Test Drive: 2008 Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid

[Bggriffi]

Originally Posted by GMforME

I've complained about this in house for months. Also the fact that when you use remote start it also effects the calculation. It calculates the fuel consumption when the vehicle is remote started against the fuel mileage number. While its true the vehicle used the fuel it is not a reflection of fuel mileage going down the road. This is an issue with all GM vehicles with remote start.
I made a proposal that we don't calculate fuel mileage during remote start (ie anytime the vehicle is not in key in run position but it hasn't gone anywhere)
In the winter 2 remote starts a day will crucify the fuel mileage average when its not a real indicator. You cannot believe how many vehicles come back for service for poor fuel mileage and its directly tied to remote start not an issue with the vehicle.

How? You are using fuel. If it was changed, people would complain when their manually calculated figures were nowhere close to the trip computer's estimate. If you use the remote start, you HAVE to expect to get lower fuel economy. The car is running without moving! Why do you think hybrids shut off when they aren't moving?

[GMforME]

I think the mpg readout should include the remote start fuel usage. If you want to correct for that they they should provide 2 readouts. 1 for actual driving and another to show the impact of remote start.

yes nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all.
Problem is that it does not dawn on the customer or even Mag writers until it is pointed out by the service department. (ie the customer returns the vehicle for service for crappy fuel mileage. Which is in fact induced by the customer.) Usually by then their cheesed and don't want to hear it and they are also peeved they had to take the day off to bring their car in to have the dealer tell them theirs nothing wrong with it. (scratch that, after they left the car for 2 or three days while the dealer does a calculated fuel mileage check and then tells them theirs nothing wrong)

And the response you gave is the same response given on the engineering side however it is not possible to provide those calculations seperately at this time.

Ironically the customer manual talks about it but you know about 1% read it.

[GMforME]

How? You are using fuel. If it was changed, people would complain when their manually calculated figures were nowhere close to the trip computer's estimate. If you use the remote start, you HAVE to expect to get lower fuel economy. The car is running without moving! Why do you think hybrids shut off when they aren't moving?

I'm hearing you, no argument.
What the display should not say is Average Fuel Econ because its not. It should say total fuel consumed. Fuel economy indicates the vehicles ability to attain miles per gallon driven not miles per gallon sitting idling in the driveway.

As far as people HAVING to expect lower fuel economy you would be suprised for how many the light does not come on. And you would even be suprised how many tell us that it should get sticker wether they use remote or not. (I swear its true)

Now you see why it hasn't been changed because it can't be agreed upon yet.
The only thing that can be agreed upon is it is inaccurate. So my vote is to eliminate it all together.

[984mula]

Originally Posted by megeebee

Too bad they don't make Malibu's any more:





http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f...-halted-63980/

At least they use the Orion Plant in Auburn Hills MI where the G6 is produced as an overflow plant... Maybe they can boost Malibu production there while this takes place.

[shuggyman]

Originally Posted by GMforME

I'm hearing you, no argument.
What the display should not say is Average Fuel Econ because its not. It should say total fuel consumed. Fuel economy indicates the vehicles ability to attain miles per gallon driven not miles per gallon sitting idling in the driveway.

As far as people HAVING to expect lower fuel economy you would be suprised for how many the light does not come on. And you would even be suprised how many tell us that it should get sticker wether they use remote or not. (I swear its true)

Now you see why it hasn't been changed because it can't be agreed upon yet.
The only thing that can be agreed upon is it is inaccurate. So my vote is to eliminate it all together.

A lot of discussion relating to how close minded some consumers can be. The best/worst feature in most GM vehicles is the DIC that displays ACTUAL fuel economy numbers. While many customers driving vehicles without this display just assume fuel economy based on window sticker or the dreaded "I get great fuel economy... 500km to the tank", GM drivers know exactly what is happening to their vehicle.

Guess what? If you don't idle your car (remote start or highway traffic jams) you use less fuel. If you drive slightly slower, the lowered wind effect results in better fuel economy. If your tires are properly inflated... etc, etc, etc. The best thing about BAS is it's simplicity. It is really a high value hybrid that doesn't need fancy screens to tell you what is working. A simple ECO light tells you when it is getting better than sticker. Like a video game, you try to get the light to turn on as often as possible. The more you drive BAS the better you get at turning your light on. But really, what you are doing is becoming a more fuel efficient driver. You can prove this with the DIC's average fuel economy display.

The big point is that the number is calculated on actual fuel used in the engine, regardless of km's (miles for you southern friends). Much like the Oil Life Monitor, is has nothing really to do with how far you have gone but what you have done from point A to point B. There is no need to "fix" the DIC display... just for us to learn how to use our right foot better. At a $1.25 / Litre, the BAS system is both affordable and great at teaching you to be a more fuel efficient driver.

Driving one regularly... I usually average anywhere from 7.5 to 8.5 L / 100 km. The difference usually is directly related to my driving... not the BAS system.

[69Firebird400]

Yes, the trip computer should include remote start fuel usage. That's not free gasoline, it's gasoline being consumed by the engine for the purpose of heating or cooling the vehicle (or in the case with some of the Chrysler remote-start equipped test vehicles I've driven lately, for amusement of the driver as he approaches the car).

If someone is so concerned about the trip computer mileage showing a lower number because of remote start usage, don't use remote start. If you calculate your fuel economy by hand based on how much gas you pump into the car, you'd better believe that any remote start fuel usage would be included in the consumption.

[GMforME]

All good points. As a service person I wish all customers were as mechanically savy as GMI'rs
the reality is quite different.

[vanshmack]

Can't GM issue a TSB and just reflash the trip computer to a program that reflects acutal mileage when accounting for time spent with engine off, but in drive with the ignition on?

[megeebee]

Originally Posted by 984mula

At least they use the Orion Plant in Auburn Hills MI where the G6 is produced as an overflow plant... Maybe they can boost Malibu production there while this takes place.

I was wondering about that myself. If they have the parts, it would make sense. 1/3 to 1/2 of the G6's built go straight to Avis, Budget, and the like. It wouldn't hurt GM as much to reduce that product.

[Tekwarrior]

Does anyone have independent verification of this article's claim of much higher ave mpg than is reported on the DIC? The fact that this is the first report of this possible anomaly makes me skeptical.

If this report is valid, and the primary cause of the mileage discrepancy is failing to take into account the engine shutoff during idle, then an easy algorithm fix would seem posssible.

The article implies that the "normal" fuel consumption algorithm includes an idling component, either a time variable or actual fuel flow through the injectors. It would seem that the algorithm could be modified to remove this idling component if the engine is off. The result would then more accurately reflect reality.

Thinking about this a little more, the idling component, while significant, wouldn't result in a doubling of the mileage. So either the fuel consumption algorithm also fails to include the reduced fuel throughput due to battery assist, or this article is suspect. Since I believe that an actual fuel flow measurement is made, I have to question the article's claims.

[shuggyman]

Originally Posted by GMforME

All good points. As a service person I wish all customers were as mechanically savy as GMI'rs
the reality is quite different.

Understood... just like anything related to a dealership, the eduction of a customer should start in the sales department. This way, the level of expectation and the level of reality are not so different when they make it to the service department. Plainly said, window sticker numbers do not equal reality. Unless of course, you only drive in the lab on the dyno.

[GMforME]

I checked with the calibrator and there is no Idling component in the Bas mileage calculation. However he is looking at another possibility. Which may or may not turn out to have merit.

[TruckMan]

I'd have to disagree with most of the posts here. I think that fuel burned by using the Remote Start feature should not be included in the DIC mileage calculation - but GM ought to be clear on this in their owner's manuals. You're not burning fuel for the purpose of driving in that situation. You're burning it to heat or cool your vehicle, and that has no bearing on your vehicle's mileage efficiency. Any idiot should know that they're getting 0 mpg while using the RS feature. In contrast, fuel burned while in park with the ignition on should be counted, because the intent of the driver is driving, not heating/cooling.

I do agree that they ought to count electric motor mileage in the calculation though. Kind of weird that they don't count those miles. Seems like GM would want the numbers to be as good as possible without be deceptive. Any miles travelled should be counted as vehicle mileage.

Just my $.02.

[GMforME]

See Truckman
now you see the problem. Both arguments are valid. The question is what is the customer perception the majority of the time because both sides are valid. It almost comes down to the percentage that come back complaining of crappy mileage using the DIC and how many would come back if the real world fuel mileage calculation came back off.
Currently its a no win.

[GMforME]

Scenario 2 is my choice with an added feature that displayed total Remote start time. That way the dealer could look at it and say see you used the remote start 400 minutes this month. Thats why its off.
At least theres a quantifiable answer and we could stop looking like idiots.