GM's Big SUVs Lead Segment in Mileage

2015ChevroletTahoe

GM has released new EPA fuel economy numbers for its newly refreshed and upgraded Chevrolet and GMC full-size SUVs, and they're leading the segment. The 2015 Chevy Tahoe/Suburban and GMC Yukon/Yukon XL will come standard with the EcoTec3 all-aluminum 5.3-liter V-8 that debuted in the all-new 2014 Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra half-ton pickup trucks last year. The new engine produces more power and offers better city and highway fuel economy than either of the previous 5.3-liter V-8 engines (LC9 or LMG) it replaces.

More Fuel Efficiency News

According to the press release, the new EPA-rated numbers for the Chevy Suburban (and GMC Yukon XL) are 16 mpg in the city and 23 mpg on the highway for two-wheel-drive models, improving the previous engine's numbers by 7 and 9 percent, respectively. Four-wheel-drive models for both the 2015 Yukon XL and Suburban are 15/22. Shorter wheelbase Tahoe and Yukon models with two-wheel drive have an EPA rating of 16/23, with four-wheel-drive models rated at 16/22.

Fuel economy improvements are also coming to the newly redesigned 2015 Ford Expedition and Expedition EL, as Ford has replaced the dated 5.4-liter V-8 with the more powerful and efficient 3.5-liter twin-turbo EcoBoost V-6 engine. EPA fuel economy ratings for the 3.5-liter have not been released yet, but it’s likely to show much better fuel efficiency than the engine it's replacing. No changes have been made to the Toyota Sequoia, which offers the 13/17 city/highway EPA numbers.

Comments 

responder

Good job GM. Whats up with Sequoia? A buck out your pocket every four to five miles driven. Ouch!

Charles

I can't wait for President Obama to ban these large and totally unnecessary SUV monsters. GM should be ashamed to produce such junk.

dont like big brother

hey chuck the last time i looked this was AMERICA that means freedom of choice anyway that why i served my country with honor for and by the way if you look to this goof obama for something intelligent well dont bank on it

Vik

Charles- I can't wait until you see that what you propose will never happen, and may 10x more large SUVs cruise the highways just to spite you. :)

Dan

Stop feeding the troll

Belly

Don't worry Charles there are just so many Corvettes out there, you won't even realize these are one the road... :)(

Vik

Belly- just couldn't catch a break (or respond in any way whatsoever) in the previous thread, so you avoid a response and drag it over here instead. Hilarious. Stay classy, my friend. ;)

J

Someone claims that they served, yet they don't like big brother...
Not to mention that has no punctuation whatsoever.
Poor E-3 must have received plenty of article 15 to get discharged...

Back on topic.
What is the point of being the best in the segment when everyone in the segment just suck?

Belly

Vik, you are pretty cute! :)

Argument by assertion -- The belief that if you say something enough times, it eventually becomes true and therefore you win the argument.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

Vik

Belly- you are not! :)

The fact of the matter is that I made several points and asked several questions of you in the previous thread, including trying to get a "discussion" started that you claimed to be interested in. And you ignored all of this in favor of ad hominem attacks.

Paste logical fallacies from wikipedia and make cutesy, humorless jokes all you want. However you try to twist it, you avoided responding to the points of the debate. I'd be happy to paste them here if you'd like to actually have that "discussion" you've so clearly avoided. :)

Vik

Belly- here you go! Let's see if we can get something other than avoidance from you this time! :) Would be especially interested in your response to point (n) below.

Vik
Oct 10, 2013 9:04:56 PM
Belly- I'm *so* flattered that you'd take the time to go through all my previous posts and paste all the fun I was having at your expense into one post. :) And then 4 posts in a row, no less, WOW! Looks like I really hit a nerve there, didn't I? I can't help but see that you've concentrated all your efforts on pouting at all the fun I was having with you, while completely avoiding responding to the substance of my posts. For someone who talks so much about "thinking" and "discussion", it would be nice to see you walk the walk just once.

I'll summarize the "discussion" to date. You tell me where you're confused, and why you seemingly cannot offer a response without dodging. Deal? OK here goes:

a) I point out the hypocrisy in people complaining about the Suburban's fuel economy, while never making similar argument for other fuel inefficient vehicles, like sports cars. I used the Corvette as one example of such a sports car.

b) DODGE #1: Belly attempts to dodge the principle of the argument, responding that the Corvette isn't a good example because the sales numbers are not close to the Suburban.

c) I point out that that's a recent development, and the Corvette sold in number similar to the Suburban as recently as 2008.

d) DODGE #2: Belly attempts to dodge the principle of the argument, saying the Corvette is not a good example because the highway mileage is much better than the Suburban's.

e) Just to satisfy Belly's whining about comparing a sports car with sales numbers and fuel economy closer to the Suburban's, I submit the Dodge Challenger, another FUEL INEFFICIENT SPORTS CAR, that DOES sell in the numbers of the Suburban, and has similar combined fuel economy.

f) DODGE #3: Belly claims the Challenger "has nothing to do with what (I) said", even though it is a sports car with poor fuel economy, like the Corvette. It just sells in numbers similar to the Suburban….y'know, an example like Belly wanted? :)

g) DODGE #4: Belly pastes a link about logical fallacies in an attempt to sound intelligent, but fails to actually point out the fallacy satisfied by my argument.

h) DODGE #5: Belly pulls out of her … that the V6 CHARGER sells more than the V8s, which not only has nothing to do with our discussion, but Belly presents no sources to backup what is nothing more than her guess about the relative sales numbers.

i) I present the most recent Challenger model sales numbers available (from 2009), which show that 75% of Challenger sales were V8s, contradicting Belly's out-of-thin-air-and-fact-free-guess about the Charger (again, the wrong car- you can see Belly is really struggling at this point).

j) DODGE #6: Belly now attempts to call into question the validity of the Challenger model sales #s I presented because they're from 2009. This, despite the fact that she apparently considered it perfectly acceptable to present her "facts" about Charger V6 vs. V8 sales that were 1) made up out of thin air, with no reference whatsoever and 2) for the wrong car (the Charger). As you can see, Belly has completely different standards for facts she presents, and facts she'll accept from others.

k) Additionally, I point out that the Challenger sales #s I presented were in a year when one would expect the highest V6 sales (2009- the first year V6s were made available and pent up demand would exist, not to mention the economy and fuel prices at the time) and even those numbers showed 75% of Challenger sales were V8s, contradicting Belly's out-of-thin-air-and-fact-free-guess about the Charger (again, the wrong car). I call out Belly on her attempt at "logic chopping".

l) DODGE #7: After having both her nitpicks/dodges (first sales numbers and then fuel economy) satisfied with my example of the Dodge Challenger, Belly gets desperate, and attempts to COMPLETELY CHANGE the discussion to ALL SUVs vs. ALL sports cars, claiming I am "adding sports cars" to my argument, when I'm clearly doing no such thing. Agent/Belly was targeting the Suburban specifically with her comment. I submitted for comparison the ZR1 as an example of a fuel inefficient sports car. Belly pointed out that didn't sell in the numbers of the Suburban, so I brought up the Challenger, another fuel inefficient sports car that DOES sell in the numbers of the Suburban, for comparison. As anyone reading can see, I am substituting the Challenger for the Corvette in my argument, NOT adding it, and there is no inconsistency in doing so because it is also a fuel inefficient sports car, which is consistent with my initial argument. Belly repeatedly claims inconsistency / logical fallacy in this, but she seems incapable of actually pointing out that fallacy. I'd have something funny to say here, that is, if I wasn't laughing so hard. :)

m) Belly claims she is interested in "thought" and "discussion" of this issue, but only submits this: "I am anybody who wants to make any determination I want. What about it?"…as food for "thought". Where is the thought and discussion, you ask? Good question. In addition, Belly whines about being insulted, while failing to see the condescending tone of her own posts that brought it on (and quite deservedly so).

n) Attempting to take Belly at her word that she is really interested in discussion, I attempt to open a discussion with many questions, as pasted and slightly edited here: Think a little more deeply about the question "who are you to determine what someone needs?" How do you know exactly why someone wants a particular vehicle? Can you get in their head? If they can afford it, if they can afford the gas, and it's legal, why shouldn't they have it? And what do you propose to do about a vehicle you determine someone doesn't "need"? Anyone who owns a watch that costs more than $15 is in the same category. The $15 one keeps as good or better time. Houses are the same way, you don't 'need' much more than a few hundred square feet to live in, but odd, for some reason people have homes a bit bigger than this. Cars really don't need to go any faster than say 80 mph on american highways (speed limit plus a little for safety) but last time I checked most of them do too. My expectation is that you likely have a few things in your life that are bigger/faster/shinier than they 'need' to be as well, no different than the SUV guy I expect. Why don't we open the discussion with you explaining to us your reasoning for some of the things in your life that are bigger/faster/shinier than they need to be, and your justification for making those purchases? If you really want to "think" and have a "discussion", as you propose, then why don't we start with responding to this entire paragraph? What say you?

o) DODGE #8: Instead of participating in a discussion, or in any way responding to the thoughtful questions I'd raised in my post above (summarized in (n)), Belly proceeds to take her time to filter through all my posts and paste all the phrases where I was having fun at her expense. :) I'd think it would be much easier, not to mention in Belly's interest of thought and discussion, to instead participate in a discussion regarding the questions I'd raised, but Belly takes the low road and pouts about being insulted. I'm sorry, Belly, really I am! Now let's move on! :)

p) DODGE #9: Belly attempts to support her position regarding a logical fallacy, merely pasting this "Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position"
…without explaining how it actually applies to my argument. No worries, I can respond to this anyway: Again, Agent/Belly was targeting the Suburban specifically with her comment. I submitted for comparison the ZR1 as an example of a fuel inefficient sports car. Belly pointed out that didn't sell in the numbers of the Suburban, so I brought up the Challenger, another fuel inefficient sports car that DOES sell in the numbers of the Suburban, for comparison. And so I ask how a "cherry picking" logical fallacy applies, particularly when BELLY is the one who wanted to make sure Challenger vs. Suburban model sales numbers and model fuel economy comparisons were exactly comparable, not me. Now that I've met that requirement, Belly attempts to dodge and make it about ALL SUVs vs. ALL cars and then claim a logical fallacy, but that wasn't Agent's comment, and that wasn't my argument. Agent/Belly SPECIFICALLY commented on one model: the Suburban, and I offered one model: the Challenger, in comparison and asked why we're not seeing similar comments about fuel economy.

Not surprisingly, after so many posts, we still do not have an answer. Even more unfortunate, we do not have any response from Belly regarding the "thought" and "discussion" in which she claims to be so interested. How sad. :(

PS: If you want a discussion about ALL trucks vs. ALL cars, you can start one independent of this, Belly, but your attempt to transform this discussion will simply not work, and I don't think you are fooling anyone in so trying.

Belly

Baaahh! Haahh!! You reposted that!! Haaahh!

"I find it funny that poster like you often jump all over the fuel consumption of SUVs, while completely giving a pass to cars like the Corvette (2013 ZR1 gets 14/21, vs. 15/17 for the 2013 Suburban BTW)."

Moving the goalposts -- Changing evidential requirements in an argument once they have been met, "what I really meant was..."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

I don't need to be cute, that's okay :O

Vik

Belly- yes, I copied and pasted. Not sure why that's funny. It only shows you were never capable of responding to the points of the debate. Easily amused, I guess.

And you've come through shiningly once again- avoiding the questions! Nice work, kiddo! :)

I'll try explaining once again- let me know where you're confused: you'll note in the text you just pasted I said cars *like* the Corvette- which, in context, is referring to fuel inefficient sports cars. At your prompting, I found another fuel inefficient sports car that gets poor fuel economy and sells in the numbers of the Suburban. So how is that "moving the goalposts" when my example of the Challenger was consistent with my initial argument of fuel inefficient sports cars, of which the Corvette is just one example, and the Challenger another. I'm serious- do tell, I'm all ears! Seems easier for you to paste wiki logical fallacies than to actually explain how they apply, my friend. Try using that noggin a little harder than what it takes to type "logical fallacies" into google andthen pretend they somehow magically apply, without explanation. :)

And, just to clarify, you have yet to respond to this. No amount of hand-waving, wiki-pasting, or tired humor will fool anyone reading this to the fact you seem incapable of having the very discussion you claimed to be so interested in creating!

Here goes again:
"Think a little more deeply about the question "who are you to determine what someone needs?" How do you know exactly why someone wants a particular vehicle? Can you get in their head? If they can afford it, if they can afford the gas, and it's legal, why shouldn't they have it? And what do you propose to do about a vehicle you determine someone doesn't "need"? Anyone who owns a watch that costs more than $15 is in the same category. The $15 one keeps as good or better time. Houses are the same way, you don't 'need' much more than a few hundred square feet to live in, but odd, for some reason people have homes a bit bigger than this. Cars really don't need to go any faster than say 80 mph on american highways (speed limit plus a little for safety) but last time I checked most of them do too. My expectation is that you likely have a few things in your life that are bigger/faster/shinier than they 'need' to be as well, no different than the SUV guy I expect. Why don't we open the discussion with you explaining to us your reasoning for some of the things in your life that are bigger/faster/shinier than they need to be, and your justification for making those purchases? If you really want to "think" and have a "discussion", as you propose, then why don't we start with responding to this entire paragraph? What say you?"

Where is your discussion and thinking on this one, Belly? Why is it you are incapable of responding to this debate point? Oh wait, I bet I know....LOL. :) Thanks for another laugh.

Vik

...and the record shows that Belly has not-so-slyly avoided my questions and discussion again. This after stating that thought and discussion about this topic is what she was really after.

Argument by avoidance -- The belief that if you avoid something enough times, it eventually goes away and therefore you win the argument.

Sorry, Belly.

LOL. :)

Post a Comment 

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • If you don't want people to see your email address, simply type in the URL of your favorite website or leave the field empty.
  • Do not mention specific car dealers by name. Feel free to mention your city, state and brand.
  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers. This blog is not a fan or enthusiast forum, it is meant to help people during the car-buying process and during the time between purchases, so shoppers can keep a pulse on the market.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
view posting rules

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Search Results

KickingTires Search Results for

Search Kicking Tires

KickingTires iPhone App
Ask.cars.com