Hello guys! This is my first GM vehicle, My LT has 5000 km on it now, no towing, most on highway and never had jammed traffic. and i just check the trip computer today, and i got 18L/100km.. Their website claim fuel consumption as 11.8L/100km Highway and 14.3 city (I am in Canada, if goes to mpg should be 15/20).
GM lying about fuel rating, or i drive it too hard?
- Thread starter Leon00000
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
GM's claims are always under optimal conditions. No defroster on that cycles the a/c compressor, unless of course that is different on the new rigs. Completely smooth road conditions with likely no hills at all. Driven with a very light foot. Tire pressure at optimum inflation. Even a driver that likely weighs no more than 150 pounds. Etc.......
So, did you really really expect to match the GM claims?
So, did you really really expect to match the GM claims?
How long are you letting it warm up before driving off? First starts are always the hardest on fuel mileage. Colder weather will mean a longer warm up time. If you have any uphill climb first thing in the morning that will more negatively affect your mileage than if your first start is downhill.
I always have better fuel mileage on my drive home than my drive to work. The engine may still be cold starting my drive home, but not as stone cold as first thing in the morning. This is also due to the fact that day time temperatures are warmer than nighttime temperatures.
On my '02, i generally get about 17 L/100km on my drive in, and 16 L/100km on my drive home. This is 80% freeway driving, but some hills are involved too.
I always have better fuel mileage on my drive home than my drive to work. The engine may still be cold starting my drive home, but not as stone cold as first thing in the morning. This is also due to the fact that day time temperatures are warmer than nighttime temperatures.
On my '02, i generally get about 17 L/100km on my drive in, and 16 L/100km on my drive home. This is 80% freeway driving, but some hills are involved too.
Stbentoak
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2020
- Posts
- 2,285
- Reaction score
- 2,775
its pretty well been proven that petrol vehicles rarely attain/maintain advertised MPG estimates. In a tough environment it could be less... substantially less.
Tis vehicle never was about getting great MPG, so the above results should surprise no one, including the OP.
Ironically, though, Diesel vehicles usually exceed the EPA estimates for some reason?
Tis vehicle never was about getting great MPG, so the above results should surprise no one, including the OP.
Ironically, though, Diesel vehicles usually exceed the EPA estimates for some reason?
RugbyRef
Member
In my never-ending quest for useless information, I have (at times) come across info that is actually useful...depending on who wants to use it. So...that all being said...here's some info for the OP that might give him an idea as to where his KPH or MPG ratings come from.
The above pic is a typical label you will see on almost all new cars. Sometimes it's on the window sticker and sometimes it might be in the glove box...who knows!
Not going to break all of the numbers down. You can read all about them here - https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/label/learn-more-gasoline-label.shtml
The number I think that will put things in to perspective is #2 on the label. That designates Fuel Economy. "For gasoline vehicles, the label shows City, Highway, and Combined MPG (miles per gallon) values. The Combined MPG value is the most prominent for the purpose of quick and easy comparison across vehicles. Some form of the miles per gallon metric has been on vehicle labels since 1977. Combined fuel economy is a weighted average of City and Highway MPG values that is calculated by weighting the City value by 55% and the Highway value by 45%."
#3 on the label is showing a comparison fuel economy to other vehicles in that class (i.e. small SUV, large SUV, pickup truck, etc.).
Not sure if the U.S. standards for measuring are the same for Canada, but I'm assuming they are very close.
Anyway...there ya go!
The above pic is a typical label you will see on almost all new cars. Sometimes it's on the window sticker and sometimes it might be in the glove box...who knows!
Not going to break all of the numbers down. You can read all about them here - https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/label/learn-more-gasoline-label.shtml
The number I think that will put things in to perspective is #2 on the label. That designates Fuel Economy. "For gasoline vehicles, the label shows City, Highway, and Combined MPG (miles per gallon) values. The Combined MPG value is the most prominent for the purpose of quick and easy comparison across vehicles. Some form of the miles per gallon metric has been on vehicle labels since 1977. Combined fuel economy is a weighted average of City and Highway MPG values that is calculated by weighting the City value by 55% and the Highway value by 45%."
#3 on the label is showing a comparison fuel economy to other vehicles in that class (i.e. small SUV, large SUV, pickup truck, etc.).
Not sure if the U.S. standards for measuring are the same for Canada, but I'm assuming they are very close.
Anyway...there ya go!
GM can’t afford to lie about those figures, remember what happened to VW when they cheated on emissions testing? False results would cause a class action lawsuit of immense cost. Most people don’t drive like the EPA test cycle. But blame the EPA if you disagree with that. Carmakers do not determine the test conditions!
And of course some conservative drivers can beat the test loop results. However you’ll find them on different forums.
And of course some conservative drivers can beat the test loop results. However you’ll find them on different forums.
Lead Foot Louie=@Bill 1960
Quark
Full Access Member
Speed, temperature, terrain, tire pressure and brand of gas all affect my gas mileage.
I'm starting to see these around town and by golly they're huge so I'm not surprised we're seeing less good gas mileage. Why did GM make them so darned big? The last model was more my preference how about anyone else?
I'm starting to see these around town and by golly they're huge so I'm not surprised we're seeing less good gas mileage. Why did GM make them so darned big? The last model was more my preference how about anyone else?
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2018
- Posts
- 10,578
- Reaction score
- 15,370
I've never achieved EPA rated mileage in any vehicle. On the other hand, I've really never cared about gas mileage, particularly with my truck. It is just too much damn much fun to drive, and if I tried to improve my gas mileage, it would take all of the fun out of driving for me.
What @Joseph Garcia said. I like the fun factor over saving a few pennies per gallon.
ktpinnacle
Full Access Member
All vehicles are getting larger/longer. My 2001 Yukon is the same length as the current Exploder. A 2020 Accord is less than 6 inches shorter than that same Yukon.
I agree. I like the length of my 2001 Yukon, even though it's third row and rear storage is a compromise. I can parallel park it like a small car (without the electronic nannies!). But I'll be getting a new Yukon anyway.
Fireman591
Full Access Member
When my GMC Terrain's engine was damaged during break in from fuel contamination from a faulty high pressure fuel pump seal GMC would not honor the gas mileage. The 4 cylinder was suppose to get 30 mpg on the highway. We were getting around 18 mpg at 70 mph. GMC stated that at 50 mpg with no wind on level ground they were getting close enough to 30 mpg not to repair our engine. You would think pulling 8 quarts out of a 4.2 quart capacity engine would be a concern to them but their first response to me was " It is normal to have some fuel in your oil" LOL Needless to say I bought a Honda Pilot after that
Last edited:
cardude2000
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2015
- Posts
- 2,931
- Reaction score
- 1,041
GM is the best. Their vehicles are deities. GM would never lie to us. You shouldnt worry about mileage. Your truck is great. This is your fault. Or Fords. But certainly not GMs. ;-)
ktpinnacle
Full Access Member
The considering the mileage numbers are generated by the EPA/DOT, I'm not sure what the claim is here - that GM provided doctored vehicles to produce optimistic numbers?
Car manufacturers have generated high mileage numbers before. I received a very nice debit card in the mail for a 2012 Kia Soul that never got the mileage promised. Not sure how that lawsuit was generated or settled, but I enjoyed using the $600 cash settlement (the only real cash I've ever received in a class action).
ohmygoodness1
TYF Newbie
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2020
- Posts
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
Not sure how much this is worth as we just rented a 2020 Yukon XL. Drove from Toronto to Montreal with it fully loaded (wife, 2 kids, dog, skis and a lot of cargo). I wasn't taking it easy by any means and we got around 13L/100km for the entire road trip. That also includes daily driving up mountains
Sent from my IN2025 using Tapatalk
GM can’t afford to lie about those figures, remember what happened to VW when they cheated on emissions testing? False results would cause a class action lawsuit of immense cost. Most people don’t drive like the EPA test cycle. But blame the EPA if you disagree with that. Carmakers do not determine the test conditions!
And of course some conservative drivers can beat the test loop results. However you’ll find them on different forums.
Beat the EPA cycle by 15.8MPG Yesterday..
35.8MPG mind you (speed i was going 55-83MPH based on traffic) I did have a cross wind, crosswinds are weird as they don't seem to effect the mpg negatively....
I did get gas at new gas station( made sure to top it off before the cycle to reset my gas tank, to that pump the day before...) so it would have minimal contamination.... I think it has something to do with the 0w30 oil i used as AFM is working more often then usual... at lest compared to the 5w30 i was using before (WAY less startup noise too.).(I still wait for the engine to warm up in M4 though. before letting it AFM.)
Last edited:
Ethanol in the gasoline will measurably reduce fuel mileage.
That said, you might have the dealer run diagnostics on it. I had three '95 Luminas as company vehicles. I drove them a lot, about 60K per year. I filled them up every day, drove the same routes, etc. I calculated the gas mileage every time I filled up. First car averaged 29.5 MPG every time, =/- about .3 MPG. Second car did the exact same thing. Third car averaged 21-22 MPG. I took it to the dealer and complained. They asked me why I thought it should get 29.5 and I explained that I filled up daily, drove the same routes, and kept daily records for two identical vehicles. They didn't have an answer. They ran the diagnostics and 're-tuned' it. Next time out, it got 29.5! I figured I should have asked for more...
That said, you might have the dealer run diagnostics on it. I had three '95 Luminas as company vehicles. I drove them a lot, about 60K per year. I filled them up every day, drove the same routes, etc. I calculated the gas mileage every time I filled up. First car averaged 29.5 MPG every time, =/- about .3 MPG. Second car did the exact same thing. Third car averaged 21-22 MPG. I took it to the dealer and complained. They asked me why I thought it should get 29.5 and I explained that I filled up daily, drove the same routes, and kept daily records for two identical vehicles. They didn't have an answer. They ran the diagnostics and 're-tuned' it. Next time out, it got 29.5! I figured I should have asked for more...
Similar threads
