[robotpepper]

To anyone upset with the current gas mileage they're getting - I was in the same boat. I picked up my 2011 SLE-2 I4 about 6 months ago. One of the main reasons for picking it over others was the advertised 6.1L/100km, as I do lots of highway driving and long trips (back "home" is 550km away, and I make the trip a few times a month)

When I first got it I was appalled at the mileage I was getting, just like everyone else. With mostly highway driving I was still averaging around 12L/100km, WITH "eco" on and the cruise set at 110 km/h. When I'd fill the tank up the "km till empty" screen would say 500-550km despite the car having a relatively big tank. Needless to say, I was very unimpressed and within a month or two was almost regretting my decision and considering getting rid of it. Everyone one here, along with lots of guys in the service department at the dealer said, in a nutshell, "I know it sucks, but just wait till 15,000-20,000km mark". Given how much of a hassle it was to find the Terrain I wanted and haggle with the dealer, etc. I decided to hang on to it and give everyone the benefit of the doubt. If there was still no change at the 15-20,000km mark I was going to get rid of it.

At the 12,000km mark I installed the K&N CAI and noticed about a 1L/100km improvement in mileage and a bit of an increase in power. The car's had 2 oil changes already with Dexos oil from the dealer. About 2 weeks ago I passed the 20,000km mark and have made that 550km trip several times this month already. The last 3 times I've averaged 8.4, 8.6, then 8.5L/100km according to the DIC. The first half of the trip is relatively flat and the second half is quite hilly. I set the cruise at 110km/h and have ECO on (on the hwy I find it helps prevent unnecessary, fuel-wasting downshifting, but I can't stand having it on in city driving). It should be noted that the third number was with a tank of Shell V-power 91 octane fuel, so obviously it doesn't make any real difference putting higher octane in. Now when I fill the tank, the "km till empty" screen says 800-850km instead of 500-550km like it did when it was new. The last time I got to the destination after 550km and the tank was still around half-full with 300-350km remaining, according to the DIC.

So while it still isn't at the advertised-by-GMC 6.1L/100km mark, it's remarkably better than when it was new! So if anyone's still being a skeptic, I'm making this post just to give you a bit of hope (lol). It should be noted as well though that the only time I actually see 6.1 on the Instantaneous Mileage screen is still going downhill, so I don't know how GM got that number!

 

[MOCHA11NOX]

...so I don't know how GM got that number!

GM "got that number" from the EPA...they do the testing...not GM

Glad to hear you're using fewer L/100Km though

 

[4sight]

I, like many here, am quite unimpressed by the mileage I am getting out of my I-4 FWD SLT. I only have 1500 miles on it, and that includes one 500 mile trip to upstate New York. On the NY Thruway, with cruise set, I was getting nowhere near the 32 highway claimed by GM.
Other than the mileage issue, the vehicle is growing on me and I am generally satisfied with my purchase. Your post has given me hope that in time the fuel economy will increase.

 

[robotpepper]

GM "got that number" from the EPA...they do the testing...not GM

Glad to hear you're using fewer L/100Km though

Whoops, my bad! It's early Monday morning... :

 

[robotpepper]

I, like may here, am quite unimpressed by the mileage I am getting out of my I-4 FWD SLT. I only have 1500 miles on it, and that includes one 500 mile trip to upstate New York. On the NY Thruway, with cruise set, I was getting nowhere near the 32 highway claimed by GM.
Other than the mileage issue, the vehicle is growing on me and I am generally satisfied with my purchase. Your post has given me hope that in time the fuel economy will increase.

4sight, I was in the same boat and was pretty upset that I dished out 5 figures on the vehicle and wasn't getting anywhere near what was claimed - hence why I made this post, to give everyone something to look forward to! 8)

 

[chevy22]

I test drove the I4 and V6 on the weekend and got good mileage with both. I think the average hwy speed is around 48mph in the tests isn't it? Put it in cruise doing that speed and I bet its close to advertised. If you go 65mph you won't get those results

 

[MOCHA11NOX]

I test drove the I4 and V6 on the weekend and got good mileage with both. I think the average hwy speed is around 48mph in the tests isn't it? Put it in cruise doing that speed and I bet its close to advertised. If you go 65mph you won't get those results

Correctly stated...the test's OVERALL mph average is 48

That is to say...when ALL speeds in the test are averaged...the result is 48mph

The highest speed attained during the test is 80mph

We have easily attained 30.7 on cruise control on a test loop on more than 2 occasions @ 65mph
and only have 12XX miles on the clock...our test loop is an out and back so terrain and wind is accounted for...as well as city driving to fill up before...and fill up after...at the same pump on the same day when the loop is complete

It can be done...

 

[chevy22]

Correctly stated...the test's OVERALL mph average is 48

That is to say...when ALL speeds in the test are averaged...the result is 48mph

The highest speed attained during the test is 80mph

We have easily attained 30.7 on cruise control on a test loop on more than 2 occasions @ 65mph
and only have 12XX miles on the clock...our test loop is an out and back so terrain and wind is accounted for...as well as city driving to fill up before...and fill up after...at the same pump on the same day when the loop is complete

It can be done...

I find if you are lighter on the throttle while cruising it helps too, its almost as if you can apply too much gas and it doesn't get you any faster and its just loads the engine with more fuel if that makes sense.

 

[tmoreau]

Optimal driving for the Terrain when I get the best mileage was 80-100KM/h after the engine had its initial 10,000 KM done on it, it get's better mileage than my minivan now....

 

[NoobNox]

Here is a good article about EPA testing..http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q3/the_truth_about_epa_city_highway_mpg_estimates-feature

The thing that jumps out at you and pretty much sums things up is the fact that the EPA only has 18 employees assigned to MPG testing, and they usually only do all new models (not refreshes or redesigns) or cars on the extreme end of high/low MPG. In other words, around 80% of the testing is done by the manufacturers themselves and the EPA works on the honor system..

 

[RIT333]

Here is a good article about EPA testing..http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q3/the_truth_about_epa_city_highway_mpg_estimates-feature

The thing that jumps out at you and pretty much sums things up is the fact that the EPA only has 18 employees assigned to MPG testing, and they usually only do all new models (not refreshes or redesigns) or cars on the extreme end of high/low MPG. In other words, around 80% of the testing is done by the manufacturers themselves and the EPA works on the honor system..

Great article. Pretty sad how the gov't spends money on "silly projects", but then only has 18 employees doing mpg testing, and manufacturers are fined megabux for not meeting standards, and consumers are making purchase decisions based upon "estimates and rules-of-thumb+, etc. Oh well, better to have estimates than no data at all - or is it ???

:shrug:

 

[Macbane]

Hey robotpepper,

Thanks for posting your story. I was (am) a little frustrated with the fuel mileage on my I-4 SLE-1 AWD but your post gives me hope. My Terrain has about 3000 KMS on it and the best fuel economy I have gotten was about 9.6 L/100KM on a trip from Fredericton, NB to Summerside, PE and back a few weeks ago but I average about 10.6. I'm looking forward to better results but don't expect to ever get the 6.7 or 6.8 the AWD is rated for.

What part of the country do you live in?

 

[robotpepper]

Hey robotpepper,

Thanks for posting your story. I was (am) a little frustrated with the fuel mileage on my I-4 SLE-1 AWD but your post gives me hope. My Terrain has about 3000 KMS on it and the best fuel economy I have gotten was about 9.6 L/100KM on a trip from Fredericton, NB to Summerside, PE and back a few weeks ago but I average about 10.6. I'm looking forward to better results but don't expect to ever get the 6.7 or 6.8 the AWD is rated for.

What part of the country do you live in?

Niagara Falls, ON - regularly go back home to Ottawa

 

[Cameron]

I just did my 10,000km service and i am averaging 10.3 L/100KM that # is dropping now too, now that i am out of winter. Last fall i went into the snow averaging 9.3 L/100KM. Can only assume the extra idle time grenades the mileage calculations the computer does.

 

[hfdad]

I have the awd Equinox 4 cyl. and have no problem getting the estimated mileage. To beat the EPA numbers though you have to have all the right conditions. Such as level, smooth roads, no speeding, no extra passengers or weight and little traffic problems.

 

[bumn]

I have a 4 cyl 2011 terrain, and the mpg is horrible.. get 17 mpg, bought it like most thinking was going to get close to 20 mpg... impossible in real world driving... I get 16 mpg in my porsche 996 turbo beating the hell out of it.. something is not right... GM should not be able to say the MPG they claim.. its not a real MPG the way they test.. who is going to cruise on a highway at 48 miles per hour... lets be real....

 

[MOCHA11NOX]

who is going to cruise on a highway at 48 miles per hour... lets be real....

good idea...let's be real...

The test is NOT conducted at 48mph
48mph is the average speed after the test is complete
Reported top speed in the test is 80mph
In other words...if you average ALL the speeds used during the test...the result is 48

and while your experience may vary...there are many of us who are getting within 1 to 2 mpg of the
EPA estimate...speaking of which...are you not aware that it's an EPA test...not GM?

 

[NoobNox]

I have the awd Equinox 4 cyl. and have no problem getting the estimated mileage. To beat the EPA numbers though you have to have all the right conditions. Such as level, smooth roads, no speeding, no extra passengers or weight and little traffic problems.

Or better yet, no road at all. According to the article I linked, the EPA does the testing indoors on a dynamometer....I never knew that before. I don't know if the manufacturers do it the same way or not..

 

[NoobNox]

good idea...let's be real...

The test is NOT conducted at 48mph
48mph is the average speed after the test is complete
Reported top speed in the test is 80mph
In other words...if you average ALL the speeds used during the test...the result is 48

and while your experience may vary...there are many of us who are getting within 1 to 2 mpg of the
EPA estimate...speaking of which...are you not aware that it's an EPA test...not GM?

I can't say for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that GM did the EPA testing on the Nox for this go around since it's technically not "all new".

 

[pacman]

Ive never had a problem with any car getting the advertised mpg always within 2 mpg or better than advertised. My other car... the mazda is rated at 31-33 mpg hwy and i can get it as high as 36...im conservative with my mpg when i drive across states...iin town its rated at 23 and i get on avg 26mpg... the nox i was only able to get 27mpg once on a trip from pittsburgh to nj. On the way back i couldnt get higher than 24 ... all hwy...wtf!!! I said to myself..i only had 2 gm's first was a 1980 monza andi think my last is gonna be the nox.....unless this car somehow impresses me with the mpg soon....ill be happy if i can get at least 26 on avg.... 28 woud be astounding! ... and i traded my tiburon that avgs 32mpg for this knowing ill be paying more at the pump.... but not double!