2007 and newer Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon

valvestud · October 2006

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

phustead · October 2006

Dear Rhame13,

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?

07denali · October 2006

13 mpg city! I only get 7.7 to 9.5 depending how heavy my foot is with my Denali XL. Best I've averaged is 12mpg 50/50 city & highway.

valvestud · October 2006

Wow! I've never been below 12. I do admit, I am pretty carefull about keeping my foot out of it. Given the response when I do punch it, I can imagine my mileage would drop significantly if I wasn't careful.

twernst10 · October 2006

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.

73shark · October 2006

Update: A recent trip to the Lake of the Ozarks (round trip of ~400 mi @ 60-75 mph with lots of hills) gave me 19.1 mpg. Have about 3K miles now. In town is now running 13-14. These are calculated numbers. DIC is always within 1 mpg.

jerrywimer · October 2006

As I said, I usually get better than average. But I also pointed out to you that it only proves that these vehicles *can* get numbers like what the stickers show. Not that everyone will. It's almost a crime to have to say this again though- where you drive and how you drive affect the mileage you'll see more than any other single thing you can do. So regardless if others are getting lower mileage than me or not there are only a few cases where it's due to some "defect" in the vehicle, and none where it's false adverstizing. BTW, I filled up at just under a half tank (was heading out of town on a long trip yesterday so I topped off). The calculated mpg was back at 17.8 already. So it looks like I was right there too. DIC had 18.3 at the time (so .5 optimistic).

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.

jerrywimer · October 2006

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).

junglegeorge · October 2006

Ok here is my point again. I owned a 2003 Tahoe with an EPA rating of 14-18 and I consistently achieved 15-17 with (best tank was 18.6) I traded this for a 2004 with an EPA of 15-19 and I consistently achieved 14-16 with (best tank was 17.8) . Traded that for the 2007 with a EPA of 16-21 and I consistently achieved 13-16 with (best tank was 17.4) All had the 5.3 / 460 with 3:73 gears. Granted I live in up-state NY and our available fuel is 10% ethanol, and we have our share of hills, and the 07 model is 500 LBS hevier. I never expected to meet of surpass the EPA numbers, however with all the hype on DOD AFM more HP, I thought I would at least be able to achieve the equivalent of the 2003/2004 Tahoes. I honestly believe that the drop in MPG I realized between the 2003 and 2004 was contributed to tire size, the 03 utilized 16s and the 04 was equipped with 17s slightly taller tires. I keep hearing that folks that opted for the 4:10 gears are achieving better MPG, if this is true, it would support my theory. My truck has been in the shop enough to qualify for a NYS lemon law review, and both the dealer and GM our aware of this. I am not going to peruse option this until the dealer has exhausted all options with GM. I love the truck, however I paid $53k and I did not expect a reduction in performance. I normally put 50-60k miles on each Tahoe, and my driving habits have not changed. I do not get excited about EPA numbers, however I am very concerned with the downhill track record I have achieved with these 3 Tahoes. George

rspencer · October 2006

jerrywimer says,

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 todays 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 hasnt updated fuel economy estimates since 1985. We instructed the EPA to update their fuel economy estimates after hearing from frustrated and disappointed consumers who werent 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.

jerrywimer · October 2006

I can and do hold vehicle drivers responsible for the fuel economy of the vehicles they are driving. While it's true that different vehicles have different potentials, the EPA tests are simply there to illustrate the potential of every vehicle under a strict set of controlled conditions. This allows for a comparison of potential fuel economy to be made.

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.

tidester · October 2006

Report them here: Chevrolet Suburban/GMC Tahoe: MPG-Real World Numbers.

tidester, host

rspencer · October 2006

Not surprised that you would be posting questionable numbers on other Edmunds forums. From the Chevy Malibu forums. The following posts are yours from March/05 and then Sept./05. How do you explain the 27 MPG o/a mileage claim and then the 30-32 MPG o/a numbers you are claiming? What's up with that? Which one is phony?

#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.

jerrywimer · October 2006

First, I said I was done with this topic.

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.

jerrywimer · October 2006

But now that I've covered my own motives and proven you wrong, I'd love to know what exactly makes it so hard for you to believe that it's not hard at all to obtain decent mileage numbers close to the EPA ratings for most cars being sold out there, provided the driver drives a certain way and in similar conditions.

rspencer · October 2006

Consumers Union purchased a 2004 Malibu LS, 3.5L, V6, 4-door, hatchback, 4-speed automatic from a dealer. Random purchase...no advance notice that the vehicle would be part of a large scale fuel economy test project.

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?

rspencer · October 2006

You are also posting mileage claims for a Chevy Silverado on the Edmunds Silverado forum. The following claims were made by you in July/'06.

#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?

rhame13 · October 2006

Phustead

Have not heard anything back on mud flaps as well....apparently someone didn't think that far enough ahead to consider that we might want to keep the debris off of our new ride.

On the IPOD interface.....PAC Audio makes IPOD interface cables for almost every car out there so that you can use the the stereo controls and it charges the IPOD while it is plugged in. From what I understand the cable for the 2007 Tahoe/Yukon is not available yet. If any of you hear that it is shipping or available, please pass it on. My plan is to ultimately mount it in the center console and just leave it in my car (hidden) without the fear of some moron breaking my window to steal it. Currently I have a Bracketron mount up in that area where I keep my Palm Treo mounted while I am in the car. There is an extension unit that I could add so that I can mount an IPOD next to it, but once again, I would leave it in the car and don't want it to walk off.

Don't you just love those running boards.........sweet....I am glad I waited for them. :shades:

rhame13 · October 2006

jerrywimer & rspencer

I want to start by saying that I don't think there are any two people that have contributed as much to my education on the new Yukon and this forum as you two.

It's obvious you both are passionate about your position concerning the MPG in these new models.

It's also fairly obvious that all of the postings in the world will not change either of your opinions.

I see both of your points: I am not getting the MPG that was advertised. (Won't be the first time I was dissapointed with a manufacturers claim.....ie Hair Club for Men) and due to the fact that I love hearing that V8 exhaust note in the new model, I tend to drop the gas pedal a little harder than in my 2002 Yukon. Is this contributing to my decreased MPG? I would say DUH.....

I started reading this forum several months ago while I was waiting on my beauty to get here. I would check it before I went to work, at work and then at night just to see if there was a new post or pic available from users like you two. I would get really pumped reading about the positive experiences and problems that different people had encountered. These postings helped me go back and reaffirm my decision of ordering my new Yukon, it also gave me a laundry list to go and ask the dealer on some of the different issues relating to the new model.

I would hate for a new reader in this forum to come around and have to sift through several pages of you guys going at it to prove your point on the MPG. I want them to have the same positive experience here that I did.

At the end of the day, we all have GM's newest and finest...are there room for improvements...YES....But it's still better than a FORD. (did I just start something with that comment?) :shades:

jerrywimer · October 2006

rspencer: Keep digging and trying to prove me wrong. If you'd ever like to come over just send me a PM. I still have the records of all my fillups for both the vehicles you're questioning results for. Otherwise- hey, What can I say? Firstly any time I've reported "routine" numbers they've been within the bounds of the EPA tests on the window stickers (or at best maybe 1 to 2 over). Secondly I told you I tend to be above average. And those numbers you posted for the 3.5L / 4 speed auto Malibu are not only far below what I ever saw from our car, they're far below what I've ever seen posted anywhere else. I believe the worst I've ever seen listed was high teens for city driving (don't recall where at the moment though).

bk777: Huh? You make (absolutely no) sense.

rhame13: I agree. Sorry for cluttering up the topic. If I didn't feel that rspencer is trying to cast my posts as false I'd have stopped awhile ago (back when I said I was done with this). Hopefully he gives it up for now, as I haven't posted one thing anywhere that's untrue or even unbelievable regardless of the results anyone else are seeing.

If anyone is seriously interested in seeing numbers from my logs, including you rspencer, just PM me. Otherwise I'm done with this discussion in this topic. We can (as suggested by others) take it to more appropriate topics if you'd like to continue the public discussion.

Back mudflaps aren't available for the Tahoe yet? I've just finally given up and ordered both front and rear contoured sets from GM for the Avalanche. Even these 20" wheels and tires are grabbing gravels from our driveway. The result is that I've got tons of tiny chips immediately behind every tire at the very bottom edge of the fenders. Coincidentally, that's exactly the spots the contoured mudflaps would've (will) cover. I've also got some touchup paint on order so I can fix the chips before I put the mudflaps on. Don't need rust problems down the road!

tidester · October 2006

Let's give it a rest. We all know you guys disagree and we also know you're not going to resolve the matter. It's time to move on.

tidester, host

pdsniper · October 2006

I agree with you jerrywimer. The 20" tires on the LT & LTZ suck as far as picking up gravel. I have the Bridgestone Dueler H/L, are these the same tires that you are having problems with? I'm always picking gravel out of the tires to keep them from flying off onto the vehicle. I have a set of Bridgestone Dueler Revos on my Ford Super Duty and I love them. They work great in snow and mud and they dont hold onto gravel as much. I hope they come out with the Revos in a 20".

rspencer · October 2006

Sure...we believe all those outrageous mileage claims.
------------------------------------------------------------

#3188 of 4662 Re: Gas Mileage [jerrywimer] by bhw77 Apr 01, 2005 (6:37 am)
| E-mail Msg
Replying to: jerrywimer (Apr 01, 2005 4:37 am)

I barely make 16.5 mpg with my 04'Maxx in moderate city traffic.
DIC indicates 18.8 mpg and 19 mh average speed .
No heavy take offs and I am not an aggressive driver.
I am not that impressed...

tidester · October 2006

You've probably noticed new discussions appearing all over the forums. What's happening is that we are closing generic, everything-in-one pile discussions like this and creating smaller discussions that deal with specific areas of interest.

You'll find a number of discussions listed at the top level of this group: Chevrolet Suburban & Tahoe. When you are ready to post, please check the discussion list there for the appropriate discussion to post in. If there doesn't appear to be a discussion for the issue or problem you have, feel free to create one. We can deal with accidental duplication of topics as things progress.

While you are at the top-level, don't forget to click on Track This Group. You will then be tracking all of the Chevrolet Suburban & Tahoe discussions that are here, as well as any new ones as they are created.

Using Read New Posts will mean you won't miss anything on the Chevrolet Suburban & Tahoe board. If a discussion pops up which doesn't interest you (or is closed), all you have to do is click on Remove Track within the discussion.

Thanks for your understanding and help in making this group a great resource of information for Chevrolet Suburban & Tahoe owners!

tidester, host

tidester · October 2006

Be sure to visit Suburban/Tahoe Owners: Meet the Members to stay in touch!

tidester, host

tidester · November 2006

Enjoy!

tidester, host

rockin_ltz · November 2006

WOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Glad you guys came to your senses about this forum!!

Hopefully the other "old timers" will find their way back!!

bonzo6 · November 2006

That's a great decision...I really enjoy going to one source for all the different issues, features etc. on our mighty machines!

I am amazed every time I drive this truck--having owned a Lexus LX470, I can safely say that this truck blows it away in terms of road-holding, power, and value for money (and looks, but that can be even more subjective

). Looking forward to more posts!

bonzo6 · November 2006

Hi folks,

I just bought an '07 Yukon XL SLT with just over 11 000 miles--the previous owner had been running dino oil, but I'm a big fan of Mobil 1. Any pro's/con's to changing?

I live in Canada, with winters getting quite "frosty"...appreciate any inputs/opinions!

73shark · November 2006

I just changed mine to Mobil 1 (5W30) at ~3200 mi. and my mpg for my daily commute increased by 0.5 mpg. Just one tank but has been pretty consistent before. Time will tell. Walmart carries it in five gal jugs now. Saves a lot of time.

gfer91177 · November 2006

Has anyone else had trouble with the new "microfiber" fabric in the 2007 Tahoe? I had an 02 Trailblazer previously, and loved the fabric...very easy to care for. Now, they have changed the fabric in the new model and it "pills" very badly and everything sticks to it! I didn't expect this from a $40,000 vehicle. I wish I'd paid the extra for leather, now. I'd appreciate hearing whether anyone else has this issue.

gfer91177 · November 2006

Me again...Another problem I've had with my '07 Tahoe is what they've been calling a "body creak". I had it only 3 months when it starting creaking badly with every small bump or turn I took. One dealership could definitely hear it, but couldn't figure out how to fix it. My original dealer tried lubricating(?) the rubber door seals, and it helped some, but 3 months later it's back as bad as ever. Again, I paid too much for a vehicle that's not going to be as good as new 6 months down the road! Any advice???

nosbor77 · November 2006

I agree with everyone disappointed in the MPG claims of GM. I can get the 21mpg on hwy at times (must be ideal, perfect conditions & driving). However, getting 16mpg in town has not been feasible.

Getting poor gas mileage isn't really what bothers me. After all, we did buy a Tahoe which is synonomous with poor gas mileage.

What does get under my skin is the fact that they claim that their Active Fuel Management system drops to 4 cyl when cruising on the highway.. That's what I was told, that's what they advertise, that's what sold me & that's what I expect to see. However, I ONLY see it drop to 4cyl on the decline or when taking my foot off the gas. That's when I'm least concerned about gas mileage. Therefore, it is meaningless to me. WHAT A JOKE.. WE GOT SCREWED by thier fictitious claims.

You can't blame that on old EPA standards. This was purley GM's intention. A marketing ploy. They are smart. They know that all they have to do is sell people on something enough to get them to drive a gas guzzler off the lot so that it's no longer GM's problem. That's what smart SCUM does!!

They know the only way consumers can do something about it is if they were to team up. They also know that the odds of that happening are rediculously low. Therefore they chose to take the risk. They also know that consumers don't want to make a big fuss over it b/c it will slow the sales of these Tahoes & cause aftermarket values to drop quickly. So, we either play along with it and shut up or risk the value of our Tahoes bottoming out.. I would rather shut up and never buy GM again. Toyota & Nissan are soundng pretty good now.

Shane

rockman59 · November 2006

nosbor77 sa However, I ONLY see it drop to 4cyl on the decline or when taking my foot off the gas.
___________________________________________________________
I think the concept of the 4/8 engine is good however it seems that after reading posts on this board that the only engines that the system works properly on are the ones with 3.73 or lower geared rear ends. It may be a computer programming problem. If enough of you complain to GM they probably will come up with a fix.

73shark · November 2006

From what I've heard on this and other forums is that it works best on the 4:10 rear ends. I've got 3:73 and can't get the advertised V4 mode at hiway speeds on level roads.

canddmeyer · November 2006

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.

jerrywimer · November 2006

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. :confuse:

(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.

).

nosbor77 · November 2006

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. :P

jerrywimer · November 2006

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..

nedzel · November 2006

"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.

jay_24 · November 2006

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.

rspencer · November 2006

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.

nosbor77 · November 2006

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.

seagrave · November 2006

Anyone know when the new z71 for '07 are coming out?

jerrywimer · November 2006

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.

rspencer · November 2006

AFM What a sad thing for GM. When a great company like GM is showing a $6.5 billion dollar R&D budget...and the AFM techno-bust is a research product they choose to advertise and go to market with...it's time for big changes. Apparently testing was not done to confirm it's effectiveness or validity. I don't get it...

I would say the GM board of directors is asleep...and their senior management is moving the company in the wrong direction...yet again.

Toyota is taking market leadership...not so much as because they are competent...but moreso because GM is not competent.

GM's claims that they are playing on a not so level playing field against the "forenors" is not the way forward. Government intervention/protectionism won't git'er' done.

Winning in the marketplace will get 'er done. And you can't win there by misrepresenting your products' performance.

I like my Tahoe...but not the phony gas mileage claims that came with it.

bk777 · November 2006

Thanks for posting that link to the Consumers study. We had no idea that all that work was being done to test so many cars and trucks gas mileage.

There was a posting you made yesterday around 9:00 PM. It was there...and then it was gone. It referenced my message to someone on here a few weeks ago. What happened? Was it moved to another blog?

rbb1 · November 2006

I bought my 07 Tahoe 3 weeks ago and am seeing 18 mpg in open highways. I did install a new magnaflow exhaust which should help, but no way is it going to see 21 mpg as quoted.

Did find out that there is a RECALL on the torque converter...

Overall happy with the car...

73shark · November 2006

What's the recall for on the torque convertor?

krim · November 2006

Originally my mileage was terrible. Slow break-in combined with tire pressure around 28 cold instead of 32 (Left dealership under inflated). 2007, LTZ 4x4 with 32 lbs cold tire pressure (spec and watched).

The mileage keeps getting better and better. I now have over 7,000 miles. I usually drive 10% over the speed limit.
Interstate driving at 82mph I average 20. At 75mph I average 21. At 65 I get 23. Around town I get 16. 4 cyl now comes on a LOT more often than the first 3,000 miles.

Typical multi-day trips are always in the 20+ range. Generally speaking, I get around 10% better gas mileage than my old 2003 4x4 Tahoe. Very pleased considering this is a 6,000 pound SUV! (700 pounds heavier than the Ford and better gas mileage. Go figure.)

2007 and newer Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles