That's funny. I was looking at one of those on Monday and thought there is no way it could get 32 mpg.
Think You'll Get Advertised MPG on a GM Equinox?
- Thread starter The Critic
- Start date
- Status
I never had a vehicle that didn't get the same or better than the EPA ratings. Saab, Doge Intepit Jeep GC, Subaru Forester, Mazda CX7. I can't address any GM car as I never owned one or want to until they get reliability rating up for several years or so.
Originally Posted By: Eddie
I never had a vehicle that didn't get the same or better than the EPA ratings. Saab, Doge Intepit Jeep GC, Subaru Forester, Mazda CX7. I can't address any GM car as I never owned one or want to until they get reliability rating up for several years or so.
Where you live plays a big role there. Warm climates provide better mileage as you get warmer air into the manifold, and no true "cold starts" as compared to other places, so your oil is hitting operating temperature, where its viscoity is thinner and providing less resistance than a colder, thicker oil that is needing more time to warm and thin to operating temperature.
That's why I added the caveat about those in the right climates and topographies having a natural EPA advantage.
Edit: in cool climates, mileage tanks in the winter. People attribute that to winter grade fuel and winter tires. Both are factors, but the big one left out is that the colder ambient temp oil needs a lot more time to get up to operating temp. And during that time its thicker and therefore producing more resistance and lower mileage. Same as the effect observed when running a 40 vs 30 weight oil, only much more pronounced as cold oil is thicker than 40 weight oil at operating temp.
-Spyder
I never had a vehicle that didn't get the same or better than the EPA ratings. Saab, Doge Intepit Jeep GC, Subaru Forester, Mazda CX7. I can't address any GM car as I never owned one or want to until they get reliability rating up for several years or so.
Where you live plays a big role there. Warm climates provide better mileage as you get warmer air into the manifold, and no true "cold starts" as compared to other places, so your oil is hitting operating temperature, where its viscoity is thinner and providing less resistance than a colder, thicker oil that is needing more time to warm and thin to operating temperature.
That's why I added the caveat about those in the right climates and topographies having a natural EPA advantage.
Edit: in cool climates, mileage tanks in the winter. People attribute that to winter grade fuel and winter tires. Both are factors, but the big one left out is that the colder ambient temp oil needs a lot more time to get up to operating temp. And during that time its thicker and therefore producing more resistance and lower mileage. Same as the effect observed when running a 40 vs 30 weight oil, only much more pronounced as cold oil is thicker than 40 weight oil at operating temp.
-Spyder
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Originally Posted By: Cutehumor
32 mpg on the equinox isn't accurate? that's disappointing. It was my choice for next vehicle in 2013.
If you compare model mileage across many model years, you'll find it either almost always flat line, or sometimes a dip down. This is inspite of technological and engineering improvements made to squeeze more miles out of a gallon of gas. Why - weight. Weight keeps increasing as smaller cars get bigger with new generations. The new Corolla is a much bigger, heavier car than my 2000. And that one was bigger and heavier than previous generations.
There is only so much technology and engineering can accomplish. Ultimately Newtonian laws prevail. Also why weight reduction (and doing things that decrease drag) are easy ways to improve mileage.
I don't consider myself a hypermiler, and there's things they do and advocate that don't make sense to me (turning the car off at red lights is one example), but I do look for easy ways to improve milege just to get a bit more bang for my (already expensive) gas dollars.
-Spyder
1+ ,the new Taurus is another good example,It's huge compared to the old one.
Originally Posted By: Cutehumor
32 mpg on the equinox isn't accurate? that's disappointing. It was my choice for next vehicle in 2013.
If you compare model mileage across many model years, you'll find it either almost always flat line, or sometimes a dip down. This is inspite of technological and engineering improvements made to squeeze more miles out of a gallon of gas. Why - weight. Weight keeps increasing as smaller cars get bigger with new generations. The new Corolla is a much bigger, heavier car than my 2000. And that one was bigger and heavier than previous generations.
There is only so much technology and engineering can accomplish. Ultimately Newtonian laws prevail. Also why weight reduction (and doing things that decrease drag) are easy ways to improve mileage.
I don't consider myself a hypermiler, and there's things they do and advocate that don't make sense to me (turning the car off at red lights is one example), but I do look for easy ways to improve milege just to get a bit more bang for my (already expensive) gas dollars.
-Spyder
1+ ,the new Taurus is another good example,It's huge compared to the old one.
The EPA rating on my '04 Subie Legacy 5 speed is 27 mpg highway, I'm getting 32 mpg consistently. Its gratifying, beating the EPA rating by 5 mpg.
Interesting, considering this.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Interesting, considering this.
That's an advertisement, not a review.
Interesting, considering this.
That's an advertisement, not a review.
Originally Posted By: rpn453
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Interesting, considering this.
That's an advertisement, not a review.
He has done all kinds of different cars, look it up. Basically he tests the gas mileage, that is really it. For example he tested a RAM, a Wrangler, a Fit.. Just about everything really.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Interesting, considering this.
That's an advertisement, not a review.
He has done all kinds of different cars, look it up. Basically he tests the gas mileage, that is really it. For example he tested a RAM, a Wrangler, a Fit.. Just about everything really.
Last edited:
My mechanic has an Equinox and loves it.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
He has done all kinds of different cars, look it up. Basically he tests the gas mileage, that is really it. For example he tested a RAM, a Wrangler, a Fit.. Just about everything really.
I just don't trust a reviewer that isn't willing to say anything bad about the vehicle. To me, they're just contracted advertisers.
I also wonder whether he even calculates mileage or goes off the notoriously optimistic displays, since he almost always mentions those in his reviews yet never states how accurate they actually were. Regardless, he does seem to know how to get good fuel economy out of a vehicle.
He has done all kinds of different cars, look it up. Basically he tests the gas mileage, that is really it. For example he tested a RAM, a Wrangler, a Fit.. Just about everything really.
I just don't trust a reviewer that isn't willing to say anything bad about the vehicle. To me, they're just contracted advertisers.
I also wonder whether he even calculates mileage or goes off the notoriously optimistic displays, since he almost always mentions those in his reviews yet never states how accurate they actually were. Regardless, he does seem to know how to get good fuel economy out of a vehicle.
I'm pretty sure he is intelligent enough for actually calculate it himself. Not contracted either, according to him, he has it loaned to him by a dealer, not covered by the manufacturer
Last edited:
There are ways to beat the EPA estimates. Plenty do it, and there are various proven methods that help. Climate and topography are natural advantages, or limitations, you either have or don't have. Beyond that, some driving styles are better suited than others. The rest takes work. The more weight you're pushing and the higher the drag coefficient, the higher the barrier to what you can hope to achieve.
I'm skeptical of the mileage claims on the Equinox simply because the numbers aren't jiving with what's realistic to expect from a vehicle of its weight and body type. It may, thanks to engineering improvements, do very well for what it is. But ultimately physics prevail.
The Aveo, also using a GM ecotec engine, gets exceptionally good mileage. But aside from the ecotec, it also has a low drag coefficient and is very light weight. The car is billed as a fuel efficient model and it delivers.
With the Equinox, GM seems to be trying to sell a popular vehicle class while alleviating recent concerns, with the gas spikes we've seen this decade, that have been hurting sales on these vehicles. Its like they're promising the best of both worlds - the vehicle you want to drive, and the fuel economy of something smaller, lighter, and having less drag. That's a pretty bold claim to make, and so far the accepted third party reviewers are not achieving those claims.
If you like the Equinox for what is, then I say go ahead and buy it. But if you're basing that decision on the advertised EPA rating, you are likely going to be disappointed. But then there are hyper-milers, particularly in warmer climates, who consistently beat EPA ratings and do it by a large margin. So ultimately YMMV - and in the very literal sense.
-Spyder
I'm skeptical of the mileage claims on the Equinox simply because the numbers aren't jiving with what's realistic to expect from a vehicle of its weight and body type. It may, thanks to engineering improvements, do very well for what it is. But ultimately physics prevail.
The Aveo, also using a GM ecotec engine, gets exceptionally good mileage. But aside from the ecotec, it also has a low drag coefficient and is very light weight. The car is billed as a fuel efficient model and it delivers.
With the Equinox, GM seems to be trying to sell a popular vehicle class while alleviating recent concerns, with the gas spikes we've seen this decade, that have been hurting sales on these vehicles. Its like they're promising the best of both worlds - the vehicle you want to drive, and the fuel economy of something smaller, lighter, and having less drag. That's a pretty bold claim to make, and so far the accepted third party reviewers are not achieving those claims.
If you like the Equinox for what is, then I say go ahead and buy it. But if you're basing that decision on the advertised EPA rating, you are likely going to be disappointed. But then there are hyper-milers, particularly in warmer climates, who consistently beat EPA ratings and do it by a large margin. So ultimately YMMV - and in the very literal sense.
-Spyder
Last edited:
I dont put much stock in the city or combined mileage figures.
Just take the car on a long highway trip and see what you get, I have always been able to beat the Highway rating on all my cars.
there are too many variables for city driving.
And on a simliar note to this Emdunds story both my SIL's have CRV's and constantly whine about the [censored] highway MPG, both claim they are lucky to get 23sh on trips. THat sucks, my Grand Cheroekew with a 4.7 and a real 4Wd gets 22 mpg on a high way trip, that is with a tow package and 3.73 gears.
So just because a SUV has a underpowered large 4 cylinder with tall gearing doesnt mean it will get decent mileage.
Just take the car on a long highway trip and see what you get, I have always been able to beat the Highway rating on all my cars.
there are too many variables for city driving.
And on a simliar note to this Emdunds story both my SIL's have CRV's and constantly whine about the [censored] highway MPG, both claim they are lucky to get 23sh on trips. THat sucks, my Grand Cheroekew with a 4.7 and a real 4Wd gets 22 mpg on a high way trip, that is with a tow package and 3.73 gears.
So just because a SUV has a underpowered large 4 cylinder with tall gearing doesnt mean it will get decent mileage.
Originally Posted By: rpn453
I just don't trust a reviewer that isn't willing to say anything bad about the vehicle. To me, they're just contracted advertisers.
There's someone who GETS it!!!!
I just don't trust a reviewer that isn't willing to say anything bad about the vehicle. To me, they're just contracted advertisers.
There's someone who GETS it!!!!
Originally Posted By: Nick R
I'm pretty sure he is intelligent enough for actually calculate it himself.
I question that assumption. If you look at the Traverse review, for example, he put "well over five hundred miles" on it. So I'll guess it's about 550. He averaged 25.6 mpg on the highway and 21.9 mpg overall.
http://www.mpgomatic.com/2009/07/11/2009-chevrolet-traverse-review/
He claims to have done five different highway mileage tests, as follows:
Originally Posted By: mpgomatic
Interstate
* Cruise control set to 68 MPH, A/C off, windows up: 25.6 MPG
* Cruise control off, target speed 60-72 MPH, A/C off, windows up: 27.1 MPG
* Cruise control set to 68 MPH, A/C on, windows up: 24.0 MPG
Two-Lane County Highway
* Cruise control off, target speed 55-62 MPH, windows down, A/C & DVD on, 6 passengers: 22.4 MPG
* Cruise control off, target speed 55-62 MPH, windows up, A/C off, 6 passengers: 26.3 MPG
He also must have done a significant amount of city driving to bring the overall average down from 25.6 to 21.9, so I'll estimate that half of the driving - 275 miles - was city driving at around 18 mpg. This means he only did about 55 miles on each tank in order to calculate mileage for those five highway tests he did. That's hardly enough to get an accurate assessment, and it leaves me with doubt that he actually stops every hour of driving or less to fill up and perform the calculations.
I realize he's not doing serious car reviews, but he should be more serious about the area he's trying to specialize in: fuel economy. To have any credibility with me, he needs to use a standard test loop with standard driving speeds. The loop needs to be long enough to use most of a full tank in one drive, and he needs to report the accuracy of the vehicle computer's displayed fuel economy estimate during the test. With all his talk promoting real-time fuel economy displays, why would he exclude that information? He should probably even do the test loop a second time on a different day to show repeatability.
I know that he's not actually under contract from any manufacturer, but his review style indicates that he doesn't want to bite the hands that feed him the vehicles.
I'm pretty sure he is intelligent enough for actually calculate it himself.
I question that assumption. If you look at the Traverse review, for example, he put "well over five hundred miles" on it. So I'll guess it's about 550. He averaged 25.6 mpg on the highway and 21.9 mpg overall.
http://www.mpgomatic.com/2009/07/11/2009-chevrolet-traverse-review/
He claims to have done five different highway mileage tests, as follows:
Originally Posted By: mpgomatic
Interstate
* Cruise control set to 68 MPH, A/C off, windows up: 25.6 MPG
* Cruise control off, target speed 60-72 MPH, A/C off, windows up: 27.1 MPG
* Cruise control set to 68 MPH, A/C on, windows up: 24.0 MPG
Two-Lane County Highway
* Cruise control off, target speed 55-62 MPH, windows down, A/C & DVD on, 6 passengers: 22.4 MPG
* Cruise control off, target speed 55-62 MPH, windows up, A/C off, 6 passengers: 26.3 MPG
He also must have done a significant amount of city driving to bring the overall average down from 25.6 to 21.9, so I'll estimate that half of the driving - 275 miles - was city driving at around 18 mpg. This means he only did about 55 miles on each tank in order to calculate mileage for those five highway tests he did. That's hardly enough to get an accurate assessment, and it leaves me with doubt that he actually stops every hour of driving or less to fill up and perform the calculations.
I realize he's not doing serious car reviews, but he should be more serious about the area he's trying to specialize in: fuel economy. To have any credibility with me, he needs to use a standard test loop with standard driving speeds. The loop needs to be long enough to use most of a full tank in one drive, and he needs to report the accuracy of the vehicle computer's displayed fuel economy estimate during the test. With all his talk promoting real-time fuel economy displays, why would he exclude that information? He should probably even do the test loop a second time on a different day to show repeatability.
I know that he's not actually under contract from any manufacturer, but his review style indicates that he doesn't want to bite the hands that feed him the vehicles.
I'd love to see how that 4 cyl GMC Terrain does at 10,000 feet in Leadville Colorado. I bet it couldn't get out of its own way, would be a real turd, lol. I'd never buy a big SUV with a 4 popper in it, that's a joke to me.
The 6cyl would probably do nearly as well on gas, since it isn't working nearly as hard.
The 6cyl would probably do nearly as well on gas, since it isn't working nearly as hard.
- Status
Similar threads
