You are here: Forums SUVs Chevrolet Suburban & Tahoe 2007 and newer Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon

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 209 of 313 1 ... 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 ... 313 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#2080 of 3125 About time by canddmeyer Nov 13, 2006 (8:24 pm)
It's been very aggravating not getting any info from my #1 source for automotive information. I already see more posts today than the past three weeks.
#2081 of 3125 Re: Why are you surprised? [nosbor77] by jerrywimer Nov 14, 2006 (3:12 am)
Replying to: nosbor77 (Nov 13, 2006 2:08 pm) Yep. Toyota and Nissan with their even worse gas mileage and *never* running in four cylinder mode, even slightly downhill or with the driver's foot off the throttle really sounds better than these GM products right now.   (unless of course, you buy a four cylinder Toyota or Nissan- but then you could've bought a four cylinder GM just as easily. It just wouldn't have been a full-sized one. ). Replies to this message: nosbor77 (Nov 14, 2006 8:47 am) jerrywimer (Nov 14, 2006 9:00 am) nedzel (Nov 14, 2006 9:46 am) rspencer (Nov 15, 2006 8:58 am) and 9 more... jay_24 (Nov 14, 2006 12:21 pm) bk777 (Nov 20, 2006 9:23 am) nosbor77 (Nov 20, 2006 9:57 am)
#2082 of 3125 Re: Why are you surprised? [jerrywimer] by nosbor77 Nov 14, 2006 (8:47 am)
Replying to: jerrywimer (Nov 14, 2006 3:12 am) I'm already getting crappy mileage with GM. Therefore your mileage comment has no point. My experience with Toyota & Nissan is that they actually get the mileage that EPA estimates and often times better. Also, you know what you're getting with Toyota or Nissan. They don't make claims that they can't hold up. That little stunt GM did with their AFM marketing ploy makes me question other things about GM and their motives when designing an automobile. Remember, I was never in search of a 4cyl truck or SUV, but GM's claims that it drops to 4cyl when cruising on the hwy obviously helped sucker me into giving GM one last chance over their competitors. Stick with your GM for all I care.. I made a mistake and have learned my lesson. Some people don't learn so quickly. Replies to this message: jerrywimer (Nov 14, 2006 9:00 am) nedzel (Nov 14, 2006 9:46 am) rspencer (Nov 15, 2006 8:58 am) nosbor77 (Nov 15, 2006 3:47 pm) and 1 more... jerrywimer (Nov 16, 2006 2:47 am) and 3 more... bk777 (Nov 17, 2006 7:25 am) and 2 more... jay_24 (Nov 14, 2006 12:21 pm) bk777 (Nov 20, 2006 9:23 am) nosbor77 (Nov 20, 2006 9:57 am)
#2083 of 3125 Re: Why are you surprised? [nosbor77] by jerrywimer Nov 14, 2006 (9:00 am)
Replying to: nosbor77 (Nov 14, 2006 8:47 am) I guess that'd be you then. Because I've learned that I rarely if EVER got better than EPA estimates with the imports I've owned. I'll give the Toyotas this much- they were very consistent (extremely little variation in economy results regardless of general driving conditions). On the other hand, my results with GM vehicles can vary greatly, including going beyond the EPA estimates easily if driven correctly.   Sorry to hear you leaving the fold though. Enjoy your imports..
#2084 of 3125 Re: Why are you surprised? [nosbor77] by nedzel Nov 14, 2006 (9:46 am)
Replying to: nosbor77 (Nov 14, 2006 8:47 am) "My experience with Toyota & Nissan is that they actually get the mileage that EPA estimates and often times better. Also, you know what you're getting with Toyota or Nissan. They don't make claims that they can't hold up." Guess you don't own a Toyota Prius -- they get pretty darned good mileage, but generally quite a bit less than the estimates. Same for the hybrid Highlander. Replies to this message: rspencer (Nov 15, 2006 8:58 am) nosbor77 (Nov 15, 2006 3:47 pm) rspencer (Nov 16, 2006 7:16 am) jerrywimer (Nov 16, 2006 2:47 am) bk777 (Nov 17, 2006 7:25 am)
#2085 of 3125 Re: Why are you surprised? [nosbor77] by jay_24 Nov 14, 2006 (12:21 pm)
Replying to: nosbor77 (Nov 14, 2006 8:47 am) Check out the honda boards. Civic owners range from 20 mpg to 42 mpg. 20mpg happens to be about 12 bellow the EPA city rating. Pilot owners are also getting various results. Some in the 12mpg other in the 22 to 24mpg range.   Not much has been posted about the 3 cylinder deactivation they have, other than it tends to be very noisy when in 3 cylinder mode.   Basically GM isn't alone and you can't say all the imports are better.
#2086 of 3125 Re: Why are you surprised? [nedzel] by rspencer Nov 15, 2006 (8:58 am)
Replying to: nedzel (Nov 14, 2006 9:46 am) A credible and definitive research study was done by Consumers Union recently. Dated 8/11/05. It measures fuel economy for 300+ vehicles...both domestic and foreign. The Tahoe city numbers that Edmunds.com is getting from their long term Tahoe testing is pretty consistent with this report's finding. Think Edmunds is at 12.5 MPG city.   You can find the Consumers Union report at http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_product_safety/002632.html   The guy jwimmer on this forum who claims outrageous fuel economy numbers is not even driving a Tahoe. His 18 MPG city mileage claims are not anything even close to what other forum members are getting City. Must be the "correct" driving that nearly doubles his mileage...or somethin'...yeah SOMETHIN'.   I have to agree with you. The numbers that I checked in that Consumers Union report for Japanese vehicles that I've owned(Toyota, Honda, Lexus, Infiniti, Nissan)are pretty accurate based on my personal experience. They don't seem to overstate the numbers.   The GM numbers for Tahoe are just not accurate. GM's Tahoe numbers of 16-21 MPG are just not achievable for those of us who are driving Tahoes. Fuel economy credibility is apparently not a major problem for GM...they sell around the issue...and hook guys like you and me with fancy ads...and AFM fluff...that sounds good...and does not deliver. Replies to this message: nosbor77 (Nov 15, 2006 3:47 pm) rspencer (Nov 16, 2006 7:16 am) jerrywimer (Nov 16, 2006 2:47 am) bk777 (Nov 17, 2006 7:25 am)
#2087 of 3125 Re: Why are you surprised? [rspencer] by nosbor77 Nov 15, 2006 (3:47 pm)
Replying to: rspencer (Nov 15, 2006 8:58 am) 12.5 mpg is about what I get in city so that sounds about right. I'm not really hard up about the mileage. I bought the Tahoe with the thought that "I'll beleive it when I see it". But I can't beleve they can get away with the AFM claims. When you consider that people are spending $30-40k + for a product, there should be no room for missrepresentation & you should expect to get what you were told you'd be getting.   People who try to protect GM are doing so b/c they are in love with the name & are in denial that they've been fooled by them.. (Kinda like when you hear your girlfriend is cheating on you & you don't want to beleive it) Then they try to distract you off the subject by bringing up things that have nothing to do with the original complaint. When, what they are really doing is trying to talk themselves into feeling that its ok b/c they're affraid of facing reality. Replies to this message: rspencer (Nov 16, 2006 7:16 am)
#2088 of 3125 z71 '07 by seagrave Nov 15, 2006 (5:02 pm)
Anyone know when the new z71 for '07 are coming out?
#2089 of 3125 Re: Why are you surprised? [rspencer] by jerrywimer Nov 16, 2006 (2:47 am)
Replying to: rspencer (Nov 15, 2006 8:58 am) Sorry rspencer, but I haven't claimed my 18mpg are city. All of my mileage is currently biased to >50% highway (most of it >80%). My worst so far has been better than 17 though, with a greater than usual amount of city driving in the mix. Not sure where you got the 18 city part from, but please stop making stuff up and attributing it to me.   The only part you have right is that my mileage numbers are higher than what you claim possible. And the fact that my non-Tahoe, using the EXACT same drivetrain, with worse aerodynamics, and more weight, gets numbers very much in line with the Tahoe EPA estimates has already proven you wrong about the numbers being acheivable. If you'd said "not acheivable where we drive," or "not acheivable the way we drive" then I couldn't fault your comment though.   Lastly, there's nothing outrageous about any of the numbers I've posted anywhere. If you check, you'll see that they're well within the EPA numbers (or no more than 10-15% higher, well within the "adjustments" made by EPA after their tests). I don't and would never claim to get mileage that competes with what "hypermilers" get (google that to see what I mean). Not that their results don't impress me, but I like to drive my vehicle fairly normally.

Messages Page 209 of 313 1 ... 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 ... 313 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums SUVs Chevrolet Suburban & Tahoe 2007 and newer Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon