GM owners pay 50 per cent more for gas than expected

Why is anyone surprised that cars from the Big 3 guzzle more gas than everyone else's cars? That's been a fact since forever...

No, it's not. The article even says Kia and Hyundai had to pay fines for misleading fuel numbers.

The tests do not accurately reflect real world driving, so the numbers car makers get from those tests does not apply to the vehicle when it's actually driven. Even US and Canadian numbers for the same vehicle can be 20% different, because the US requires a couple different tests to be factored in that Canada does not.

But should. "Cold start" fuel consumption anyone?

24 mpig is the best I hope for

The EPA ratings published down in the States tend to be more accurate than the sticker-listings that we get here. Those are pure Sci-fi.

No, it's not. The article even says Kia and Hyundai had to pay fines for misleading fuel numbers.

The tests do not accurately reflect real world driving, so the numbers car makers get from those tests does not apply to the vehicle when it's actually driven. Even US and Canadian numbers for the same vehicle can be 20% different, because the US requires a couple different tests to be factored in that Canada does not.

But should. "Cold start" fuel consumption anyone?

Sure they do.

On average, North American cars guzzle more gas simply because they are designed to pump out more horsepower than most imports.

To be fair, their cars are much more fuel efficient than the gashogs they built in the 60s, 70s and early 80s, but they still tend to be slightly higher than most imports in the same class.

At least that's what I saw when I compared fuel economy ratings on the literature for a number a vehicles I looked at. It might only have been 8.5 litres/100 km vs. 8.2 litres/100 km (or something like that), but there was a difference. In most cases, it was because the NA vehicle had a more powerful engine (likea 3.6 L engine vs. 3.5 L engine).

That's simply because that is what most of the market generally wants - more horsepower.

I've been to a couple dealers of late, as we're looking at getting a second vehicle. The first thing out of the salesperson's mouth is almost always how many horsepower the vehicle gets or how powerful the engine is. Anecdotal perhaps, but indicative to be sure.

Still, you are probably right - I bet the numbers don't take into account cold starts either.

No, it's not. The article even says Kia and Hyundai had to pay fines for misleading fuel numbers.

The tests do not accurately reflect real world driving, so the numbers car makers get from those tests does not apply to the vehicle when it's actually driven. Even US and Canadian numbers for the same vehicle can be 20% different, because the US requires a couple different tests to be factored in that Canada does not.

But should. "Cold start" fuel consumption anyone?

Sure they do.

On average, North American cars guzzle more gas simply because they are designed to pump out more horsepower than most imports.

To be fair, their cars are much more fuel efficient than the gashogs they built in the 60s, 70s and early 80s, but they still tend to be slightly higher than most imports in the same class.

That's perception, not fact.

Many'gashogs' made in North America come with engines made by 'import' manufacturers. You'll find Suzuki engines in many Chevies, Ford designs many engines in the UK, like in the Fiesta and they still own most of Mazda. Which is why if you look in the door jam of many Mazda Trucks you'll see the sticker 'Made By Ford'.

And Fiat owns Chrysler, and was owned by Dailmer before them . . . Honda and Toyota have plants in the US. The Ford Ecoboost twin turbo V6 is the highest torque V6 made - and the 4 cylinder version is made in Spain.

. . .'Domestic' and 'Import' really are archaic terms. As is equating 'gashog' and 'Domestic vehicle'.

The 2013 F-150 with the Ecoboost gets roughly the same fuel economy as the 2013 Mistubishi Lancer 4 cyl. That is reality, not perception.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSea ... rchtyp=ymm

http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch. ... rchtyp=ymm

Funny, my Volvo S80 with a 6-cylinder gets a pretty consistent 36mpg on the highway despite being rated at 24mpg highway.

Of course, I swapped out the standard program ECU for a performance ECU and that made a big difference. I figure the $1100 it cost will end up being a wash at the end of the service life of the vehicle in about five years.

Yup true. My wife got, or is getting a gas card paid for by Hyundai because they lied about the MPG for her 2012 Tucson.

All true. I've had 32-34mpg highway in my old Crown Vic (actual results, not according to the onboard computer). And I went through one set of tires faster than one tank of gas in my Mercury. All depends on how it's driven.

Fair enough point on definitions, but we still need some way to differientiate the two.

Here is a comparison of the Sienna, Oddyssey and Grand Caravan;

http://www.kbb.com/compare-cars/overview/van%20minivan/

Notice that the Honda and Toyota have smaller engines and get slightly better mileage (The Honda on both city and hwy and the Toyota on city) than the Grand Caravan/Town & Country?

It might seem like a pretty small amount, but if you drive 20000 km a year (considered medium usage by most insurance companies), it will add up to fairly significant savings.

I always thought those chips were to increase performance, not mileage.

The savings is tiny in comparison.

21 vs 22 mpg is about $110 a year driving 20k.

I always thought those chips were to increase performance, not mileage.

You can get programmers that can do both. Increase power, economy or both. Some have multiple setings that you can switch on the fly. They just recently came out for Toyotas, as they have been the holy grail of tuners for a decade.

Wow! You always drive down hill?

Oh, I get it .... IMPERIAL gallons!