AshenGrey

First you use the city mpg as the metric then you say a 15-17 city is really 9-13 real world. That fits your argument but the real world the rest of us see is drivers end up getting somewhere between city/highway. Please admit the 9-13 was a silly claim.

Your onus was to back your claim that the majority of GM vehicles fall in the 9-13 range, not to show that Toyota/Honda has vehicles that are better in most or even every case. You haven't shown any in the 9-13 range so far. I'll point you to one you missed, the E-85 Sierra 4WD is 11/14, but not 51% of sales.

I see you picked a Tacoma 2.7L to compare against a Silverado. But a 4L MT is only 16 city and is mid-size. Add the Tacoma to the 9-13 category for Toyota, the 2.7L is a rarity.

I like the fed fuel link you gave though. The E-85s really stand out as bad. Who would buy a Dodge E-85 4.7L that gets 9/11 when they can get a 8.3L V10 that gets 9/15?

 

My assertion that a truck/SUV that gets 15 city really gets 9-13 comes from the fact that the EPA numbers are wildly optimistic. That's also why a Civic Hybrid really gets 44 MPG and not 49, or why a Prius gets closer to 48 and not 60. I just extrapolated the same percentage to low-FE monstrosities that GM churns out.

Besides, people with 450 HP at their disposal are much more likely to drive in a fuel-wasting manner than someone driving a 110 HP car.

As far as GM's unreliability... I just haven't been able to forgive GM for the MANY times that the Fiero / Grand AM / Grand Prix left me or dad stranded. This happened dozens of times. Never again!

 

I see your mistake, your use of hybrids wildy optimistic EPA city mileage doesn't apply to non-hybrids.

I do subscribe to Consumer Reports, here's some numbers I "cherry-picked" just like you. Keep in mind CR gets low overall MPG, usually lower than what people end up achieving, but I'll use their numbers as they should be consistent.

Chevy Tahoe EPA 15/19 CR 14
Chevy Trailblazer 15/21 15
Honda Pilot 17/22 17
Toyota 4Runner 17/21 16
Toyota Land Cruiser 13/17 14
Toyota Sequoia 15/17 15
Toyota Tacoma 21/24 20 my wife (see signature)

Point being, at most CR got 1 mpg less than the City not the 4-7mpg less that you extrapolated. My wife beat CR by almost 3 mpg and she doesn't even try.

I didn't find the year equivalent thing you were referring to but I did look in the reliability comparison section and summarize my "cherry-picking" below.

Family Cars
Prius and Accord hybrid #1 and #2, Impala and Grand Prix beat Honda Accord V6. VW and Mazda rock bottom.

Large Cars
Buick LaCrosse #1 rated, beat all including Toyota Avalon. Only 300 V8 did poorly, best overall reliability as a group.

Upscale cars
Lexus and Acura lead the pack, Lincoln, Saab stink it up.

Luxury Cars
Lexus, Infiniti, Volvo great, All German cars suck and BAD but not as bad as the Brits.

Small Cars
Toyota/Honda rule, Aveo middle of pack, Cobalt worst of the bunch

Coupe/convertible
Monte Carlo #1 beating Camry Solero, stay away from the Beetle and Mercedes 'verts.

Roadsters/Sports Cars
I don't care.

Wagons/Hatchbacks
Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe essentially equal, stay away from everyting German.

Minivans
Except for Toyota Sienna they all are below average, Only the Nissan Quest was worse than the field of GMs which were really bad (Uplander, Terraza, Relay, Montana what are these?).

Midsize SUV
Toyota the big winner, GM middle of the pack, Germany, England and Ford BAD.

Fullsize SUV
Toyota then GM, at the bottom Ford, Hummer, Nissan, appalling, but Infiniti QX56 is the worst of all vehicles of any type with -297% from average.

Compact Pickups
Yeah Buddy, check out my signature for #1 pickup GM worst. Too bad Rover or VW or BMW don't make pickups they'd be much worse the GM.

Full Size Pickup
Honda/Toyota win this with GM Diesels close behind and other GMs average, Ford and Nissan bring up the rear.

Conclusion Toyota and Honda make GREAT vehicles, GM is better than some, especially against Europe, and usually Ford and Dodge (my old underdog, see signature again).

 

Worthywads: Thanks for the additional research. I didn't know that non-hybrids got so close to the EPA estimate. Very interesting!

 

The truth is, most people can easily beat the numbers that Consumer Reports get. They were only able to get 37mpg in the 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid. That is pretty pathetic and would put them very near the bottom of the database here.

 

Mr. Kite

Just wondering if you ever got up to Boulder to try the ethanol free gas? I'm using it exclusively with excellent results.

 

Jason,

Sorry 'bout that. I don't come to this site to rant. Every now and then, the mis-information tickles the wrong nerve.

Peace,

Martin

 

Are you including Chevrolet trucks and SUV's in this statement? The Silverado and Trailblazer alone accounted for nearly 1 million of Chevrolet's 2.6 million cars sold for last year. When you throw in the myriad of other Chevrolet Trucks, vans and suv's I would expect the vast majority of Chrevrolet's sales are from vehicles getting less than 30 mpg.

I'm not trying to vilify Chevrolet for this, just trying to clarify your statement and find out where the 90% figure comes from. Usually when we talk manufacturer lineups here we include all of their lineup. You started your argument talking 'vehicles' and then appeared to switch to just 'cars' to help your argument.

 

Okay Ashen,

Since I'm now sitting on the beach, margarita in hand (Seriously. I'm on vacation) I can probably discuss this with you calmly and without yelling at you. And I do apologize about the "well poisoning" comment. But this is a HYBRID website and I think your GM / domestic bashing is over the top and waaay off topic. But here goes.

First of all, the EPA document that you refer to is a permanent fixture on my desk at work. 2003 - 2006 versions. You cannot point to a page that I have not referred to and interpretted at some point over the past three years. If you can admit that your comment that GM "sells mostly vehicles that get 9 - 13 mpg" is biased and inaccurate, you will go a long ways towards restoring some of the respect I had for you until that particular comment. In response I posted data that concludes that GM sells a large volume of fuel efficient vehicles. You haven't addressed that.

The information that you posted above regarding EPA listings and the most fuel efficient vehicles in each EPA segment is correct. I don't think I would ever state that GM makes the single most fuel efficient vehicle in each segment. I will point out that on a model for model basis, GM makes some models that are more fuel efficient than product from Honda and Toyota. Case in point.....even though the Camry and Accord mid-size cars both have 4 cylinder models that get 24 mpg, the Chevrolet Impala, which is a much bigger car, gets better fuel economy than the Camry and Accord V6 models. The Impala and the Monte Carlo, either with a 3.5L 4 speed get 21 city & 31 highway. The Camry 3.3L V6 5 spd gets 21 / 29. The Solara 3.3L V6 5 spd gets 21 / 29. The Accord 3.0L V6 5 spd gets 20 / 29. So sure, if you want to compare the smaller 4 cylinder Toyota and Honda to the larger V6 Chevrolets, the Toyota and Honda show better. But if you compare V6 to V6 and even move up to the LARGER Chevrolets, they fair better than the Toyota and Honda models with smaller engines and more gears.

Now with the trucks and SUVs, again, you present an apples and oranges comparison. Comparing a small 4 cylinder Element to a large V8 Tahoe is a no-brainer. Even though EPA lists "SUV" as one segment, the industry separates it into six categories(Small, Mid, Large, Entry Lux, Mid Lux, and Large Lux). Small SUV includes the Chevy HHR, rated 22 / 30 , compared to the Element at 22 / 26, the Toyota RAV4 at 24 / 30, the Chevy Equinox V6 at 19 / 24, and the Ford Escape at 22 / 25. All are 2WD 4 cylinders except for the Equinox, which only comes in a V6. If you look at the 4WD / AWD versions, the numbers are even closer.

Equinox 18 / 23, Element (4 cyl AWD) 21 / 24, RAV4 21 / 28, and Escape 18 / 22. So obviously comparing a Tahoe to an Element is a seriously slanted view of the world.

In the Large Utility segment, if you compare a Tahoe to a Sequioa and other vehicles in its class, what do you get? Tahoe 5.3L V8, 4 spd 16 / 22, Sequoia 4.7L V8, 5 spd 15 / 18, Ford Expedition 5.4L V8, 5 spd 14 / 19, and Honda Pilot 3.5L V6, 5 spd 18 / 24. The Pilot is actually in the Mid Utility segment, but Honda doesn't make a large utility. The Tahoe, which is a larger vehicle with a larger engine and fewer transmission gears than the Sequioa is SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER in fuel economy. You have to go to a smaller, lighter, less capable SUV like the Honda Pilot with a V6 to beat the Tahoe in large SUV fuel economy.

Now, since I'm not at my desk and don't have my EPA reports handy, I was able to pull up the above data in a total of about 5 minutes of comparison building on Edmunds.com. Bottom line, when you compare like vehicle to like vehicle, GM is VERY COMPETITIVE and often, though not always, better than Toyota or Honda.

As for your experiences with Pontiac products...if I'd had those experiences, I'd probably be sour on Pontiacs, too. I wouldn't necessarily be as negative on GM products as you are, but that's your cross to bear. I won't try to make you feel better. But, here are my experiences with the products you mentioned...

Pontiac Fiero: I had one of the early 1984 models. I put about 25,000 miles on it the first year and didn't have any problems with it. Traded it in for a 1985 Buick Skyhawk that lasted me until 1991 when I gave it to a relative with 113,000 miles on it. That relative passed it on to another relative a few years later. It was eventally totalled in an accident. Don't recall how many miles it had on it.

Pontiac Grand Prix: I had a 1993 Grand Prix Coupe that I gave to my mother after a year. She kept it until 1999 and sold it to a co-worker. The co-worker kept it until 2002 and gave it to her mother. The mother had it until last year when it was smashed by a snow plow. No idea of the mileage, but it was way over the150K it had on it when I last saw it in 2002.

Pontiac Grand Am: I had a 1987 Grand Am that I kept for two years, when I traded it in for a Corvette. The only problem I had with it was the crank position sensor went out on it one day when I was on my way to work. That's not fun, because the engine shuts down and you don't know why until it's been towed to the dealer and diagnosed.


Now obviously, my experiences have been better than yours or your dad's. The difference is, I'm not gonna go shout from the roof-tops that Fiero, Grand Prix, or Grand Am are the best thing since sliced bread. You obviously feel comfortable saying that since your experiences were not good, they are representative of everything GM makes. Not at all close to being true.

I'm not asking you to love GM products. I'm not even suggesting that you stop criticizing them. I would ask that you at least involve a certain level of fairness in your criticisms and comparisons. Comparing Elements to Tahoes on fuel economy is as fair as if I were to compare Elements to Tahoes on towing capacity.

Peace, (I mean it this time)

Martin

 

I just want to pipe in that how you treat a car can make a difference. I, currently, have a 99 Grand Am that I bought new (17 miles on the clock) and I now have 150500 miles on it. It still runs sweet and clean, it has had a few minor problems (the worst I've had was the water pump spewing water all over the engine). I, on week days, drive 76 miles (when I get a ride) or 136 miles (if I drive) a day. But, this car has had every 3000 mile service (and replaced about 4 serpentine belts) and I have been very happy with it - I'll be sad to bid it farewell when my TCH is delivered.