Ask the Car People.SM


GMC Acadia Real World MPG

251 messages,  Last post on Mar 20, 2013 at 8:45 AM

You are in the GMC Acadia Forum.

What is this discussion about? GMC Acadia, Fuel System, SUV

Messages Page 20 of 26

#188 of 251 Re: Poor Mileage [huedawg] by hsalinas

Dec 03, 2011 (7:08 pm)

Replying to: huedawg (Nov 21, 2011 5:45 pm)
I have already commented on this thread earlier. I just want to re-iterate that if there is anybody here gathering information to form a class action suit against GM or GMC then I would like participate. I purchased (2) 2011 GMC Acadia's, (1) Denali and (1) SLT2 for my company and I am really annoyed with the false information especially with the EPA labeled on the fuel mileage. The vehicles that were replaced are Toyota and I refused to buy foreign but DAMN I regret it, I don't even want to use these vehicles because it kills me to see the needle go down so quickly when I just drive around town.

#189 of 251 I'm confused by obyone

Dec 03, 2011 (7:43 pm)

There seems to be a discussion regarding a class action lawsuit based on mileage people are gettting with their Acadias. GM is not responsible for the EPA label. It says EPA label so guess the EPA is responsible for THEIR label.
 
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/

#190 of 251 Re: I'm confused [obyone] by steve_ HOST

Dec 03, 2011 (8:21 pm)

Replying to: obyone (Dec 03, 2011 7:43 pm)
Well, yes and no. The number is the EPA's.
 
But at least one court has held for consumers due to mpg advertising claims made by a manufacturer, even though those claims were based on the EPA number. Here's the settlement web page.
 
Note that the lawyers will get well paid while Civic Hybrid owners will get $100 or $1,000 off a new Honda.
 
Such a deal.

#191 of 251 Re: I'm confused [steve_] by obyone

Dec 05, 2011 (7:59 am)

Replying to: steve_ (Dec 03, 2011 8:21 pm)
Yes, I can understand how a class action lawsuit could help an Acadia owner's plight.

#192 of 251 Buyers Remorse by gcwhite1

Dec 10, 2011 (8:37 pm)

I will always have it. No matter even if it was new. With that said. In regards to the MPG. As some one has noted in an earlier post is that if this unit had a larger engine it would likely be better on the fuel. Here's my theory. When you have a power-plant built to run 3000 watts and another that is built to run 1500 watts running the same load at 1000 watts, the unit that is only designed to run 1500 watts will general run harder and have worse performance than the one built to run 3000 watts. Now I am not excusing GM on this in no way, because they are very aware of this line of thought as well. But with everyone clamoring for more fuel efficient vehicles, some (GM) have opted for a sales ploy to get people to thinking that a V6 is more fuel efficient that a V8. And as many folks know that just ain't so.
 
Now with that said... I just bought a 2008 Acadia w/ 67k. I suspected that the mpg with be worse but I will let you know if I am successful in getting anything better.

#193 of 251 - by dudleyr

Dec 13, 2011 (12:48 pm)

A large engine helping fuel economy is only true if the vehicle in question is underpowered. I don't think that is the case.

#194 of 251 Re: - [dudleyr] by gcwhite1

Dec 13, 2011 (1:10 pm)

Replying to: dudleyr (Dec 13, 2011 12:48 pm)
Isn't that the deal here? You have a vehicle that has horrible MPG (at least compared to what OEM states. And it seems to be just enough to do the things its suppose to do without any room to spare. Which in my view is working way too hard. I may be missing the boat here. But it seems if they put a larger power plant in this unit, it would not work quite as hard as this one a be better at the MPG. I bring this up because I had a 1981 Buick Park Ave. This was the motor switching phase of GM. Mine had a 307 Olds engine. I successfully got more than 25 - 27 on the highway and about 20 in the city. Now this was done by some effort on my part but it was done. And one of the things I concluded was that the engine was much more than the unit needed, so did not work nearly as hard to do what it needed to do.
Now I may be missing the boat on this theory of mine and if you can shed some light on it I am all ears.

#195 of 251 Re: Buyers Remorse [gcwhite1] by kaydeejay

Dec 13, 2011 (1:32 pm)

Replying to: gcwhite1 (Dec 10, 2011 8:37 pm)
Not necessarily true. The 3.6L in my Acadia is rated at 288HP, while the 5.7L V8 I just got rid of (in a Roadmaster wagon) was rated 28HP LESS at 260HP.
That being said I CONSISTENTLY got 24mpg Highway with the Buick at the same speeds I drive the Acadia.
The fact I can't match that 16 year old car with a new Acadia is what has got me all ticked off. Best yet is 21.2, average (mostly highway) of 19.1.
 
Now a couple of questions for the techs.
1) My A/C compressor seems to run at all times. I can hear it kicking on and off, even when the A/C button is not pressed. I expect it to run (above freezing) when the defrost is selected but not at all positions on the heater dial. Even my old '96 Buick had a "vent" setting that shut the compressor off.
 
2) The Torque converter clutch very rarely engages, I can see rpms going up and down a little even at highway speeds.
 
Neither of these situations can help fuel economy. Of course, my dealer says "It's normal"!!! How can you get past these people???

#196 of 251 Re: Buyers Remorse [kaydeejay] by gcwhite1

Dec 13, 2011 (1:53 pm)

Replying to: kaydeejay (Dec 13, 2011 1:32 pm)
Not to necessarily rebut what you just said, but the Roadmaster wagon is lighter (buy about 200 - 300 lbs) and more aerodynamically shaped vehicle. And it sits lower to the ground. With less ground clearance the more fuel efficient.

#197 of 251 Re: Buyers Remorse [gcwhite1] by kaydeejay

Dec 13, 2011 (8:02 pm)

Replying to: gcwhite1 (Dec 13, 2011 1:53 pm)
So 16 years of development of variable valve timing, 4 valves per cylinder, Direct Gas Injection and a 6-speed auto didn't offset the very small weight penalty and perhaps a larger frontal area?? It's frontal area combined with the drag factor that affects aerodynamic drag, not ground clearance. Hopefully that same 16 years of development also resulted in a reduced drag coefficient, which should somewhat offset that larger frontal area.
Either way, what I'm saying is I almost obtained the (prior to 2008) more optimistic fuel economy figures with the old Buick. It was rated 25 Hwy, which is probably more like 22 under the new regs. I consistently got 24.
The Acadia is rated 24 (under the new regs) and I can just about scrape 21.
I bought the Acadia fully expecting to see 25 or 26, exceeding the EPA ratings, which had been my experience with just about every GM product I drove as Company cars for almost 20 years.

Messages Page 20 of 26

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement