Earlier, General Motors announced a stop sale for all 2016 GMC Acadia, Chevrolet Traverse and Buick Enclave crossovers due to a fuel economy mistake on window stickers for the current model year.
While GM is busy updating the fuel economy figures for the three Lambda based CUVs, Consumer Reports may have found more to the story. GM will update the fuel economy numbers for the three crossovers, bringing their combined ratings down by 2 MPG for the 2016 model year.
But, the 2015 model year will remain unchanged. For example, a 2016 GMC Acadia now gets 17 MPG combined with all-wheel drive, and 18 MPG with front-wheel drive. The 2015 model year receives 19 MPG no matter AWD or FWD. That’s a little strange.
A GM spokesperson responded to the matter stating, ” [the automaker] has checked and found no other models or model years were affected.”
We seriously doubt the older iterations of crossovers actually receive better fuel economy, and if the suspicion is correct, GM may have a serious problem on its hands.
Hyundai found itself in a similar situation after some models were found to have exaggerated fuel economy claims. The Korean automaker issued cards loaded with the absent fuel savings over their lifespan of owning the vehicle, plus 15-percent.
If GM finds itself in a similar situation, the overstatement could affect two million crossovers over the two generations of Traverse, Enclave, Acadia and Saturn Outlook.
Comments
There is only one generation of all of these crossovers (not counting the newest 2017 Acadia – that’s a totally different vehicle) so far, they just got a mid cycle refresh (except Saturn Outlook terminated long time ago along with Saturn make itself).
But even after the mid cycle refresh, they still continue to use really old instrument/gauge clusters and really old “classic” GM keyfobs, which are no longer used anywhere except for these crossovers. Odd enough. So, they all belong to one same generation, definitely.
People generally like all these three (four, counting previous Saturn Outlook ) big crossovers. However, there are no hybrids among them, and all are powered by the same 3.6 V6 LLT, except the very early ones which used 3.6 V6 LY7. These crossovers are all relatively old and heavy in their nature – they are not “on a weight diet” like the some very recently developed vehicles, and they don’t use downsized turbo engines as well. So buyer’s common sense tells every buyer in advance, I guess, by just looking at these 3.6 V6 powered crossovers, that these are no gas sipping compacts anyway.
So, I don’t expect a lot of brouhaha here; neither I expect GM to be really heavily punished by the government(s) for these overly optimistic MPG ratings.
I think Volvo may also be overstating it’s mpg with new Drive E turbo 4 cylinder. I’ve owned one (in 2015 XC60) almost a year now and have never gotten near the advertised 31mpg on the highway.
What the experts at Consumer Reports leaves out here is the EPA ratings have changed over the last few years and because of this only the most recent models are affected here.
But you would think the Consumer Reports experts would now that. And keep in mind these are the same people that want to tell you what car to buy and claim no bias?
Might note no one has complained about MPG on the forums for these vehicles as stated when they bought the vehicles.
CR is just totally irresponsible for making a statement like this with no evidence to back it up. I guess Experts are not what they used to be.
GM did make a mistake and has disclosed it. The EPA would also address this too if there were more involved. There is no way to hide all of these if they were affected so you will find that the regulation on the 2015 and other years were different in how the EPA calculated MPG and that is why all of the models are not a problem.
Many here will recall the changes over the years of the EPA standards as it changed the MPG several times that was posted by MFG’s.
Changing rating systems is nothing new. Like the change from Gross HP to Net HP in 70-71 changed HP ratings on all cars when they made the engines with lower compressions in 71 and later.
dup
Scott3 — whenever you get a rant on about Consumer Reports — you really come off as a GM apologist and terribly biased.
1. “What the experts at Consumer Reports leaves out here is the EPA ratings have changed over the last few years.” Leaves out of what? Their math or the article? I read their article twice and found no indications they left this out. Just because they didn’t mention they had factored it in doesn’t mean they hadn’t. So explain to us how you know they haven’t factored it in?
2. “And keep in mind these are the same people that want to tell you what car to buy and claim no bias?” So if someone at a restaurant leaves the wrong tip you presume it’s because of bias? I don’t. Nobody does. It’s typically because the person doesn’t understand math. And so even if you’re right in your theory to jump to bias REALLY reveals your bias. In psychology it’s called projection.
3. Your bias claims have previously been picked apart by others on this site and you simply ignore us and keep repeating this nonsense (your bias). How do we know it’s nonsense? Buick for two years running has been rated really well by Consumer Reports. Above Honda. So exactly what bias are you referring to again?
4. If CRs has been so STUPID as to not factor in what you’re talking about — GM can drop them a little phone call. If ignored GM can drop them a little lawsuit. Articles published everyday everywhere have errors.
You would also think the experts at GM would know what the EPA mileage ratings on their vehicles are! Little attention to detail!
Martin if you were an expert you would realize these regulations are not always easy to hit. Most MFG have made errors in MPG and HP in many cases. GM as a whole generally is pretty conservative on most their EPA CAFE numbers as well as the HP ratings as many here know many engines have more HP than listed.
The EPA has changed things in 2015 going into 2016 to where this issue evolved. Here is a story from the NY Times explaining the changes.
As you will find that the process of testing has never been an exact science and tough for many MFG’s to meet. The fact is no company wants to miss on these as it makes for bad press as well as unhappy customers if they are off by 2 MPG or more. I know out of my 4 cars two meet the numbers spot on as well as two others exceed the EPA numbers buy a good margin in city, mixed and highway.
So your Experts at Consumer Reports appear to have left out a lot when they made their accusation. They either are biased and out to damage GM or they are poorly informed in the area of automobiles and regulations and should stick to toaster as they are hard to screw up. Maybe their subscribers are explaining the regulations and EPA process to them? Either way this is proof of their creditability not being what some like to make it.
NY Times Feb 23, 2015
WASHINGTON — After two years of imposing increasingly stiff penalties on automakers that overstate their fuel economy ratings, federal regulators on Monday said they would tighten guidelines used in determining the mileage advertised to consumers.
Next year, automakers will face stricter rules for conducting a crucial test or face an audit by the Environmental Protection Agency and potential penalties. The rules for the test had not been updated in over 10 years.
“We think this guidance will result in more accurate fuel economy numbers that consumers can trust,” said Byron Bunker, director of compliance for the E.P.A.’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
The fuel economy numbers have been the source of frustration for some car owners who say that their actual mileage does not match the figures advertised.
“You’ve had disappointment from consumers who expect the mileage to be what is on the window sticker, and who find things are off by not just a little, but by a lot,” said Karl Brauer, an analyst with Kelley Blue Book. “There isn’t much patience for it by consumers, and it’s why we see the government taking a tougher stance than we used to.”
For automakers, the tightening of the rules could lead to lower fuel economy ratings if they have not previously fully complied with the test. Automakers are under enormous pressure to improve their average corporate fuel economy to a federally mandated 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, up from the approximately 25 m.p.g. that vehicles average today.
The agency has been increasingly aggressive in its oversight of automakers over mileage figures, conducting dozens of audits since issues with Hyundai and Kia came to light.
Last fall, the agency fined Hyundai and Kia a combined penalty worth $300 million after an investigation revealed that the Korean automakers had inappropriately conducted the test, resulting in vehicles with inflated mileage results. It was the largest-ever penalty for a violation of the Clean Air Act.
Ford and Mercedes-Benz also had instances of problems with the test that led them to subsequently have to reduce the posted mileage on several vehicles.
Under current rules, automakers conduct the mileage testing themselves, and the E.P.A. provides oversight through audits that include the agency’s own testing of selected vehicles.
Mr. Bunker said most automakers were already providing accurate numbers; the companies that were not will be given “greater insight into how we arrive at our audit numbers” and allow the agency to “better monitor manufacturer compliance.”
The test under scrutiny measures a car as it slows to a stop from about 70 miles an hour. The E.P.A. laid out the new standards for how the tests must be conducted in a 10-page document sent to car companies on Monday. For instance, a test vehicle must be warmed up first for 30 minutes at 50 miles an hour to stabilize the tires, and test vehicles should not be new, but rather have about 4,000 miles on them to better simulate real-world conditions.
“Before, you had guidance that didn’t fully capture things automakers could do to futz with their numbers,” said Mr. Brauer, the analyst with Kelley Blue Book. “This action fills in those gaps.”
The E.P.A. guidelines will not have the force of a formal rule, and so in theory are voluntary. But the agency said that the federal rule-making process, which can take years of drafts and comment periods, was too slow.
“While initially we believed that a rule-making would be necessary, after thorough review, we believe that a combination of targeted and random audits, guidance compliance and oversight strategies can have the same impact as making a change to the regulations,” said Mr. Bunker, the E.P.A. official. “In fact, these strategies would allow us to implement change quicker than a rule-making and would provide both E.P.A. and manufacturers the benefit of more flexibility to address any potential changes in technology, testing or other unforeseen conditions.”
The new rules apply to model-year 2017 vehicles, which go on sale next year.
The new guidelines on the key test still leave other parts of the E.P.A.’s fuel economy rules in place. But the agency also said it planned to tackle another fuel-economy-related problem using a similar fast-track approach — the disparities among the growing number of hybrid and electric vehicles on the market.
In 2013, Ford reduced the combined fuel economy rating of its C-Max hybrid sport utility vehicle to 43 miles per gallon from 47 miles per gallon after a rash of consumer complaints. The company offered payments of $550 to any C-Max buyer.
Ford, it turned out, was technically within the letter of the law — as current rules allow for automakers to take the mileage rating of one car and apply it to another, if both vehicles are about the same size, with the same engine and transmission. Ford had used the 47 m.p.g. rating of its Fusion hybrid and assigned it to the C-Max.
Wade Newton, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group, said the changes would have a “minimal effect on the fuel economy label.”
“Keep in mind a consumer’s fuel economy will still vary for a host of reasons,” he said. “A driver who doesn’t keep tires properly inflated will get different mileage than someone who does.”
Mr. Brauer of Kelley Blue Book said that many automakers would most likely welcome the Monday announcement because it provides more assurance that competitors are staying within the rules. At the same time, companies like Hyundai and Kia, when they were fined, said that the testing guidelines were too vague.
“They said, maybe if we had more accurate guidance, we’d get more accurate numbers out of our tests,” Mr. Brauer said, describing Hyundai and Kia’s response. “Well, this definitely provides that clarity.”
Excuse me! How difficult is to determine what figures go on the 2016 vehicles when you submit your vehicles for testing and you get the government approval what the ratings are. To me, that is nothing more than picking numbers up and transferring them to the window stickers. Dah?
Yes it is much more difficult than you imagining.
If you had read the story I posted the guideline criteria is not precise and clear and all the Automakers are struggling with this.
The EPA has tried to tighten it up but still have yet to make it to where it is clear and uniform.
Let me put it into simpler terms for you. It is like trying to umpire a baseball game with a strike zone that is not clearly defined for players of different sizes. Now baseball and made it clear what dedicates a strike zone in their case but the EPA while tightening the regulations has still not clarified the way the results are found in a precise clear way.
Because of this many MFG has missed and that is also why most are not being taken to task other than a few that may have fudged it with intent.
Until there is a set standard that encompasses the variations of product there will be some issues that will crop up with the testing. Add in the hybrids and other products it can take this even farther off the path.
If anything as pointed out in the story most MFG would like more precise regulations to better class the MPG for their cars as well as keep everyone honest. Not only do most not want to get caught up in a mistake but few want to see anyone else cheat and take advantage of the poor regulations over them.
I own a 2014 Buick Enclave with FWD and my city mileage is around 17mpg and my highway mileage is around 23mpg. My combined mileage is right at 19mpg. If I’m not mistaken, that’s around the miles per gallon stated by GM. So I don’t see a big problem.
It may not be off by much but enough to warrant a change. Also your driving habits may be better than the outlined guide lines.
My turbo HHR is rated City for 19 but I get 25-26 around town not even trying for MPG. My GMC is spot on with what was on the sticker.
I think this is GM trying to play it safe and up front as they are doing everything today to win back the trust of the public and really want to avoid any scandal.
I would watch as the VW computer issue on the Diesel is far from the last scandal we will see in the auto industry when it comes to MPG and Emissions. Some of the smaller companies are desperate as they can not afford to make all the changes needed and may have resorted to other means.
My VW CC 2.0 always hit it’s advertised mpg (city and highway) with no problem. Actually I often got significantly higher mpg than advertised.
Of course this news would be present when the lambdas are going away. Like seriously?
No surprise here, my wife and I have a 2013 Acadia FWD. I think the highway MPG should come down as well and may be what ultimately brought the combined rating down. We would have to drive about 60ish to get 24 MPG as stated on the sticker. Our interstate roads are 70 MPH here. Driving at the speed limit we might get 22. On long trips we really only average between 20 and 21.
I just traded my 2013 LTZ AWD 3.6 L VVT Equinox in for a 2016 LTZ AWD (same engine as in the Traverse) 3.6L and believe me the mileage is a full three MPG less!
Three Chevrolet dealers give me the same excuse, ‘That it isn’t broke in yet” The engine has less power and doesn’t run as smoothly when accelerating either. I have over two thousand miles on my new one and it isn’t any better than the first tankful!
Very few Equinox and Terrains have the V6 and the problem is glossed over because of that fact!
We’ve been duped!!!! Give me my old one back!!!
We’ve been duped
We have a 2013 Terrain Denali, 4cyl – AWD. Stated mpg on the Highway was 30! We see 27-28 at best. No power, pretty disappointing.