Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
rez7777

Gm's EPA 30 MPG+ Ads vs Toyota's 36 mpg rated Ads

34 posts in this topic

How can GM compete with Toyota when GM says in their TV ads 30 or what ever EPA miles per gallon Highway vs Toyota's 31 "mpg rated" Camry or the 36 "mpg rated" Corolla or the 23 "mpg rated" Sienna the 25"mpg rated" Tacoma etc.

GM loudly says Highway miles while Toyota's deceives people in to thinking that theirs is City miles. I have seen Hyundai do something similar. Hyundai also say things like fuel efficient on their SUV ads without mentioning what the miles per gallon are. Gm and Ford and Chrysler are going to lose the Mpg battle even more with these miss- leading ads.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also claim to have the most cars that get 30mpg.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hopefully people havent became so ignorant about cars that they no longer read window stickers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hopefully people havent became so ignorant about cars that they no longer read window stickers.

Once they read the window sticker they were already fooled.

The sales person has them in his snare. If they bring up the EPA figures he will

say its no be deal, just look at the toyota quality or some other bull.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm...the great majority of cars on Toyota's lots DO have higher highway MPG--(Yaris>Aveo, Corolla>Cobalt, Camry>Malibu, RAV>Equinox, Prius> all GM products)-and GM has used a 30+ marketing tagline for years (there's tons of 'em up in our Chevy showroom), so is GM being deceptive too?

You must be careful when talking out of both sides of one's mouth. Tends to hurt your argument.

Criticize Toyota for its 'sweat shop' problems or treatment of temps or dumb moves with big trucks...at least things that have some merit. The knee-jerk reaction for an ad that's entirely accurate and, actually, a rip-off of prior GM ads is just silly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just pointing out what I saw. Now about the malibu VS Camry. I'm guessing the Camry gets better total milage, but the malibu 4 cylinder/6-speed is more fuel effecient isn't it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are people aware of how these tests are done? Do you realize they are done in a laboratory on a 2 wheel dynamometer?

The argument goes that the only way they can be 'fair' is to standardize the tests in the lab, mathematically adjusting for aerodynamis, curb weight, etc. :rolleyes: However, the car being tested is never actually driven. It is all 'simulated.' Well, isn't that special?

I suppose they simulate for your 250 lb mother in law in the back seat, the idiot that just cut you off at the last intersection and that you are now chasing down, plus the twice this week you have been late for work and gunned it all the way!

I would like to 'simulate' my tax payments to Infernal Revenue and see how far that gets me!

Sorry, but for many, many people, who do not drive in Happy Valley, cars like the Civic are going to see their 'real world' numbers take a big dive, while engines with more torque and a flatter torque curve, like the ecotecs, will see their real numbers drop much less precipitously.

How else would one explain why I routinely got better gas mileage (tested myself by filling several tanks and doing the calculations myself) in the last generation Malibu (2.2, 4 spd auto) than the Cobalt (same engine) or Optra? I'm barely averaging 27 mpg (Imp. gallons) with my Optra 5, but I used to get 29 or more with the Malibu. If you beat on a 1.6 litre engine like a V6, you'll be shocked at the horrible mileage you actually get!

Since 90% of the vehicles in North America are sold with automatics, and since many Japanese small cars are absolutely anemic with said automatic (they are, after all, designed for the Rest of the World, not us), it is the real world with the Cobalt, for example, against the real world with the Civic and I warrant you won't find the actual numbers all that much different. In the grand scheme of things, what would 1 or 2 mpg cost the 'average' driver in a month anyway? $12 a month?

We're going to see a lot more 'hysteria' over fuel mileage, but at the end of it all, even at $5.50 a gallon, I am only spending about $40 a month more than I did a year ago.

So I skip my morning coffee a couple times a week. Big deal.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was just pointing out what I saw. Now about the malibu VS Camry. I'm guessing the Camry gets better total milage, but the malibu 4 cylinder/6-speed is more fuel effecient isn't it?

IIRC, you are right.

I'm not sure how many 4cyl/6A 'bus have actually reached dealerships, yet. It was one of the victims of the strike....I'm going to take a look at our inventory today to see if any are on the ground here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, but for many, many people, who do not drive in Happy Valley, cars like the Civic are going to see their 'real world' numbers take a big dive, while engines with more torque and a flatter torque curve, like the ecotecs, will see their real numbers drop much less precipitously.

I generally agree with you that a car with more torque will take a lesser hit in real world fuel economy with increased engine load, ceteris paribus. Not related to FE discussion, I just want to set the record straight by saying that the Ecotec's torque curve is not flatter than the Civic. The Ecotec has a lower RPM powerband, which is where most people drive most of the time, but it drops off quicker at higher rpms than the R18. Honda engines have always been known for their flat torque curves, thanks in part to the two separate cam profiles seen in most vtec engines. It is great for racing, but it is unnoticeable when the car is never pushed past 4krpms~.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was just pointing out what I saw. Now about the malibu VS Camry. I'm guessing the Camry gets better total milage, but the malibu 4 cylinder/6-speed is more fuel effecient isn't it?

Yes, the Malibu LTZ (six-speed) four-cylinder gets 22/32 mpg, which is one better than the Camry's 21/31.

Certain versions of the Colorado (3.7 2WD), Silverado (4.8 2WD, 4.8 4WD), and Tahoe (4.8 2WD, 4.8 4WD) also get better fuel economy than the equivalent Toyota.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm...the great majority of cars on Toyota's lots DO have higher highway MPG--(Yaris>Aveo, Corolla>Cobalt, Camry>Malibu, RAV>Equinox, Prius> all GM products)-and GM has used a 30+ marketing tagline for years (there's tons of 'em up in our Chevy showroom), so is GM being deceptive too?

Actually, Malibu>Camry with 6 speed and I4, and Cobalt>=Corolla.

I laughed at a 4 Runner add I saw yesterday. They said it got an efficient 21 mpg. You can get that with a Tahoe and have a whole lot more vehicle and capability.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, Malibu>Camry with 6 speed and I4, and Cobalt>=Corolla.

There are very few 'bu's available that way and, according to http://www.fueleconomy.gov, the '09 1.8 Corolla is more efficient, the 2.4 less. The 08 Corolla is more efficient, period.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, Malibu>Camry with 6 speed and I4, and Cobalt>=Corolla.

I laughed at a 4 Runner add I saw yesterday. They said it got an efficient 21 mpg. You can get that with a Tahoe and have a whole lot more vehicle and capability.

And a 4Runner "can get" 22 mpg, too. Anecdotal fuel economy stories can indicate the range of possible MPGs, but they shouldn't be used to compare vehicles. The 21 mpg (EPA) 4Runner in question has better fuel economy than any non-hybrid Tahoe. However, the Tahoe has better fuel economy than the Sequoia.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are very few 'bu's available that way and, according to http://www.fueleconomy.gov, the '09 1.8 Corolla is more efficient, the 2.4 less. The 08 Corolla is more efficient, period.

Yep. Apparently the Cobalt and Corolla are in different "classes". Hertz gave me the choice between a Mazda6 and Corolla for my "midsize" rental car. :stupid:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep. Apparently the Cobalt and Corolla are in different "classes". Hertz gave me the choice between a Mazda6 and Corolla for my "midsize" rental car. :stupid:

:lol:

That's nice....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep. Apparently the Cobalt and Corolla are in different "classes". Hertz gave me the choice between a Mazda6 and Corolla for my "midsize" rental car. :stupid:

Probably because THEY had to pay a lot more for the Corolla, which is usually the case.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, Malibu>Camry with 6 speed and I4, and Cobalt>=Corolla.

I laughed at a 4 Runner add I saw yesterday. They said it got an efficient 21 mpg. You can get that with a Tahoe and have a whole lot more vehicle and capability.

Riiight... I doubt if a Tahoe could get close to 20 mpg...maybe 15-16.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep. Apparently the Cobalt and Corolla are in different "classes". Hertz gave me the choice between a Mazda6 and Corolla for my "midsize" rental car. :stupid:

Yeah, what is it with rental car agencies? They always seem to have their car/size category mappings all wrong... a Corolla is a compact, not a midsize.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Probably because THEY had to pay a lot more for the Corolla, which is usually the case.

Corollas are cheap. You can get a new '08 for $13K, and Toyota dumps them onto rental fleets.

All I'm saying is that the EPA segmentation (or is it NHTSA?) of the Corolla as "midsize" actually works out in favor of the Cobalt, as then the Cobalt XFE can be the most fuel-efficient "compact" manual transmission vehicle.

edit - Hm, according to the EPA the Corolla is still classified as a "compact" (<110 cu ft). Maybe GM uses Hertz's segmentation methods instead.

Edited by empowah
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, but for many, many people, who do not drive in Happy Valley, cars like the Civic are going to see their 'real world' numbers take a big dive, while engines with more torque and a flatter torque curve, like the ecotecs, will see their real numbers drop much less precipitously.

Hey Carbiz, have you seen this?

http://www.canadiandriver.com/50litre/index.htm

CanadianDriver 50-litre Challenge.

They filled 13 compact cars with 50 litres of regular gasoline, and drove them as "fuel efficiently" as they could in a convoy over the same highway route until they each ran out of gas.

Results:

Group One..........Kilometres..........L/100 km

Toyota Corolla....1017...................4.9

Honda Civic........947.....................5.3

Pontiac Vibe........854.....................5.9

Group Two

Hyundai Elantra...812.....................6.2

Mazda3...............784.....................6.4

Pontiac G5...........755.....................6.6

Mitsubishi Lancer..754.....................6.6

Kia Spectra..........742.....................6.7

Ford Focus...........742.....................6.7

Nissan Sentra.......717.....................7.0

Group Three

Volkswagen City Golf....670..............7.5

Dodge Caliber..............653..............7.7

Suzuki SX4..................637..............7.9

All the cars were four-cylinder models. Interestingly, the top three finishers, the Corolla, Civic and Vibe all had 1.8-litre engines, so it would be correct to assume that smaller engines deliver better fuel economy. However, the Pontiac G5 had the largest engine at 2.2 litres and still finished in the top half of the group.

BTW,

The Civic is rated Hwy: 5.4 L/100 km (did .1 better!)

The G5 is rated Hwy: 5.9 L/100 km (did .7 worse)

It can be argued that the G5's auto vs the Civics stick made the difference.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It can be argued that the G5's auto vs the Civics stick made the difference.

I wonder if the Civic would have gone a little farther with the automatic. It has a better highway mileage rating.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And a 4Runner "can get" 22 mpg, too. Anecdotal fuel economy stories can indicate the range of possible MPGs, but they shouldn't be used to compare vehicles. The 21 mpg (EPA) 4Runner in question has better fuel economy than any non-hybrid Tahoe. However, the Tahoe has better fuel economy than the Sequoia.

Ok, so a standard Tahoe is rated at 20, a whopping 1mpg difference between a much smaller less powerful 4 runner. I thought it was a funny thing to brag in the ad when it's really not that good. It's better than a trailblazer however. You can get 20mpg highway in a Tahoe...just depends on how you drive.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Carbiz, have you seen this?

http://www.canadiandriver.com/50litre/index.htm

CanadianDriver 50-litre Challenge.

They filled 13 compact cars with 50 litres of regular gasoline, and drove them as "fuel efficiently" as they could in a convoy over the same highway route until they each ran out of gas.

Results:

Group One..........Kilometres..........L/100 km

Toyota Corolla....1017...................4.9

Honda Civic........947.....................5.3

Pontiac Vibe........854.....................5.9

Group Two

Hyundai Elantra...812.....................6.2

Mazda3...............784.....................6.4

Pontiac G5...........755.....................6.6

Mitsubishi Lancer..754.....................6.6

Kia Spectra..........742.....................6.7

Ford Focus...........742.....................6.7

Nissan Sentra.......717.....................7.0

Group Three

Volkswagen City Golf....670..............7.5

Dodge Caliber..............653..............7.7

Suzuki SX4..................637..............7.9

BTW,

The Civic is rated Hwy: 5.4 L/100 km (did .1 better!)

The G5 is rated Hwy: 5.9 L/100 km (did .7 worse)

It can be argued that the G5's auto vs the Civics stick made the difference.

Interesting article. I am of two minds: 1) there were lots of interesting tidbits in this article on how to maximize your fuel economy, but 2) who actually drives like that? On the one hand, people who would fork out the extra bucks for Prius, for example, probably would and do drive like my Great Aunt. On the other hand, the average 25 year old who buys the Focus or Cobalt because it is all he can afford is not likely to drive the way they did in this test. Anyone who drives on an average freeway in any large city knows you cannot drive like they do in this test. If you leave more than 5 feet in front of you, someone will squeeze in, so you are forced to gun the engine every time the 'accordion' opens up.

Again, every driver is different. I will be the first to admit that I drive my vehicles like I stole them and it is for this reason that the smaller engines suffer. I would submit that if gas prices get much higher ($1.33 a litre is painful enough!) virtually everyone will start driving like my Great Aunt, including me, in which case the Civic and Corolla will definitely shine through.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are very few 'bu's available that way and, according to http://www.fueleconomy.gov, the '09 1.8 Corolla is more efficient, the 2.4 less. The 08 Corolla is more efficient, period.

I was going off of epa ratings for 08. Last time I checked 36 is greater than 35....although that is only for one model. I thought the other Cobalts got at least 35...guess not.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, what is it with rental car agencies? They always seem to have their car/size category mappings all wrong... a Corolla is a compact, not a midsize.

The rental agencies play this game.....so they can charge you a higher rental fee for what is effectively a smaller car. Charge you a fee for a "midsize" Corolla (that's actually a compact in real life....but they CALL it a "midsize.")

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0