Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
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
|
Replying to: jerrywimer (Oct 20, 2006 2:33 am) 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. ------------------------------------------------------------ O.K. sir: if that's your only real argument then why did it take extensive testimony and then federal legislation to force the issue? The issue being innacurate EPA fuel economy estimates. And you are wrong to blame consumers for causing poor fuel economy. The way they drive...is just realistic for their situation. Nobody controls their driving environment...traffic density, traffic speed, lites, stops, speed limits....or their fuel composition. Regular gas...is regular gas. What options are there? We didn't each design our 5.3L V8 engine. Here it is again: #2021 of 2049 Re: Why are you surprised? [pdsniper] by rspencer Oct 18, 2006 (6:07 am) Bookmark | Reply | E-mail Msg Replying to: pdsniper (Oct 17, 2006 7:09 pm) Only the naive are missing the reality here. Once more: the blame game will not fix the problem. Once more: EPA's numbers are misleading and a disservice to the public. Legislative action? Oh yes, we have that now. Why does it take federal legislative action to correct a product performance claim problem? Why has U.S. EPA not changed it's methods of estimating fuel ecomnomy for 21 years? Why did it take a mandate in the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005 to effect change in fuel economy estimates? Section 774 of EPACT 2005 instructs the EPA to create new fuel economy measurements that more accurately reflect today’s speed limits, city driving conditions and the use of air conditioning and other fuel depleting features. Was it reasonable to use 45 miles per hour as the representative highway speed for testing for 21 years? Are city driving conditions in Los Angeles representative of most city driving conditions in our country? Do we not use A/C to survive the heat and humidity in places like the south half of the U.S.? Please don't take my word for it. From the U.S. Senate Committe on Energy and Natural Resources... Chairman's statement: “The EPA hasn’t updated fuel economy estimates since 1985. We instructed the EPA to update their fuel economy estimates after hearing from frustrated and disappointed consumers who weren’t getting the mileage from their vehicles that advertisements had led them to expect. “I consider this provision in the energy bill one of the most potent consumer protections in the bill. It will literally influence how American consumers spend tens of thousands of dollars. Buying a vehicle is one of the most expensive choices a family will make. With gasoline hovering at $2.50 a gallon, fuel economy estimates play a huge role in that choice. I am pleased that the EPA is moving swiftly to implement this provision in the energy bill.”
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: rspencer (Oct 20, 2006 6:29 am) In "the real world", where most of us drive, our conditions are nowhere near controlled. From different regions of the country with different temperatures, terrain, and levels of traffic congestion all the way to different drivers with different philosophies on how best to drive (type A "Gotta get there ahead of everyone else" through the "leemeelone guy cruising 5 under in the right lane")- actual experienced fuel economy is going to vary from the sticker number significantly. Changing the way the test is done may bring the number down, better reflecting the way people drive in general today. But it still won't "fix" the problem, because nobody is ever going to see those exact numbers in daily use. The only reason I'm for changing the tests at all is to placate all the people crying because the tests don't simulate their higher speed, rapid light-to-light jackrabbit starts and panic stops. I'm seriously tired of hearing about this everywhere. Before anyone gets the wrong impression I'm not saying there aren't specific instances of a *single* vehicle having some mechanical issue that cause it's economy to drop significantly, regardless of the operator behind the wheel. But by and large this isn't the case. bk777- I hate to break it to you, but it's more like a case of comparing one brand of apples to another. Both are still apples, and both are similar enough to be compared fruitfully (pun intended). If I was talking about a Ford F-150 versus the Tahoe you'd have a better point. And if you didn't know that the Suburban is basically a stretched Tahoe, you've been out of the states for awhile. Check out Chevrolet's web site to compare the two. You might be in for a shock at just how little difference there actually is. (then for grins, go on to the Avalanche page on the same site and look again) Anyway, the good news is that I'm done with this topic. I happen to like all the new GM900 SUVs, and have been in each. So I'll continue to read here (and post), but no more on the fuel economy side. It's pretty obvious that people are entrenched behind their own lines, and all we're really doing is adding pointless additional clutter here. Thanks for the interesting viewpoints anyway.
|
|
|
Report them here: Chevrolet Suburban/GMC Tahoe: MPG-Real World Numbers. tidester, host |
|
|
Replying to: jerrywimer (Oct 20, 2006 7:51 am) #3062 of 4662 Mileage by jerrywimer Mar 04, 2005 (12:45 pm) | E-mail Msg Regular sedan here, but the mileage numbers should be close for the sedan and the maxx anyway- lowest mileage recorded - 24.6 mpg best mileage recorded - 33.1 mpg our usual average (this winter, anyway) ~27 mpg #543 of 1269 Re: Consumers report on EPA figures [micweb] by jerrywimer Sep 07, 2005 (11:12 am) | E-mail Msg Replying to: micweb (Sep 06, 2005 1:48 pm) In mixed driving I personally see between 30 and 32 mpg routinely. The worst tank we've ever had was almost 24 mpg, and included a lot of that bumper to bumper stoplight driving and idling, back during last Christmas shopping season.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: rspencer (Oct 20, 2006 10:23 am) Now, just to satisfy your curiousity- 1) The first post you quote is from March of 2005 (end of winter, early spring). 2) The second post is from September of the same year (end of summer / early fall). 3) My wife is a stay at home mother. She only routinely drives during the school year, when she transports our two children the roughly 5 miles to school (non-interstates). 4) My wife was the primary driver of the Malibu, with me driving the 2004 Silverado. 5) During the summer months, when she didn't usually need the car, I drove the more fuel efficient vehicle (the Malibu). The first post shows our high, low, and overall average at the time it was posted. Keeping in mind that my wife drove the vehicle during the week for the whole winter.. The second post simply mentions the low mileage for the car (note how close it is to the EXACT number I posted in the first response you have quoted- but strictly from memory. I didn't have my logs with me by the computer, and I chose to err on the conservative side). It also mentions that I personally saw between 30 and 32 mpg routinely. Those numbers were per tank, not overall (why it says routinely..) . Keep in mind this was coming out of the summer, when I was the primary driver for either vehicle. I stood by my numbers then, and I still do now. Just for grins, I'll let you in on another secret- my best personal mileage for a trip in that particular vehicle was 35.6 mpg. Not too shabby for one rated 32 HWY by the EPA. Anyway, best to check your facts before you attempt calling me out as posting questionable numbers. I STILL have my logs for the past 4 vehicles I've owned. Being as anal as I am (thank my father) I record the total mileage, trip mileage, gallons purchased, cost of fuel ($ per gallon), where I bought it, and the date I filled up for all my cars. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: rspencer (Oct 20, 2006 10:23 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: jerrywimer (Oct 20, 2006 11:12 am) The tests used scientifically trained and respected people....and procedures that made sense for average, typical driving behavior. No dyno testing...no prototype engines...no 45 mph EPA test speeds, no commercially unavailable fuels, etc. Just plain "here is how us normal people dive our vehicles" type testing. Results: City - 14 MPG O/A - 21 MPG These numbers compare favorably to most numbers being reported by members posting on the Edmunds forum and elsewhere. You claim 36.8 MPG. Why are your MPG claims 75% higher than the CU documented numbers? |
|
|
Replying to: jerrywimer (Oct 20, 2006 11:07 am) #1371 of 1497 Re: For a nice change of pace [sailboatguy] by jerrywimer Jul 10, 2006 (8:20 am) | E-mail Msg Replying to: sailboatguy (Jul 07, 2006 9:31 pm) BTW, nice mileage results! My best was 21.7, but my routine mileage averaged in the 19s. ----------------------------------------------------------- Consumers Union conducted fuel economy testing of 303 vehichles in 2005 using scientifically controlled methods. They documented the results in a published report dated 8/11/2005. Included in the test was a 2004 Silverado 1500, Z71 crew cab, 4WD, 5.3L V8, 4-speed automatic. The results: City - 10 MPG O/A - 14 MPG You are claiming routine O/A in the "19s". If 19.5 MPG(???) is assumed to be your observed MPG...your Silverado would be 39% more fuel efficient than the Silverado tested. Most members with this model Silverado are reporting mileage in the 14-15 MPG range. How do you explain...your claim of obtaining 39% better Silverado fuel economy than the average consumer is achieving? |
|
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
