 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / GMC Cars / December 2006GM CAFE average claim is false! Here's proof.
GM CAFE average is a sheer lie. When Wagonner or anybody else says they market more cars that get 30 mpg than anybody else its a patently false statement. Previously, I thought I could trust a mega corporation's business execs without questioning a vehicle specification such as fuel economy, but now, after thinking about it, all their cars weigh much more than 3000 pounds curb and it it becomes a physical impossibility for vehicles of this weight to get anywhere this mileage (30mpg) when loaded and in driven in real world conditions. Read this factual article and weep.= >Press Release of Senator Cantwell >Applying Real-World Gas Mileage to Fuel Economy Standards Would Cut Oil >Imports by 20 Percent=20 >Cantwell again pushes for accurate gas mileage reporting to improve fuel >economy in light of new study=20 > >Thursday, July 13,2006 > >WASHINGTON, DC =96 A new report released Thursday by the Environmental >Working Group shows that the U.S. can reduce oil imports by 20 percent by >simply applying real-world gas mileage to current fuel economy standards. >Current gas mileage estimates for cars and trucks are based on outdated >formulas that U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) has long tried to correct= =20 >=93This report is more proof that by simply letting drivers know the actua= l >gas mileage of their cars and trucks and applying this real-world standard= >to our nation=92s current fuel efficiency requirements, we can take a big >step toward energy independence,=94 said Cantwell. =93It=92s ridiculous th= at we >still rely on an inaccurate, 30-year-old fuel economy test that >consistently overestimates the mileage American drivers get in real-world >driving conditions. I=92ve already put forward bipartisan legislation >Congress could pass today to fix this problem and reduce our dependence on= >foreign oil at the same time.=94=20 > >In June, Cantwell joined a bipartisan Senate coalition in introducing >legislation to improve the fuel efficiency of America=92s vehicles for the= >first time in 20 years. The =93Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act=94 also include= s >legislation originally introduced by Cantwell in April 2005 that would >require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide more accurate= >fuel economy estimates for the window stickers on new vehicles. Current >window labels overestimate real-world fuel economy by 20 to 50 percent. >For example, mileage estimates shown on window stickers still assume >Americans drive an average of 48 miles per hour on the highway, never >drive over hills, and don=92t use air conditioners.=20 > >The Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act would also harmonize the fuel economy >tests used for window stickers and automakers=92 compliance with corporate= >average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. Current CAFE compliance tests are >based on a similarly outdated formula. If more accurate gas mileage >estimates were used, fuel economy would improve, thereby reducing oil >consumption. To learn more about the new study, visit the Environmental >Working Group website at http://www.ewg.org/reports/realMPG/.=20 > >Cantwell=92s Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, in addition to improving gas >mileage estimates, would increase the combined average fuel economy for >all passenger cars, sport utility vehicles, and light trucks to 35 miles >per gallon by 2017. Currently, passenger cars and light trucks must meet >standards of 27.5 and 22.2 miles per gallon respectively. Cantwell=92s >proposal would also for the first time apply CAFE standards to passenger >vehicles weighing between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds=97such as Hummers and >Large SUVs=97improve safety standards in the event of a crash between >different sized vehicles, and establish a credit trading program allowing >auto manufacturers that cannot economically reach required fuel economy >levels to buy credits from automakers that exceeded compliance >requirements. The legislation would also require new vehicles to come >equipped with features allowing drivers to put their cars in a more >efficient driving mode, an onboard display showing real-time fuel >consumption, and a warning for tire pressure levels affecting fuel economy= =20 >Cantwell has been a consistent advocate of measures to reduce oil imports,= >promote greater use of domestically produced biofuels, increase the >availability of flex fuel vehicles, and improve vehicle fuel economy >standards. In 2005, Cantwell worked with Senate leaders to include her >proposal to improve the accuracy of EPA gas mileage tests in the Surface >Transportation Safety Improvement Act. The proposal passed the full >Senate, but was later removed from the bill by House members of a >conference committee called to work out differences between House and >Senate versions of the legislation. Cantwell also sponsored amendments to >energy bills in 2003 and 2005 that would have raised CAFE standards, and >sponsored the Automobile Fuel Efficiency Improvements Act in 2003, which >would have increased CAFE=20 =20 > GM CAFE average is a sheer lie. When Wagonner or anybody else says they > market more cars that get 30 mpg than anybody else its a patently false [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and in driven in real world conditions. Read this factual article and > weep.= You know, you would seem much less like a total idiot if you would actually cut and paste properly. Oh, and don't give false statements either. My last Bonnie, with the regular 3800 II had a curb weight of almost 3500, and still got better then 30MPG. > You know, you would seem much less like a total idiot if you would > actually cut and paste properly. Oh, and don't give false statements > either. My last Bonnie, with the regular 3800 II had a curb weight of > almost 3500, and still got better then 30MPG. I dont know how you do it. We have a LeSabre with the 3800 II, and it gets only about 25-26 highway mpg. Which is not bad, actually, but nowhere near the 30+ mpg claims. (Yes, we have the lockup overdrive tranny) I had a Regal with the 2.8 litre engine which DID get me 35 mpg or better on the highway. That engine never gave me any problems...Everything else on the car seemed to fail regularly, but the engine was rock solid. Transmission failed twice, countless alternators bit the dust, power steering pump failed, brakes (4 wheel disc) failed regularly as my exwife couldnt seem to remember to set the parking brake, fuel pump failed once, ignition module failed, cps failed. > > You know, you would seem much less like a total idiot if you would > > actually cut and paste properly. Oh, and don't give false statements [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 25-26 highway mpg. Which is not bad, actually, but nowhere near the 30+ mpg > claims. If you use Imperial Gallons you can go a bit further They are 4.546 liters Us Gallons are 3.7854 liters >> > You know, you would seem much less like a total idiot if you would >> > actually cut and paste properly. Oh, and don't give false statements [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > They are 4.546 liters > Us Gallons are 3.7854 liters I use US. As do most others. >> You know, you would seem much less like a total idiot if you would >> actually cut and paste properly. Oh, and don't give false statements [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > mpg claims. > (Yes, we have the lockup overdrive tranny) My new Bonnie with the 3800 II Supercharged get's 28-29 MPG on the highway. When was the last time you did a tune-up on your LaSabre? > I had a Regal with the 2.8 litre engine which DID get me 35 mpg or better > on the highway. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > module failed, cps > failed. I have never personally owned a car with the 2.8, but my father has had several Pontiac 6000's with that engine. I can't say what mileage he got, but it seemed like a damned good engine. Though, the bodies rusted out when they got to around 300,000Kms. As for the other parts you mentioned, I recall him replacing a transmission in one of them, and an alternator in at least 2 of them. I don't recall any fuel pumps, ignition module's, or major brake failures, and I have no idea what a "cps" is. > I have never personally owned a car with the 2.8, but my father has had > several Pontiac 6000's with that engine. I can't say what mileage he got, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > at least 2 of them. I don't recall any fuel pumps, ignition module's, or > major brake failures, and I have no idea what a "cps" is. CPS is crankshaft position sensor. The CS alternators used in some of these cars were infamous about failure. Just bad design and implementation. >> I have never personally owned a car with the 2.8, but my father has had >> several Pontiac 6000's with that engine. I can't say what mileage he got, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > CPS is crankshaft position sensor. My mistake. I hadn't heard it referred to that in a long while. Thanks. > The CS alternators used in some of these cars were infamous about failure. > Just bad design and implementation. Both alternators that we put on the old 6000's were replaced with junk yard ones, and lasted till the cars were scraped. If memory serves. >> The CS alternators used in some of these cars were infamous about >> failure. Just bad design and implementation. > > Both alternators that we put on the old 6000's were replaced with junk > yard ones, and lasted till the cars were scraped. If memory serves. I shouldnt have used the acronym CPS. We Americans are getting to the point that we talk in useless series of acronyms. The alternators I refer to are the compact high amperage ones, and they are very troublesome. They are called CS-130 (Charging System=CS) and are rated at 105 amperes or more. Heat is their biggest enemy, I guess. Another of GMs not so plenty fine ideas. >>> The CS alternators used in some of these cars were infamous about >>> failure. Just bad design and implementation. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > their biggest enemy, I guess. > Another of GMs not so plenty fine ideas. Ahh, ok. Now I get what you mean. By they way, (getting back to mileage), you said you get 25-26MPG on the highway. Do you have the regular 3800 II or the L67 supercharged? The regular 3800 II that I had in my previous Bonnie used to get over or around 30MPG (I don't recall exactly), and the 3800 II with the supercharger in my new (to me) Bonnie get's around 28-29MPG on the highway. > Ahh, ok. Now I get what you mean. By they way, (getting back to mileage), > you said you get 25-26MPG on the highway. Do you have the regular 3800 II > or the L67 supercharged? The regular 3800 II that I had in my previous > Bonnie used to get over or around 30MPG (I don't recall exactly), and the > 3800 II with the supercharger in my new (to me) Bonnie get's around > 28-29MPG on the highway. We have the regular 3800 II. The mileage is decent but not great. In the Reatta, I have the 3800 I. This little car could benefit from the supercharged engine, but the swap is not really easy. A few have done it. >> Ahh, ok. Now I get what you mean. By they way, (getting back to mileage), >> you said you get 25-26MPG on the highway. Do you have the regular 3800 II [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > supercharged > engine, but the swap is not really easy. A few have done it. Engine swap's can be quite difficult. The most odd swap I have ever seen was where someone took a Pontiac 6000, removed the stock 2.8L V6, and put in an L67 supercharged 3800 II. I was completely baffled when I saw it. Another thing to worry about when swapping engines is the transmission. As far as I know, cars with the 3800 II Supercharged have higher duty transmission's. I have read where some have forgot about the transmission, dropped in a more powerful engine, and blew the transmission in no time. > Engine swap's can be quite difficult. The most odd swap I have ever seen > was where someone took a Pontiac 6000, removed the stock 2.8L V6, and put [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > transmission's. I have read where some have forgot about the transmission, > dropped in a more powerful engine, and blew the transmission in no time. Friend of mine swapped a v6 boat engine into a Toyota pickup, backed up with a GM auto transmission. He had to do some innovative engineering but it worked out well. I think the electronics, and peripherals make the Reatta swap harder than it should need to be. There just isnt much you can do with the 3800 I to put much performance into it, on a practical basis. Some things are just better left alone. >> Engine swap's can be quite difficult. The most odd swap I have ever seen >> was where someone took a Pontiac 6000, removed the stock 2.8L V6, and put [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Some things are just better left alone. True, very true. Though, I have owned 2 3800 I's, both in Bonnevilles and they were exclenent engines. I am in Ontario Canada, so we get some very cold winters, and never once did those engines not start right up on the first try. We must be aware that not all owners proved the proper preventive maintenance necessary to insure long term reliability of their vehicles. For the majority, changing oil and filer is sufficient. ;) mike >> You know, you would seem much less like a total idiot if you would >> actually cut and paste properly. Oh, and don't give false statements [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > module failed, cps > failed. Since ALL vehicles are tested under the same EPA standards, all one needs to do to discover how any particular vehicle did in those tests is to peruse the CAFE Guide available on line. YOUR result may vary LOL mike >> GM CAFE average is a sheer lie. When Wagonner or anybody else says they >> market more cars that get 30 mpg than anybody else its a patently false [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > either. My last Bonnie, with the regular 3800 II had a curb weight of > almost 3500, and still got better then 30MPG. Most people can't measure their mileage accurately. Sometimes oddometers read high and the fuel dispensing meters read high as well. So, even if you top off, drive, measure mileage driven and re-top off and do the calculation, you'll be in error. It takes a calibrated fuel dispenser connected directly to the fuel system pump inlet to measure fuel consumed accurately enough to derive a number. A measured course needs to be used to calibrate the odometer. Then there is the driving protocol: head winds decrease, tail winds incease, uphill decrease, downhill increase, higher speeds decrease, lower speeds increase (to a point), heavy payloads decrease, lower payloads increase mileage. Temperature, atmospheric pressure, altitude, and more factors can help or hurt mileage. One trick manufacturers use is to pump up the tires to 100 psi. and have a 75 pound jockey drive the car around at 30 mph on fumes. That really helps boost the mileage far above what you will ever see. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.