Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2007 and newer Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon

16364666869101

Comments

  • 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
  • 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?
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 73shark73shark Posts: 325
    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.
  • 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.
  • 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).
  • 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 16’s and the 04 was equipped with 17’s 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 Tahoe’s. George
  • 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 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.”
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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?
  • 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?
  • rhame13rhame13 Posts: 23
    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:
  • rhame13rhame13 Posts: 23
    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:
  • 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!
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,110
    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
  • 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 don’t hold onto gravel as much. I hope they come out with the Revos in a 20".
  • 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...
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,110
    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
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,110
    Be sure to visit Suburban/Tahoe Owners: Meet the Members to stay in touch!

    tidester, host
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,110
    Enjoy!

    tidester, host
  • WOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

    Glad you guys came to your senses about this forum!! :D Hopefully the other "old timers" will find their way back!!
  • 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!
  • 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!
  • 73shark73shark Posts: 325
    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.
This discussion has been closed.