Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Of course you can't always avoid some road hazards.
Exactly correct. And (perhaps) my biggest disappointment with the GXP is that Pontiac did not see fit to produce something like a slim addon \ appendix to the GP Owner’s Guide regarding the GXP – and addressing such “issues”.
The good news is: That is my biggest disappointment – or at least one of my top 3.
And that’s not bad!
- Ray
Happy GXP driver . .
You also should probably ask the dealer for a jack and lug wrench also.
Right now I am dealing with GM, not the dealer, about the hissing sound from the Monsoon speakers. This is not the dealer's problem; it is GM's problem. My hissing is actually very slight. But my position is that GM was aware of this problem with the 2005 GXP and their position that "we are aware of this problem, there is no remedy at this time, it is not harmful" is unacceptable to me. This should have been corrected before they put out the 2006 model. I am waiting to hear from the representative. I was told that they would do something about this.
1)I like to listen to MY music on a CD so I went with the 6Disc Changer & Monsoon. I don't want any CD changer in the rear of the car, had it hated it.
2)It's a waist unless this is going to be your "traveling" car, I have an Envoy XUV for this purpose with the NAV so why spend an extra couple of grand on something that would interfere with my driving enjoyment??
I have every option except the NAV (or eng blk heater)and I'm very happy with the Stereo (After my 10" SAS Bazooka tube was installed)!!
Plus you always have OnStar if you get lost..
The fiber board cover over the well is not hard to remove and would be easy to replace. I would be very careful about having some tow jockey put the wheel on and then mess up your calipers with the wheel.
With 1600 miles I have not changed oil yet either. I’d also be interested to hear what oil people are using in their GXPs.
Bob
I made my choice with the blizzak LM-22 in 235-50-18 in set of 4 .
I bought american racing wheels too 8" wide and everything fit perfectly. I tried mags in 17" but doesn't fit in the front.
http://www.americanracing.com/wheels/details.asp?parent=147&wheelid=137&name=Casino&style=- 383&desc=1-piece%20diamond%20cut%20finished%20alloy§ion=P
*I don't know if the link will be ok...
There is a mark for my bridgestone LM 22 winter tire but not for the RE050A summer tire even if they are asymetric.
First the mileage: this has me mystified, it varied from 21.5 mpg on most tanks to 25 on one tank ( never to be repeated). This was all interstate highways, no noticeable wind, the only possible difference would be hills. Travel was at 78-82 mph for the whole 1600 miles, except for 20 miles of road construction. To say the least, I was disappointed. I would have took the 25 and been happy, but I expected better than 21.5.
Ride and comfort: I was happy with the ride and handling and comfort of the GXP, as long as it wasn’t a rough road. There were a couple of stretches of bad highway that had some extremely loud tire noise. But overall, I cant complain too much. The seats were comfortable, that 8-10 hour stretch of the drive got to be a bit tiresome, but they always do no matter what vehicle I have driven. Although not what I would consider terrible, the road noise was more excessive than I had hoped it would be.
The monsoon system it’s ok.. the sound, especially the bass has a muddy sound quality to it. It is not crisp, at highway speeds you need to have it louder to hear it and the quality goes down with the volume going up. Not as crisp as a Bose system in my Yukon. I was never able to get it adjusted to where it sounded as good as the Yukon’s Bose.
Overall, it was an uneventful trip, mileage was disappointing, the rest I can live with. Makes me wonder if I should have gotten a 3.9L V-6, but that wouldn’t have been as much fun. I could live with the 21.5 mileage if they put a larger gas tank in it! I hate stopping for gas when that is the only reason I need to stop!!
Did I mention it is fun to drive and handles well, I may have forgotten with all the other negative things I had to say about it. I am satisfied overall with the car, just disappointed in a few areas. Not enough to not recommend one to others, but enough so that I would tell others the short comings I have discovered.
Mike
0 – thanks for posting!
A few questions:
1 – What load? Passengers & luggage?
2 – Tire pressures?
3 – At 78 – 82 mph, what led you to expect better than 21.5 MPG?
4 – Interesting weekend – with 1800 miles driven, did you have any time for anything else but driving? Or did you take additional time beyond the typical 2 days? Just curious. . .
I would also appreciate a larger fuel tank. Oh, well. When the VW Passat W8 was introduced, with a substantially larger motor than had previously been available, they increased the tank capacity for that model – by 2 or 3 gallons.
Given the conditions the EPA specifies for their mileage testing, I would NOT expect much more than 21.5 at the speeds you were traveling.
When I do finally drive my GXP for an extended ‘road trip’ (Thanksgiving long weekend) I will be closely monitoring the fuel mileage, once I clear the Metro Atlanta area – traveling South on I75. Once traffic conditions safely allow it, I typically set the cruise control for speed limit + 5, 6 or 7 MPH, and leave it there. This time once the road levels, I may experiment with some slightly different speeds. To see the effects.
But with a maximum speed in the EPA ‘highway’ test of only 60 MPH, and with the significant added drag + engine RPM associated with increasing speed by this much (to 80-ish in this case) suggests (to me) that there would be a substantial increase in fuel use incurred.
A very crude calculation indicates to me that 80 mph vs 60 mph would result in (60 / 80 or 75%) a drop from 27 mpg to 20.25 mpg. Assuming linear increase in fuel mileage related effects as speed rises. Not likely, but the only assumption reasonable without facts not in evidence. And I think that it is at least likely that DoD would be utilized much less frequently if trying to maintain 80 than 60. Point here is only that I’ll bet a steady 80 uses at least 25 to 30% more fuel than a steady 60. YMMV.
The other factor here may be the temptation to use ALL the throttle travel, when an opportunity (or requirement) for acceleration arises. I find that I certainly do. Where I would utilize WOT in my previous cars, and accelerate to speed for a highway merge, for example, at X mph per second – I now utilize WOT and likely accelerate at X + 25% or more. Achieving desired speed more quickly, but likely using more gas in the process. And then there is the sheer joy of listening to the heterodyne beat of the exhaust as I accelerate – particularly through first gear. (sigh)
“What's more, the peak acceleration on this test is 3.3 mph per second. This is equivalent to a 0-to-60 time of more than 18 seconds.” – from C+D’s latest ‘Steering Column’.
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=10257
Well I know that I ** ONLY ** accelerate at that sort of rate (3.3 mph / sec.) when traffic (or local law enforcement presence) leaves my no reasonable alternative. When I can accelerate (um) quickly, I typically do.
Further (regarding the linear assumption above) I suspect that product managers everywhere (not just at GM) are heavily pressured to configure & gear & tune & equip cars to achieve the best possible fuel economy on the EPA tests – even if this is accomplished at the expense of some ‘real world’ economy. Meaning, I expect that a product manager would receive positive feedback for increasing EPA ratings by 1 or 2 MPG as posted on the Mulroney Sticker, but would receive no such ‘reward’ for increasing fuel mileage at something near or over the (current, common) highway speed limits – particularly if the EPA ratings suffered. Even though 75 to 80+ is clearly the speed that many consumers actually drive the products.
Anyway – I am very curious to see what I will see on that trip to see friends on the coast of the Florida Panhandle next week. I will be alone in the car, with a light luggage load, but carrying much beer – several months supply of items not available anywhere near where my friends live . .
BTW: Somewhat supporting my hypothesis regarding the effect of acceleration on ** MY ** overall gas mileage, I always see a drop (as reported on the DIC display) over the weekend. And most weekends I rarely drive (m)any highway miles. But I absolutely do accelerate. Briskly. The DIC currently reports my fuel mileage as 21.x right now, after a (warm powertrain) fill Monday AM and 1 round trip commute + 1 quick lunch trip + this morning driving to work. (This is approx. 75 miles.) This average will typically fall slowly over the course of the week – and fall quite dramatically, if Friday’s commute home is as bad as it often is. And fall more ‘steeply’ also over the weekend. My guess is that if I filled my tank again on Thursday, eliminating a Friday PM commute and the weekend driving, I’d be comfortably over 20. My overall average (in now over 6,000 miles) is 18.75.
- Ray
Feeling that the GXP’s performance vs. fuel mileage balance is OK with me!
This was actually a 5 day weekend. Two days of driving, 3 days of visiting.
As for the load, there was just me, about 175 lbs, and maybe another 20 lbs of stuff in the trunk. A pretty light load.
Tire pressures were set at 31 psi when I left the house, they were checked once after arrival at my destination and were still 31, I checked them, although they were not cold, upon return home and they showed 33, could be from the warm tires, so pressure doesn’t appear to have been a factor.
I truly expected better than 21.5, I can get 17-18 in the Yukon with the same 5.3L engine and a 3.73 rear gear. The rpm on the GXP was at about 2200-2300 for the entire trip. The Yukon will run close to 2500 at those speeds. With the weight of the Yukon and the extra rpm for gearing, I was hoping for more. It did not seem like DOD was adding as much of a difference as I had expected. It seems as if every GM vehicle I have purchased has came close to the window sticker mileage, and I don’t recall ever having one miss by more than 2mpg below the sticker. I did also keep the acceleration to a minimum. No WOT (no fun for me), and cruise control every chance available. Cruise set to 9-10 above the speed limit, except for the turnpike in Kansas, there it was set 12-13 above the limit.
Which brings to mind another observation, the cruise does not hold as well as the Yukon. It will vary + or – 1.5-2 mph depending on the hills, especially noticeable going down hills, it will easily gain 3 mph on a big hill.
It is still a great car, fun to drive, I never saw it downshift once to pull a hill anywhere, which is a far cry from some other vehicles I have driven. Just give me the bigger fuel tank and put a bit more sound deadening insulation in it to absorb some road noise and I couldn’t ask for anything more, except a better radio.
Mike
I own a 2006 GXP loaded (no nav.) with 2300 miles.
Anyway, visited the GM dealer today and did not get much help. I am pretty frustrated about the tire situation.
I would like to have same size tires front and rear so I can rotate them properly. I am wondering if I can put the same size tires on the rear that is currently on the front without any dramatic impact on handling or the drivetrain. The front tires are about 1 inch wider and very slightly taller profile (if I calculated correctly). So can I put 255/45R18 on rear without problems???
Also, an earlier posting said that the dealer supplied the buyer with a full-size spare and crammed it in the trunk spare rack. So which spare did you get?...front or rear tire? I figure I might start watching wrecked car lots for a couple so I will have a spare. That fix-flat goop is not the way to go and I may not re-subscribe OnStar, so then if I get a major flat...I am hosed Tommy. This whole tire deal is a real joke is you ask me. For $28K, should not have to worry about it!
Thoughts on what I should do???????????
Also, on a lighter note, raccoons seem to find our tires very comfy. One got in my garage when I let my dog out for a minute and got stuck in my rear wheel well -- no damage, thank God, except a small scratch on my wheel. It was a big raccoon. The animal control officer had to get it out. He made me stay inside so I didn't see it and then he let it go!!! It should have been shot. My neighbor is a cop and said if it comes in his yard he'll shoot it. Does anyone know if there is any product that will remove a small scratch on these forged alloy wheels. If so, please tell me. Thanks.
Mike
No Coors Light, and I wouldn't call it Bandit, none of the wheels ever left the ground and the speedometer only reached 90 once, briefly, even though it was extremely tempting on some of that open highway to open it up... I resisted.
Mike
Nope:
Shipyard and Terrapin rye ale or pale ale or Indian pale ale.
- Ray
Don’t drink the stuff – just helping an old friend . . .
What's missing is the bass to enhance the music, if you have a home theater system at home then you understand, if you dont, go to a local stereo store and listen to one, it'll cost you about $250 or so for a decent system..INSTALLED..You'll be very happy with a non-intrusive sub placed in the trunk, mine is never in the way permanently mounted and carpeted to go along with the trunk carpet, looks tasteful and sounds EXCELLENT!! Outside of buying a vehicle that costs 50k (most usually morer..way more) you will not find a "GOOD" stereo that can live up to expectations in any vehicle offered ANYWHERE!!
Also, with the headlights I was wondering if anyone has had trouble while driving at night oncoming traffic flashing their brights indicating you had your brights on? I have been having that happen a lot.
Yes, I frequently have been flashed for having brights on when they are not on. However, I do typically also have the fog lamps on.
It is even more of a factor re the GXP. Buy the fronts and forget the backs and hope you don't get a flat.
I also own a 97 Vette coupe and have replaced the run flats with better handling tires (the run flats have very stiff sidewalls). So far no flats yet.
I don't think that GM had an ulterior motive for the tire selection, in fact the tire selection was very carefully planned. Look at the considerations: front drive, bad weight distribution, aging chassis. My 05 GXP still exhibits some of the bad front drive problems, torque steer, weight transfer off the line. Let me mention that when I hammer my C-5 (Z-51, 6-spd, tweaked intake and exhaust) ya gotta hang on because the back end can get loose.
Its the same with the GXP. If ya hang on (both hands) yer gonna be smiling when you sail past the Dodge Charger that once was next to you. Its just that the power wheels also steer.
From what rlsedition has posted elsewhere, the tire consideration was getting the best performance they could - hence the staggered setup and GM working with Bridgestone on the design of these tires - yet making sure they were OK to drive in winter.
also, when driving at 70mph and above, you're placing a much greater amount of demand on the vehicle and thus DOD is not activating nearly as often if at all.
I usually drive at 72mph and can watch the DIC and Instant MPG's to see when DOD is active.
The crossover in a powered subwoofer keeps the highs out of the woofer, but I do not see how this keeps the lows out of the factory speakers? Can someone explain this?
I will sure keep that in mind in the future, it would seem there would be little use for DOD in a full size SUV. I had thought of a '07 Yukon, but not thinking to much that way anymore.
I had thought the mileage would be close to the sticker, on every other GM vehicle I have bought, it has been within 1-2 mpg from the sticker. That would have brought the GXP in around 25-26 mpg. I had not given thought to the great amount of added mileage using the CAFE testing procedures, that DOD would produce. Those tests are outdated and if memory is correct, 60mph is the max speed during the test. That would yeild a very impressive mpg rating with DOD. At 20 mph to that and you have the mpg reduced to 21-22.
It still beats my Yukon by 5mpg, but the Yukon with it's larger fuel tank beats the cruising range of the GXP by over 100 miles!
I guess if I really wanted fuel mileage, I shouldn't have bought a V-8!! But what fun would that have been.
Mike
Or, more accurately, the effect of not being able to activate DoD at higher speeds.
I have not been able to discover precise published data from GM on what exact conditions are required to allow DoD activation. Clearly it is designed to provide best possible economy under steady state (cruise) conditions, but I expect that the calibrations require (for drivability) DoD to kick off when even a small additional amount of acceleration \ increase in throttle is applied, for example. And my guess is that calibration is optimized for the EPA highway cycle.
Regarding the Impala SS: “Chevy says the feature could run the Impala V-8 on just four cylinders at 80 mph on a flat road with steady throttle and no wind.”
(Source = http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2005-09-15-impala_x.htm)
So – I expect that if the road rises (even slightly), if there is even a slight headwind, or even slight acceleration is required, DoD is immediately turned off. And the very loose torque converter clutch in the 4 speed automatic, when it unlocks, causes a rather dramatic rise in RPM (700 or 800 rpm in many cases) under most any provocation. This will clearly also impact MPG for the worse. (At least the TCC unlocks very aggressively, both in the sense that it is much easier to provoke and results in more dramatic RPM swings when unlocked compared to my previous 3 vehicles.)
Where in many other vehicles, you might lose 5% in efficiency under a given set of circumstances (of acceleration, road conditions, headwind) you might lose 10% or more if the TCC unlocks and the DoD is inactivated.
This is speculation of course, as I do not have access to an SS (with a ‘4 cyl active’ indication) and long, level straight roads with no traffic and a lot of free time (and gas) to conduct experiments. And it appears that GM is not likely to provide verbiage or a graph indicating specifics for us. At the very least, at some point around 80 MPH, under absolutely ideal conditions [[ and at some point below 80 MPH under most ‘real world’ driving conditions ]] the smooth but declining curve of MPG vs MPH likely takes a sharp drop – as DoD becomes unobtainable - and then continues at a substantially lower level of MPG as MPH continue to rise. Actually, it is probably a dis-continuity in the graph – or some such technical term outside my area of expertise. Meaning that the curve is dropping already, but suddenly at some point becomes a straight line down at the “DoD Impossible” point and then continues as a curve, at a lower point – again dropping as speed rises.
So – it is what it is. This is as close as I have come to an explanation. I have a level of curiosity about all this, but I am not really obsessed.
And I still really, really enjoy the V8’s acceleration and sound.
Though that sort of behavior (no speculation here) decreases MPG – a lot!
- Ray
Still planning to do a little experimenting on my tip to Florida next week . .
Overall, I passed on the charger for a number of reasons, but mainly looks and handling.
It corners like Jello in comparison and while it's powerful and feels fast, I've not seen them turning better than mid to low 14's in the 1/4mi. GXP's are now regularly in the 14.1 range and many who launch them correctly are at 13.8's consistantly.
The charger looks best on the front, but the other reason I turned it down was the outside is just plain ugly to me. Nice inside, but it's still a Dodge.
My two cents.
This is true, and you will notice at highway speed, a slight hill will drop the mileage significantly.
On another note, I think if it did hold the DOD for a longer period of time, we would all be complaining about driveability problems. It might pull that hill with 4 cylinders, but would it do it without downshifting to 3rd gear? That would eat up more fuel than dropping out of DOD does.
On that note, the driveability of the DOD has been accomplished remarkably. It is 100% unnoticeable when it kicks in or drops off. If you are not watching the DIC instant mileage, you would never notice. You cannot feel it change at all. GM should be commended for this.
Mike