all my individual tanks' averages together myself. But I know that most individual tanks for my regular daily work round trip have returned between upper 18's and mid 19's, so it won't change much from what I've already posted (which averaged out to 19 at that time).
#2048 of 3125
Re: Why are you surprised? [jerrywimer] by junglegeorge
Oct 20, 2006 (4:51 am)
Reply

Replying to: jerrywimer (Oct 20, 2006 2:33 am)

Ok here is my point again. I owned a 2003 Tahoe with an EPA rating of 14-18 and I consistently achieved 15-17 with (best tank was 18.6) I traded this for a 2004 with an EPA of 15-19 and I consistently achieved 14-16 with (best tank was 17.8) . Traded that for the 2007 with a EPA of 16-21 and I consistently achieved 13-16 with (best tank was 17.4) All had the 5.3 / 460 with 3:73 gears. Granted I live in up-state NY and our available fuel is 10% ethanol, and we have our share of hills, and the 07 model is 500 LBS hevier. I never expected to meet of surpass the EPA numbers, however with all the hype on DOD AFM more HP, I thought I would at least be able to achieve the equivalent of the 2003/2004 Tahoes. I honestly believe that the drop in MPG I realized between the 2003 and 2004 was contributed to tire size, the 03 utilized 16’s and the 04 was equipped with 17’s slightly taller tires. I keep hearing that folks that opted for the 4:10 gears are achieving better MPG, if this is true, it would support my theory. My truck has been in the shop enough to qualify for a NYS lemon law review, and both the dealer and GM our aware of this. I am not going to peruse option this until the dealer has exhausted all options with GM. I love the truck, however I paid $53k and I did not expect a reduction in performance. I normally put 50-60k miles on each Tahoe, and my driving habits have not changed. I do not get excited about EPA numbers, however I am very concerned with the downhill track record I have achieved with these 3 Tahoe’s. George

Messages Page 205 of 313
1
...
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
...
313
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement