mphmag

Chevy Tahoe: Review

21 posts in this topic

Newbiewar    1

good article

although GM will hit them hard on the review for innacuracys...

And just like our armed forces, the Tahoe's got its own DoD, only here it means Displacement on Demand

GM has never refered to the tahoe has DoD... and has changed all publications on all vehicles to AFM or Active Fuel Management... GM does not want to confuse people with Olds Displacement disaster back in the day (When the oldsmobile system 8-6-4 system just shut off the spark but the fuel still came and went leaving unwanted gunk from unburt fuel and several other problems with continued usage)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mphmag    0

first of all it is not really an inaccuracy. Meaning that it does offer the same technology as what is commonly referred to as Displacement on demand. In fact I think most car fans I talk with hate the fact that automakers have to come up with their own terminology for widely used tech. Like the manumatic, tiptronic etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Newbiewar    1

first of all it is not really an inaccuracy. Meaning that it does offer the same technology as what is commonly referred to as Displacement on demand. In fact I think most car fans I talk with hate the fact that automakers have to come up with their own terminology for widely used tech. Like the manumatic, tiptronic etc.

either way... GM will still complain...

if for one second a person says... "hey this displacement thing, is that anything like my stupid oldsmobile?" that person will not trust it and will not purchase the vehicle!

I believe this to be the sole reason GM has changed the name to Active Fuel Management.

because if you look at Chevys website... and you look at the engine choices for the tahoe you will find it says "Engine Vortec 5300 V8 with NEW Active Fuel Management (2WD models only) " with an option on the "Engine Vortec 5300 V8 with NEW Active Fuel Management and E85 flexible-fuel capability"

or if you look at the Impala it'll say "The small block V8 in SS models features: Active Fuel Management for an EPA estimated 28 MPG highway." or the 5.3 or the trailblazer "Engine: Vortec 5300 V8 with Active Fuel Management (AFM) technology "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91z4me    0

good article

although GM will hit them hard on the review for innacuracys...

GM has never refered to the tahoe has DoD... and has changed all publications on all vehicles to AFM or Active Fuel Management... GM does not want to confuse people with Olds Displacement disaster back in the day (When the oldsmobile system 8-6-4 system just shut off the spark but the fuel still came and went leaving unwanted gunk from unburt fuel and several other problems with continued usage)

That was the Caddy 4-6-8 not Olds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Newbiewar    1

That was the Caddy 4-6-8 not Olds.

ohh my bad... we didnt get a real good breifing on it at the ride and drive... we are just supposed to know that technology has been improved a lot since those days, and the precision is remarkable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
enzl    0

In their defense, Gm itself initially refered to the tech as DoD, IIRC.

Side note: Interesting how the almost universally positive reviews of this world class product has quieted the 'media bias' crowd here...

See, if you build excellent product, you get good reviews...Surprise, surprise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Newbiewar    1

In their defense, Gm itself initially refered to the tech as DoD, IIRC.

Side note: Interesting how the almost universally positive reviews of this world class product has quieted the 'media bias' crowd here...

See, if you build excellent product, you get good reviews...Surprise, surprise!

yes they did... they did refer to it as DOD but!... it has stopped months ago, with the launch of the tahoe...

previously the SS impala and a few other vehicles were really the only ones... but GM realized the objection... and with the Impala, I personally got the complaint about the old school Displacement technology... so I'm sure my customer was not the only one to complain... for the record he didnt purchase the impala SS...

All i'm saying is we've been told by multiple sources to correct any DoD coments and suggest the new term AFM or Active Fuel Mangement.

Edited by Newbiewar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
enzl    0

yes they did... they did refer to it as DOD but!... it has stopped months ago, with the launch of the tahoe...

previously the SS impala and a few other vehicles were really the only ones... but GM realized the objection... and with the Impala, I personally got the complaint about the old school Displacement technology... so I'm sure my customer was not the only one to complain... for the record he didnt purchase the impala SS...

All i'm saying is we've been told by multiple sources to correct any DoD coments and suggest the new term AFM or Active Fuel Mangement.

Right..as per GM's instructions...but that doesn't change the fact that GM had been pushing it under the old name...We have a Chevy dealership in our group and I haven't heard of any objections based on the name of the system (DoD v. AFM). I just hope it works better in the long term than the previous effort!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FUTURE_OF_GM    26

In their defense, Gm itself initially refered to the tech as DoD, IIRC.

Side note: Interesting how the almost universally positive reviews of this world class product has quieted the 'media bias' crowd here...

See, if you build excellent product, you get good reviews...Surprise, surprise!

OBVIOUSLY, you haven't read the Yukon threads to closely. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mphmag    0

remember that the magazines have tog o to rpess months ahead of street date and have earliest info provided by the manufacturer. Perhaps it hadn't been changed by then.

AND I guarantee you it has nothing to do with the past use of the tech it has to do with Chrysler using the term DoD for their products and GM wanting to sound even more advanced/different. It is part of the industry these days unfortunatley. it is lame as well.

Do they have different terms for Manual Transmission?

also Mike Austin just ran a follow-up int he blog about the real world MPG

http://web.mph-online.com/blogs/124

Edited by mphmag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Newbiewar    1

remember that the magazines have tog o to rpess months ahead of street date and have earliest info provided by the manufacturer. Perhaps it hadn't been changed by then.

AND I guarantee you it has nothing to do with the past use of the tech it has to do with Chrysler using the term DoD for their products and GM wanting to sound even more advanced/different. It is part of the industry these days unfortunatley. it is lame as well.

Do they have different terms for Manual Transmission?

also Mike Austin just ran a follow-up int he blog about the real world MPG

http://web.mph-online.com/blogs/124

if you set the cruise and watch the information center you will see your fuel ecconomy, and trust me if you are going 65, you will see better then 22 on the highway... that is with the 2wd model... as far as i've tested, it bounces between about 24 and about 30 when its in v8 and v4 mode... at least when you are going 65 or so...

if there is an incline, the v8 mode might dip to around 18 or so... but if the cruise is set, you'll receive great fuel ecconomy. at least from what the information center has told me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
caddycruiser    50

if you set the cruise and watch the information center you will see your fuel ecconomy, and trust me if you are going 65, you will see better then 22 on the highway... that is with the 2wd model... as far as i've tested, it bounces between about 24 and about 30 when its in v8 and v4 mode... at least when you are going 65 or so...

if there is an incline, the v8 mode might dip to around 18 or so... but if the cruise is set, you'll receive great fuel ecconomy.  at least from what the information center has told me.

We see the same kind of numbers in Instant MPG mode on our 2wd '04 Suburban. Can cruise steady right around 65, and see it readout 22-23'ish, and hit 24-25'ish a few times in there.

The lowest I've dropped it is to 7-8MPG, WOT from a start...but it's always of equal interest to watch it hit 99MPG sometimes on deceleration 8)

I've been wondering what some of the new ones readout when in V4 mode, though :thumbsup:

Edited by caddycruiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Northstar    11

We see the same kind of numbers in Instant MPG mode on our 2wd '04 Suburban.  Can cruise steady right around 65, and see it readout 22-23'ish, and hit 24-25'ish a few times in there.

The lowest I've dropped it is to 7-8MPG, WOT from a start...but it's always of equal interest to watch it hit 99MPG sometimes on deceleration 8)

I've been wondering what some of the new ones readout when in V4 mode, though :thumbsup:

I think something must be wrong with your Suburban's instant MPG mode, because there's no way it's getting 7 MPG at WOT. Just accelerating a little quicker than normally (meaing faster than the person next to me but not hod-rodding) I get about 6-7MPG in the GTO. WOT is like 3-4.

Anyways, not that it really matters... the new GMT900s seem to be doing well in the press and in terms of the buying public. We shall see if they can put money back in the coffers or if the other costs are too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think something must be wrong with your Suburban's instant MPG mode, because there's no way it's getting 7 MPG at WOT. Just accelerating a little quicker than normally (meaing faster than the person next to me but not hod-rodding) I get about 6-7MPG in the GTO. WOT is like 3-4.

Anyways, not that it really matters... the new GMT900s seem to be doing well in the press and in terms of the buying public. We shall see if they can put money back in the coffers or if the other costs are too much.

isn't your gto cammed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Northstar    11

Yeah, it has a performance camshaft, but I still wouldn't expect his 3 ton Suburban at WOT to get better MPG than my 3700-3800lb GTO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Newbiewar    1

I think something must be wrong with your Suburban's instant MPG mode, because there's no way it's getting 7 MPG at WOT. Just accelerating a little quicker than normally (meaing faster than the person next to me but not hod-rodding) I get about 6-7MPG in the GTO. WOT is like 3-4.

Anyways, not that it really matters... the new GMT900s seem to be doing well in the press and in terms of the buying public. We shall see if they can put money back in the coffers or if the other costs are too much.

hes right... at WOT, from a stand still... you look at instant fuel ecconomy and it sits at V8 and 0mpg... now you go full throttle, and it might be 1 or 2 mpg v8 mode... and until you get to about 30 mph, it stays under 5mpg... (but thats at WOT) when you get past 30mph it start to climb up to about 8-9 or so at high speeds... and it'll settle down pretty good as soon as you lay off the gas...

this new tahoe i dont remember if i had got it to break into 3 digits for fuel ecconomy... if i did, it was mid 130's... for some reason 134 is sticking... but i dont remember to be honnest.. but i remember trying... but it might have been in the impala that i got 3 digits...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
garf12    0

I hardly ever see my 4x4 ltz drop into v4 unless im not giving it any gas. Crusing flat at 60 with cruise on it stays in v8. Right now my average MPG is 14.3, just went got back from a 800 mile road trip with the majority being interstate travel so that jacked it up it was as low as 13.8 and was hoovering at 14.1.

Got 7,215 miles and just got my 20% oil life warning, seem a little far to be driving? I'm used to changing it every 3,000 miles. Would have done it before the trip but the dealership couldnt find a oil filter anywhere in town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
caddycruiser    50

Yeah, I kinda said that wrong above. Everything is true, except WOT does drop to about 2-3, but that happens so rarely, I completely forgot about it. In general, just stepping on it heavy (but not the full way) from a stop, we DO see it go no lower than about 5 mpg. And then the bit in "limit" of sorts is apparently 99, as it'll hit that number sometimes right as coming to a stop or just letting off the gas completely.

But for the most part, it's always in the 17-24 range cruising.

Edited by caddycruiser

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...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum 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.