GMC Terrain, Equinox, and SRX Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
I'd have to disagree with the article, at least from my experience. I don't think the problem is the test.

Every car I have owned has gotten pretty close or exceeded the sticker ratings. The problems people are having with the Equinox is a unique problem with the engine IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
315 Posts
fast200 said:
I'd have to disagree with the article, at least from my experience. I don't think the problem is the test.

Every car I have owned has gotten pretty close or exceeded the sticker ratings. The problems people are having with the Equinox is a unique problem with the engine IMO.
I have been driving company cars since 2001....Typically its cruise and FORGET for miles at at time, driving roughly 45K a year. I have NEVER owned a car that got the stated EPA on highway, they have all been lower. Fuel and speed @ which I cruise is the cause

I have gotten 30mpg on a tank in the Nox, and I average 27mpg....That is doing pretty darn good for what it is. EPA needs to modify its testing standards into real life, put it on real road conditions (track as drag does not come into play in testing but should...ie the NOX), put the air on (who doesnt use that?) and use gas that is available to the average customer...10% is standard, but even up to 15% is available, the more ethanol the less the mpg

Oh yea...it carries 250lbs of equipment in the rear all hte time
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
I sent an email to the EPA about the supposed fuel economy rating of the 4 cylinder Terrain. I too have always received pretty close or better than EPA ratings on my vehicles. My current 2008 Volvo gets better than EPA sticker rating but there is always a variant in those ratings. The EPA's answer to me in their email response didn't make much sense either. To me their newer ways of testing should make the rating much more accurate than the older rating but it seems to make it less accurate.

The EPA needs to improve their testing and shame on GM for using this phoney 32 mpg highway rating from the EPA as an advertising campaign to sell Terrains and their Chevy equivalent!!!! I do not care how you drive it ......it will never get 32 mpg on the highway at normal traveling speeds. Our 2011 Terrain 2.4 liter SLE doesn't even come close and I have tried driving it many different non-aggressive ways with no luck.

It's sad when consumers like us purchase a vehicle in good faith with no way to test the overall MPG expecting it to perform in manner as advertised. With the crappy economy and rising fuel costs is it too much to ask to receive a vehicle that performs as rated/promised?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
315 Posts
bimmer1 said:
I sent an email to the EPA about the supposed fuel economy rating of the 4 cylinder Terrain. I too have always received pretty close or better than EPA ratings on my vehicles. My current 2008 Volvo gets better than EPA sticker rating but there is always a variant in those ratings. The EPA's answer to me in their email response didn't make much sense either. To me their newer ways of testing should make the rating much more accurate than the older rating but it seems to make it less accurate.

The EPA needs to improve their testing and shame on GM for using this phoney 32 mpg highway rating from the EPA as an advertising campaign to sell Terrains and their Chevy equivalent!!!! I do not care how you drive it ......it will never get 32 mpg on the highway at normal traveling speeds. Our 2011 Terrain 2.4 liter SLE doesn't even come close and I have tried driving it many different non-aggressive ways with no luck.

It's sad when consumers like us purchase a vehicle in good faith with no way to test the overall MPG expecting it to perform in manner as advertised. With the crappy economy and rising fuel costs is it too much to ask to receive a vehicle that performs as rated/promised?
Shame on you for not know how these test/standards are done. Its not hard to google it up. As well, purchase any I4 similar to the Nox/Terrain and see which gets the best mpg...According the fuelly its the Nox/Terrain, they are just not getting the rated from EPA because of the obvious differences between real world, and epa world

GM is just doing what any other manufacture would do....Boast the MPG of its cars rated in a standard test agains other cars in the EXACT same manner. In the real world, we accelerate faster, use ac 100%, use 10%+ ethanol gasoline, and drive at speeds higher then the test.

If I drive 55-60mph I would acheive 32+ mpg easily....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
682 Posts
I am fortunate that I have a good dealer. He let me take both the I4 and v6 versions ( both were new with less than 20 km on the odometer ) on a long test drive over the course of 2 weekends. I was not impressed with the mileage out of the I4 so I purchased the v6 awd and do not regret the decision. I average between 27 and 31 mpg imp or 23 to 27 mpg us. I only use the advertised mpg as a guide ( don't trust the government ) .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
I have only been able to achieve 19-20 city. I have had AC on and the average in motion speed is about 40 mph. I was getting 22-24 in my 4 banger Mazda3 on the same route. However, I was able to get just under 28 MPG on a Vegas trip this last weekend. So it makes me wonder if they can't tweak the computer with the fuel usage on the lower speeds, because it's obvious my Nox is capable of getting acceptable MPG on the highway, but city is still up for debate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
715 Posts
The four Grand Prix's I had before the Terrain all got at or better that EPA figures on the highway.
Under the right conditions, I got great mileage from those cars (3.8 V-6). But I rarely drive under the 'right conditions'.

But even the normal driving I do got good figures (again highway).

I don't watch the 'city' figures normally to begin with as most of the miles on those cars, as well as this Terrain, are on the open road.

The best figures so far on my Terrain (v-6 FWD) is 25 MPG.(long trip). Normal week to week mileage is 20-21. Of course, the engine only has 4000 miles on it and as I've said before, there breaking in and breaking in. I expect the mileage will improve with more miles and full synthetic oil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
dwendt44 said:
The four Grand Prix's I had before the Terrain all got at or better that EPA figures on the highway.
Under the right conditions, I got great mileage from those cars (3.8 V-6). But I rarely drive under the 'right conditions'.

But even the normal driving I do got good figures (again highway).

I don't watch the 'city' figures normally to begin with as most of the miles on those cars, as well as this Terrain, are on the open road.

The best figures so far on my Terrain (v-6 FWD) is 25 MPG.(long trip). Normal week to week mileage is 20-21. Of course, the engine only has 4000 miles on it and as I've said before, there breaking in and breaking in. I expect the mileage will improve with more miles and full synthetic oil.
I keep reminding myself to give it 5-10k before making a big deal of it. I am only at 2800 miles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
715 Posts
Right you are. Aside from the initial break in, an engine seems to have a second 'settling in' some where on the other side of 15,000-20,000 miles.
It worked that way on those four Grand Prixs and others have similar experiences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
grometsc said:
Shame on you for not know how these test/standards are done. Its not hard to google it up. As well, purchase any I4 similar to the Nox/Terrain and see which gets the best mpg...According the fuelly its the Nox/Terrain, they are just not getting the rated from EPA because of the obvious differences between real world, and epa world

GM is just doing what any other manufacture would do....Boast the MPG of its cars rated in a standard test agains other cars in the EXACT same manner. In the real world, we accelerate faster, use ac 100%, use 10%+ ethanol gasoline, and drive at speeds higher then the test.

If I drive 55-60mph I would acheive 32+ mpg easily....

Try driving 55-60 mph in the south east on 10-12 hour interstate trips. Those are abnormal speeds and all rating should be tested at "normal" highway speeds..............not less than normal to achieve an inaccurate fuel economy rating. In today's economy we don't need anymore magician's slight of hand tricks we need real world applications with some accuracy. I choose not to defend the EPA , GMC, or any other manufacturer who adheres to these inaccurate standards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Also, we are at 16,000 miles which should be past a normal "break-in" period and using Mobil 1 synthetic oil. I think owners keep hoping that the break-in and use of synthetic oil will somehow mysteriously improve the fuel economy. Don't get your hopes up too high!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
While I agree the test could use some tweaking, I think part of the problem is our perception of the test as being some all-powerful method to tell us exactly what fuel economy we're going to get - it isn't. There are just too many factors to driving for ANY test to accurately tell us (as a collective U.S. population, all with different driving habits and road conditions) that. EPA Testing is designed to help us consumers compare cars' fuel economy (which it does well). I think some people forget that under those infamous bolded city and highway numbers are statements that give about a 10 mpg range higher and lower than the stated number of what "most drivers" will experience. But expecting it to tell you exactly what MPG you'll get? Your mileage may vary (no pun intended!)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Mileage may vary but averages are averages and I hate to keep pointing out that every car I have ever owned before the EPA changed their standards achieved fuel economy very close to its EPA rating. Usually better than rated on the highway. We can drink the GM kool-aid and we can drink the EPA kool-aid but that does not change the fact that the accuracy is way off and it results in false claims concerning fuel economy and unhappy customers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Recently my wife went to Nashville with some friends. She took herself, three friends and their luggage in here ‘Nox. I live North of Cincinnati. So, from North Cincy to Nashville and back, she averaged 28 MPG. This was in a 2.4L 2011 FWD ‘Nox with 2000 miles on it. Heck, I hope the engine breaks in more and it gets even better mileage but, that is not bad highway mileage at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
I say let them keep shooting themselves in the foot.
Our equinox was our first ever SUV, and will be the last.
21 MPG @ 100km/h (60mph)

Eventually people will stop buying these things, and it will take forever to get the bad image lost.
Kind of like GM's old diesels- ruined the "diesel" image in so many peoples heads, meanwhile everywhere else in the world people are buying really sweet high mileage diesel cars and small trucks.
With the cost of vehicles, usually buying a vehicle and getting less than you expected, your'e jumping ship to another brand.

GM can hide behind the EPA ratings, but since the EPA is **** near god almighty, people will remember this.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top