Had a rental we put over 2,500 miles on over a 2-week period. >90% highway driving (little congestion), always with 4 people in the car and the AC on full blast. Was very disappointed in the 18 MPG fuel economy. However, did find one E0 pump in a rural area we used a couple times for fill up, and mileage went to just north of 20 MPG. GM claims 24mpg on the freeway for this pig.
2010 Chevy Traverse E10 Fuel Economy
- Thread starter BBDartCA
- Start date
- Status
MPG are not rated with 4 bodies in the car.
Originally Posted By: willix
MPG are not rated with 4 bodies in the car.
Or with the AC full blast the whole time.
Driving speed also plays a huge role, especially with the 6 speeds.
Hills, wind, etc. also factor in.
As does the fact that most of the time you were apparently using E10 (or maybe even higher) gas.
We have a 2010 Equinox that is rated 32mpg hwy. We get 29ish, depending on terrain and traffic. But when we drive all hwy we also usually have the AC on and drive 75mph with 160lbs of dogs, 500lbs of people, and 300-400 lbs of cargo. I'm happy with that.
MPG are not rated with 4 bodies in the car.
Or with the AC full blast the whole time.
Driving speed also plays a huge role, especially with the 6 speeds.
Hills, wind, etc. also factor in.
As does the fact that most of the time you were apparently using E10 (or maybe even higher) gas.
We have a 2010 Equinox that is rated 32mpg hwy. We get 29ish, depending on terrain and traffic. But when we drive all hwy we also usually have the AC on and drive 75mph with 160lbs of dogs, 500lbs of people, and 300-400 lbs of cargo. I'm happy with that.
Originally Posted By: wallyuwl
willix said:
Its as if the EPA mandates stepping backwards.
The EPA mpg business is strange.
It seems that in the 1990s it was pretty easy to match or beat their highway MPG.
A few years ago they revised the test to 80mph with AC on, so the numbers dropped. But despite still driving 70-75mph on the highway, it is no easier to beat their numbers with modern vehicles.
BBDartCA mentions some good variables they need to include, like grades and fuels, but they need to include those in the real tests (not just add in a fudge factor) because some vehicles are designed for great mpg on a flat road (for ex) but go down the tubes in hilly terrain because their super-tall gearing makes the automatic transmission controller unlock the TCC for every incline.
I know at 75mph with cruise control on my wife's 2009 Hyundai Sonata will unlock the TCC and shift down a gear (think near 4,000rpm) at the start of most inclines around here, and these are not mountains. I think the idiotic "grade logic" programming is to blame as much or more than the tall gearing. I wish I could disable the angle sensor.
If the EPA highway MPG test course were moderately hilly, the automobile manufacturers would probably more careful about this kind of idiocy. Their poor programming not only increases fuel consumption, it also increases wear on the transmission, and makes the ride aggravating.
It seems that in the 1990s it was pretty easy to match or beat their highway MPG.
A few years ago they revised the test to 80mph with AC on, so the numbers dropped. But despite still driving 70-75mph on the highway, it is no easier to beat their numbers with modern vehicles.
BBDartCA mentions some good variables they need to include, like grades and fuels, but they need to include those in the real tests (not just add in a fudge factor) because some vehicles are designed for great mpg on a flat road (for ex) but go down the tubes in hilly terrain because their super-tall gearing makes the automatic transmission controller unlock the TCC for every incline.
I know at 75mph with cruise control on my wife's 2009 Hyundai Sonata will unlock the TCC and shift down a gear (think near 4,000rpm) at the start of most inclines around here, and these are not mountains. I think the idiotic "grade logic" programming is to blame as much or more than the tall gearing. I wish I could disable the angle sensor.
If the EPA highway MPG test course were moderately hilly, the automobile manufacturers would probably more careful about this kind of idiocy. Their poor programming not only increases fuel consumption, it also increases wear on the transmission, and makes the ride aggravating.
AC use will kill your fuel economy. Also, going over 70 with the AC on isn't helping any.
Plus, using cruise control in hilly terrain is begging for a jerky ride, and poor fuel economy. Slowing down 5 mph and controlling the speed with your right foot will help both. You can always throw cruise back on when it levels out.
Plus, using cruise control in hilly terrain is begging for a jerky ride, and poor fuel economy. Slowing down 5 mph and controlling the speed with your right foot will help both. You can always throw cruise back on when it levels out.
I can use cruise control in this terrain on older cars without any shifting or jerking. The Sonata's cruise control is useless here, I only use it when my right foot needs a rest.
It almost never levels out around here, unlike parts of NY state. North of Louisville in Indiana is the flattest I can find within hundreds of miles.
Anyway, your points are valid but I have already considered them all.
I still think the EPA could use some rolling terrain for its highway MPG test.
Sorry for going off topic from the Traverse in the OP.
It almost never levels out around here, unlike parts of NY state. North of Louisville in Indiana is the flattest I can find within hundreds of miles.
Anyway, your points are valid but I have already considered them all.
I still think the EPA could use some rolling terrain for its highway MPG test.
Sorry for going off topic from the Traverse in the OP.
- Status
Similar threads
