You are here:
Forums
SUVs
Chevrolet Suburban & Tahoe
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
|
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
|
|
|
Replying to: rhame13 (Sep 19, 2006 7:24 pm) 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?
|
|
|
Replying to: valvestud (Oct 18, 2006 7:29 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: 07denali (Oct 18, 2006 8:51 pm) |
|
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.
|
|
|
Replying to: rspencer (Oct 18, 2006 10:44 am) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: rspencer (Oct 18, 2006 10:15 am) 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. |
|
|
|
|
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).
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: jerrywimer (Oct 20, 2006 2:33 am) |
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs
Chevrolet Suburban & Tahoe
2007 and newer Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Chevrolet Tahoe
2010 GMC Yukon



Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats