Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Garage' started by Mermaidman, Nov 2, 2012.
You can only trust Honda & Toyota.
Isn't Canada kilometers vs miles in the USA? Wouldn't that make up for the different numbers?
28mpg on a tahoe
Yep 1 Imp Gallon = 1.2 US Gallons, or 20% more fuel.
Add to that the US EPA testing is now brutal as hell (A/C use, lots of speeding up/slowing down).
I don't doubt someone doing 60-65MPH steady in a Tahoe on level ground (lots of that here in Texas) could get 28 miles on 1.2 US gallons.
At the same time, it's pretty obvious that if you're on the highway in the city, and have to merge, adjust speed for morons, etc, that 20-22 is more likely. Less than that if you have lots of stuff in the vehicle, inclines, etc.
So, I need to pick up a cheap salvaged soul and find a way to run up the odometer?
They typically use "liters per 100 kilometers".
However, you can select miles per gallon at the Canadian site, but it's Imperial gallons.
GM called, they want their 1985 Blazer back.
Maybe, if it's a relatively new model. My seat frame weld cracked on my '05 Malibu LT, some goggling found out that it has happened to a lot of people, at 205lbs I'm not exactly a land monster and some of the folks who had it happen was when a 110lb wife was driving the car. I called GM about having to spend $1000 for a seat frame, explained this is not an item that should break under normal use for decades and that my now cracked-weld seat was unsafe in event of an accident as it would fly into the windshield (with me buckled in it). GM contacted the local dealer who sold me the car and they did a "goodwill replacement" for free, 3 years after the warranty had expired..
Sorry, for a second I thought this was OT.
In fact, I almost never post here so was this an OT thread originally? Did it get moved?
Or am I losing my marbles.
They rarely specify it's imperial gallons so it's definitely a source of confusion. Still a moot point though. I did direct conversion to miles per US gallons from the litres/100km figures the manufacturers give. They're basically claiming a full size SUV will get the same fuel economy as a small sedan gets in the real world. False advertising. There needs to be a change in the way vehicle fuel efficiency is measured in Canada. I usually go by the EPA since the test is more stringent and closer to real world conditions.
Why is the EPA only testing 15% of car models? It's not like there is that many to test. And the EPA is in charge of CAFE enforcement so I don't see why they are not testing all vehicles.
Edmunds shows 595 current models.
Shows you what sh!t companies Kia and Hyundai are. First they overstated HP numbers about 5 years ago and lost that class-action lawsuit and now this. Who would buy this trash?
It's funny that you say that because that too has been my observation. GM, Hyundai and Kia, I'm most certain they cheat on the EPA fuel economy tests but Toyota and Honda, they're either accurate or their numbers are actually on the conservative side. The other Japanese Automakers I don't have too much experience with but from what limited information I've found, their numbers aren't too outlandish. So I guess you could say Honda + Toyota, Conservative rating, Ford and other Japanese Automakers--accurate sometimes slightly generous, and GM, Chrysler, Kia/Hyundai, almost always inaccurate and generous.
Downhill stretch on I70 coming into Denver out of the Rockies
10 miles of downhill grade; that is where they got the 28mpg from.
There is also another place; coming out of the Sierras on I80 into Reno or Sacramento.
yeah it was. i thought i'd hit the edit button on the OP but maybe not. so, everything before my first post was made in OT.
This thread should be in OT.
hopefully this will drive down the value of hyundais even more.. i wouldn't mind a used genesis sedan
Yep, US EPA MPG testing is now fairly accurate in real-world use imho, as long as it's tested correctly.
At the same time, it's easy to beat or to miss EPA fuel economy spec depending on circumstances.
In my '08 Focus, I regularly saw 42-44mpg on long trips, with 65-75mph sustained speed, A/C use, etc. This is with the 5MT. In the city I saw low to high 30s depending on time of year. This is a fair bit better than the EPA estimated fuel economy, but on those long trips (Dallas to Knoxville and Dallas to Los Angeles round trips) I was able to maintain speed for hours on end with very little throttle adjustment. I also used better motor oil and had an aftermarket air intake system and ECU tuning.
In my '12 TC 6MT, I am seeing ~22.5 mixed, probably 60/40 city/highway. Even if I reset my computer and do calculations after fillup, I still only hit 28 or so highway, which is a bit disappointing compared to the 23/31 EPA rating. To be fair, the tollways around here I drive on has packs of cars doing 80-85mph, so I'm sure that takes a toll, and I do have a bit of a heavy foot around town, it's close enough to call that fairly accurate. It's still a pretty big let-down from the Focus though.
I think what it boils down to is people need to be better educated on the testing methodology and calculate based on their typical usage patterns. It's a good reason why you might be able to get 28mpg on 1.2 gallons in a Tahoe in perfect flat conditions @ 60-65mph with no accel/decel, but that's not really indicative in typical usage patterns. The GM LS-series motors are really efficient once cruising, but if you're slowing down and speeding up, or get a bit of a lead foot when you do need to speed up, and that fuel economy will plummet like a rock.
Honda got in trouble for padding their numbers a few years ago.