Explains why the new, smaller, lighter "Acadia" only got slightly better fuel economy.

 

This if true begins to explain the stop sale.....I don't understand how this could happen with previous automakers getting busted. Someone needs to answer for this......but I doubt we will ever hear....it will be just a simple multi million dollar mistake....i.e. no harm no foul lets all just move along....corporate PR spin

 

I'm pretty sure a couple of folks will be looking for jobs after this.

 

.
.
.

Before anybody buries themselves in poo with all this - as the source author(s) just did, be aware that this is well beyond factually incorrect -

Late Add:

Consumer Reports found it peculiar that the issue only affected the 2016 model year vehicles, considering GM hasn’t made any significant updates to any of those three models -

End of Late Add

It seems unlikely that GM would have changed the powertrain in the affected vehicles from 2015 to 2016, especially in a way that would make their fuel economy go down. The publication has tested all three vehicles and noted that their real-world fuel economy figures are more in line with the new 2016 numbers than what’s shown on the labels for previous years.

Not going to cover all the possible and / or definite fail with this statement - especially concerning over each vehicle's complete timeline.

Way too much to list.

Will point out just one of the various obvious - and also very important ones concerning these Products and MYR 2015 v. MYR 2016 in terms of the critical to FE .... EM Status.

All relevant info for this that is the same will be omitted.

Differences include -

Model Year 2015 are covered under ( EF / TG ) FGMT03.6151. BIN4 / ULEV2

Model Year 2016 are covered under ( EF / TG ) GGMXTO3.6151 BIN5 / ULEV125

And that ain't the half of it......

Point / point proven as is ...... is the article's fundamental supposition and hence the article itself...... is all wrong. It is well worth noting the author(s) should have known so - and may have anyway......

Oh dear, so without a doubt.... this is some combination of dishonesty and / or incompetence on display - one way or another.

Also very clearly, the author(s) seem to be spectacularly unacquainted with even just Lambda MPG ratings over the various years and configurations......and the reasons for that.

Looks like intended as one of those Negative Advertorial Circles Je- that gets started so often these days ie with intended source multiplication and embellishment along the way.

( And people wonder why certain Automotive Stocks are mired in the Mud and certain Management is not well liked .....) :yup::lmao:



--


Btw, generically speaking, new EM standards and stuff is scheduled to hit in a really big way with MYR 2017s......and then in a separate consideration for CYR2017.

There are the usual 'options' with scheduling all this.......and also as usual there are in fact other OEM 'preferences' and decisions to account for.

For these reasons.... and a bunch more including other Regulatory driven differences, you need to use some extra special care in comparing some 2016 / all 2017 Product versus most 2016 / all 2015 and earlier MYR Product.

--

I'm gonna' just guess................ that all this crap and crappy speculation about possible GM EM / FE fail has at least as much if not more to do about some 'other' OEM(s) with some really bad news of some kind or another in these same areas brewing nicely on the Stove.

And or about a combo fishing expedition / smear campaign designed to help some failing Retail and or Commercial Fleet Sales.

 

Oh dear, so without a doubt.... this is some combination of dishonest and incompetence on display - one way or another.

Dishonesty and incompetence on GM's part. The company has a long history of both.

 

Wait just a darn second there!

Are you implying that the media is not doing their jobs? Not checking their facts before they go to press?

That's just crazy talk!

 

GM's Theta platform Equinox and Terrain with 2.4L LEA and LAF engines should also be scrutinized for overstated EPA fuel economy figures. Like the 2016 (and earlier model year) Lambda vehicles, real world fuel economy typically for falls well short of EPA estimates.

 

This has been a sore spot for Nox/Terrain owners since introduction. The MPG indicator has always been 'happy' in these cars and is consistently 7-10% higher than real world MPG, unless every pump used by owners who track their MPG (like me)and the odometer is wrong. I've asked about MPG indicator software updates at the dealership but they tell me there are none. I got the impression that the I4 is the bigger culprit, the V6, not so much.

Check any Equinox/Terrain bulletin board, no one with the I4 gets near the stated freeway MPG, it's a common gripe with the vehicle. The closest I've gotten in our Equinox was 30mpg, that's driving the car on a flat freeway at 62mph and cruise control on, no AC. With those conditions I should have easily hit 32mpg (the EPA sticker) or better. Drive 65 and above and the MPG plunges, at 70mph 28mpg at best. AC on will cost you easily 1-2 extra MPG.

The other explanation is every owner should not expect the EPA numbers, even though every vehicle I've owned since the 1970s (which includes several GM cars) easily surpassed it's EPA numbers until this vehicle.

 

1. ) Nowhere was the suggestion made 'not to speculate' although I can both understand and empathize with your ( chronic ) confusion concerning what another poster actually writes and your reframes, and then also separately concerning basic core competencies and Negative Advertorials and Spin - and Speculation.

--


Ed753, do you want to add the also suspiciously missing and highly relevant background about Ford MPG shorts and revisions - or do you want someone else to do it ? :think:onder:

And Honda's and Toyota's ?

And MB's ?

 

I see, so if somebody else does it then it is ok.

You must not be able to walk in a straight line with all of the spinning that you do.

 

Say it isn't so Joe. Say it isn't so.

 

Doesn't the MPG Rating come straight from the EPA and the manufacturer posts it on the sticker? Having owned two MCE refreshed Acadias, I can say that my first one got significantly better MPG than my current one. In the '13 I could easily get 23-25 MPG on long trips doing mostly highway driving. In my '15, I really struggle to get to 21 or 22 MPG doing the same kind of driving. I don't know what changed there but it is noticeable.

 

No. Manufacturers report their fuel economy numbers to the EPA and those numbers are posted on window stickers. The EPA does spot check the mileage on a relative handful of vehicles annually.

 

make CUV/SUVs big and light weight with advanced fuel saving technology.....not having to downsize to make it lighter.

 

Could well be 2+2=5 journalism here.

The 2015MY EPA ratings were higher, for some reason. 2016 EPA ratings are lower, despite the apparent carry-over powertrain and vehicle lineup. So you would need to understand why that is, and whether the stickers were aligned with the EPA ratings or not, before you could assume that the issue applies to 2M units.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=35059&id=36351&id=35057&id=36350

 

First of all, the EM differences are huge and matter a great deal especially without a lot of new tech or 'useful content' to come with and try to help.

Moving from B4 / ULEV2 to B5/ ULEV124 is a BFD.

Second, the Lambda's over their life span have not been as uniform in terms of their rated MPGs as many seem to assume.

Enclave has always been a little lower here and there compared to whatever, and Acadia has bounced around more than the rest of them combined.

If you can understand the why behind all that, then you got a real good start on the likely why for 15s versus 16s.

Third, a lot of any difference in rated MPGs completely dissipates when all the massive over rounding is accounted for. What looks like 2 to 3 in City or Highway can be in reality with the 'fine' numbers very close to just more than 1 or 2 - 'just' because of the rounding effect. So about a half to a third of the rated result delta. The Combined Number especially can bounce around even more...... or fairly close to double in fact .... and can be a really strange result....

You will notice, btw, the worst of the Spin Docs with all of this always talk about the Combined Number and literally nothing more.

Fourth, so after the immediately obvious, but still before you even start to get serious about it, you gotta' go look at inertia weight classifications, and expected equipment loads in terms of both mass and electrical draw etc. And you gotta' get some idea about detail changes if present for Box & Torque Converter function. Refinement and NVH reductions sometimes ... often times cost you some MPG. And you gotta' at least take a quick glance for any aero changes.

Then as always, any differences ( in any direction ) from brake, wheel, and tire losses especially if some serious resizing occurs - and is also expected to be popular. These can also effect aero.

If you get all that accounted for - then you can start to get serious - about all the rest that may be in the mix.

Truly comparable......... including in detail 15 and 16 Product are likely to have a much less than indicated real world difference.

Some driving patterns may also tighten - or widen that a bit as well.

And most of what is left will be about driving an more 'Environmentally responsible' Product - such as it is defined these days.

 

With constant changes in fuel formulations, the effects of e85, and so on, of course there are going to be variations in fuel consumption. First thing one needs to do is to take a look at his tailpipe. If it's sooty black, you are driving in a manner inconsistent with optimal fuel economy. Judging by the way people (of ALL ages) drive their so-called gas misers around here, it's not surprising that they don't meet the sticker numbers.

Then again, the stickers clearly state those numbers are ESTIMATES, and usually show a range that could be expected based on your personal driving habits, and the quality of fuel available in your particular area.

I see quite a few low-mileage Ram Ecodiesels FSBO, that are unhappy with their mpgs as well. They aren't getting the CLAIMED 31, and neither are the Ecoboost owners.

 

Manufacturers are allowed to restate FE figures, and I applaud GM for having the guts
to do this now / sooner and remove the issue from criticism later.

People will want to make more of this than it really is, plenty have spoken before me
regarding points of fact and fiction, I see GM as untainted in all of this.

 

It could have far more potential damage....this could cause a lowering of their corporate MPG.....these vehicles were sold in large numbers......

 

I've said it before regarding topics such as this (recalls/emissions testing etc), All manufacturers are cheating and/or walking the thin line. It's just a matter of WHEN they will get caught, not IF

 

Another GM mystery of life is how a 4000 LB AWD Equinox with the newer more efficient LFX 3.6 is rated for 23 highway which is the same rating as the far heavier Traverse with the older LLT 3.6 and 4800 LBS of weight. I would even question a one MPG highway difference with the new 22 rating. It's obvious the Lambda's were being overrated on the MPG front.

 

Shocking in a way... we have lost all forum technical competence with this ..........and no, AMERICA 123 is neither qualified nor going to even attempt to fill the gap.

Even the Spin Docs are lost; notice they do not try and play with the 'apparent' change down from Bin4 to Bin5 - while ignoring the change up from (ULEV) '2' to (ULEV) '125' which is the big boy over rider and also the key. And that is a 50 - 50 Cert or how ever they describe it.


So...... of the ten to twenty to who knows how many key differences resulting in a much tighter, longer lasting, etc etc and more difficult EM Regime to meet or beat and that will play with rated FE ...... most relevant here...... using the new E10 test fuel would have to be near the top.

Note : The docs I pulled all this from are basically labelled as tentative; and also dated in the last week of January 2016 so ..... this could all be way off.

If the final determination is as used here or even close in the right way, then this will do.

 

Ed753.... as noted before, you face certain unique challenges and that includes anything to do with even the very concept of " Quality ".

You know, as you so perfectly illustrate once again ... with this post.

And if you feel the post above this one shows the Spin work here in this thread in a poor light, well, you will just have to tough it out and make your excuses.

Sad to say..... all of this is really that silly.

Any kid even with just a passing familiarity with the topic would know the very first thing you do in a situation like this is to check the EM Cert.

Duh

And golly, if you or whoever does not know that ..... maybe they're in over their head ?

Yes, there such a thing as Quality Spin and you know as well as I do that you have been fully encouraged from here to strive for just that.

Heck, I've even helped you - and even in the open.

Seems as if you have given up on that.


--


Ah, I see now your rather natural confusion with 'burying yourself in poo' versus Speculation.

Of course, pointing out solid and complete fail with the information underpinning this feeble attempt is really neither, is it.

And I guess once again, the facts of the matter are getting in the way of the Spin.

Was this supposed to be a 'big one' in the anti GM / Negative GM Spin world ?

--

Hang on - on that last we can start here for the latest @ the EPA Fuel Economy Label Update page.

https://www3.epa.gov/fueleconomy/updates.htm

So we got EPA Pressers for rated mileage shorts and revisions concerning MINI, MB, two for Ford, and one for Hyundai / Kia....


The Honda and Toyota stuff most relevant for here is further back..... are you unaware and or also requesting some links for them as well ?

 

Ed753.... like was said already, you face certain unique challenges and that includes anything to do with even the very concept of " Quality ".

---

Was this supposed to be a 'big one' in the anti GM / Negative GM Spin world ?

Hang on -

I'm still holding my breath, from the last time you told me to "Hang-On"......................

"Dodge-deflect-and-Redirect" ............. Wash, rinse, spin, repeat...................


:spit: