Jump to content
Create New...
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    GM Readies A Plan To Compensate Crossover Owners

      General Motors goes into damage control after revealing they had overstated fuel economy figures on their large crossovers

    Last week, General Motors issued a stop sale on the 2016 Buick Enclave, Chevrolet Traverse, and GMC Acadia due to the window stickers having overstated fuel economy numbers by one to two mpg. All-wheel drive models had an incorrect label showing ratings of 17 City/24 Highway/19 Combined. The correct label has ratings of 15 City/22 Highway/17 Combined.

     

    But what about the folks who bought one of GM's large crossovers with the incorrect ratings? How did this happen in the first place? We have answers.

     

    In a statement to Automotive News, GM explained the 2016 models were equipped with new “emissions-related hardware,” which meant new tests needed to be done.

     

    “The fuel economy data from these tests were not captured in calculations made for EPA fuel economy labels ... causing 2016 model year fuel economy numbers to be overstated,” said GM.

     

    The error was found when engineers were working on the labels for the 2017 models. This issue was immediately reported to EPA. At the moment, GM is working with the EPA on this issue.

     

    As for what will happen to the nearly 170,000 owners of affected crossovers, GM is working on a compensation plan. Sources tell Reuters that GM is working out a program to compensate owners for the difference in fuel economy figures. Out of the 170,000 owners, more than 130,000 will qualify for the program (the remainder of vehicles belong to fleets). The plan will be announced in the coming week.

     

    Not surprisingly, an owner of one of the affected models has filed a class-action lawsuit against GM, alleging that the company concealed the actual fuel economy figures.

     

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), Reuters
    Pic Credit: William Maley for Cheers & Gears

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Good for GM to jump on this when discovered. The IDIOT who filed the class-action lawsuit is just looking at money. The judges need to throw this out.

     

    I applaud GM for being proactive and for clearly letting the engineers bring the issue to light of day.

     

    I take this as a basic mistake that happens and not Like Mitsubishi who deceived for decades.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I understand WHY they would go the class action route but as long as GM knows and is working on a plan I don't understand that. Now... May GM have decided to start throwing a compensation plan after this individual decided to sue or did they decide to sue after GM announced they were working on a compensation plan?

    Regardless, I'm glad GM is taking care of their customers like they should be.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Class action is BS. 

    All Class Action does is make lawyers rich for their claimed legal fees and leave those foolish enough to think they are going to get anything with a future discount on a GM car or a free Oil change at best. 

     

    In the end we all end up paying for the results in higher car prices. 

     

    There are no free rides in life. You can be given something free but at some point a company or the government is going to take from you to pay for it.  

    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    +1 Hyper Nailed that on the head. :D

    Need to nail some lawyers over the head with tort reform that is fair to both sides and end corporate blackmail. 

     

    I see it everywhere and even at work where it is cheaper to settle a lawsuit than to fight it to win. You lose in cost even with a good case and so many lawyers take it just to win a settlement. 

     

    In class actions they take millions in fees to represent people with no clue and then reward the brainless with a free  air freshener or discount on a cruise they will never take anyways. 

    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Agree with you guys....sad part GM could have said nothing and saved money.

     

    As you see, it pays to be honest.....

     

    Give em a gas card and I'm sure they will be happy....

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    A lot of large corporations are pursuing the idea that courts are to be replaced with mandatory arbitration, especially in the technology sector.  Since you seem to believe that tort reform is the answer to this and other issues, are you willing to push for mandatory arbitration?

     

    Just remember that mandatory arbitration is completely biased in favor to those who pay the arbitrator, and very seldom said arbitrator is pro-plaintiff.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • google-news-icon.png



  • Community Hive Community Hive

    Community Hive allows you to follow your favorite communities all in one place.

    Follow on Community Hive
  • google-news-icon.png

  • Subscribe to Cheers & Gears

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001 we've brought you real content and honest opinions, not AI-generated stuff with no feeling or opinions influenced by the manufacturers.

    Please consider subscribing. Subscriptions can be as little as $1.75 a month, and a paid subscription drops most ads.*
     

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Those use cases will necessitate the purchase of something with a long range, like 300+. But even still, two hours at 11.5kW would put 50 - 70 miles of range back in the car. You might need to make one 10-minute DCFC stop if you had a really busy day, but otherwise, you could make it.
    • I can understand this, but then this is part of my daily life. With two kids with their own families and grandkids it is not uncommon for us to be out and about for the day, come home for a bit before heading out to help with the grandkids and their afterschool activities. Plus, with family that is living from both sides north and south of us, it would not be uncommon to drive 75 miles down south to deal with my wife's side of the family, see the nieces/nephews and then up north to my side to see folks and with both our parents in senior years with health issues, also moving back in forth. Course this is why Sun puts on about 15,000 miles a year on the SS. We all have different use cases.
    • That's all I'm worried about. I'm not going to spend a sht ton more money having a 19.2kW charger installed for the 1 day every 3 years I empty the battery, get home for 2 hours, and have to again drive enough that I couldn't make it back home...  
    • I could see settling on three charger rates, but definitely not one. A Bolt or Kia EV4 type vehicle simply does not need 19kW home charging.  It would be an excessive cost to retrofit a house and the number of buyers who actually use that rate would be pretty close to zero.  That would be like insisting that the Corolla has to have a 6.2 liter. It's excessive and doesn't fit the use case. Now, if we settled into 7.5kW, 11.5kW, and 19.4kW as a standard, that would probably achieve what you are proposing while still giving cost flexibility.  It would allow for entry-level EVs to get the lower cost / lower speed charger while allowing the larger vehicles or premium vehicles to have faster home charging.  For example, the EV6 could have a lower cost 7.5kW charger while the Genesis GV60 on the same platform could get the 11.5kW charger because it is a premium brand and higher cost vehicle.  Then any large EV with or near a 200kW battery could have the 19.4kW charger, but even then, unless it is a newly built house or a commercial fleet, it will still probably charge only at 11.5kW, as that's about the max that the vast majority of homes are wired to do.  Unless you're driving an EV with a 200kW battery to 10% every day, an 11.5kW charger can "fill" an EV to 80% overnight with room to spare, so most people (including me), won't want the extra expense of spending extra money just to say my EV charged faster while I slept.  Either way, it will be ready for me when I need to leave at 7 am.
    • @ccap41 @Drew Dowdell Thank you both, this is the kind of dialogue I feel the Auto buyers need to be made aware of and the various use cases in understanding as I feel most DO NOT really understand this and give into the FEAR Mongering of News Stories. While I still feel that everyone should have the same charging rate capabilities, I also understand both your points. I do feel that this will change electrical across the WORLD over time due to the need of charging.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search

Change privacy settings