Truckers' strike/slowdown

[BrianR]

I have a 2007 Chevrolet Avalanche. (pictures coming soon).
it has the 5.7l V8 FlexFuel engine.

Mileage numbers are not in but are expected to be dismal. My loved one reports about 400 miles/30 gallon tankful.

It does have larger than stock tires so that may be skewing the numbers downwards.

I used to have a Cavalier 3 door. No problems reported with that car or engine. Driver is another matter.

It got fair to middlin mileage. If memory serves, it got about 19 city and 32 highway.

I expect reliability in my Avalanche or be about the same, if not the mileage.

Brian

[elSicomoro]

40mpg again tonight on the highway...35 with the a/c on. I'll take it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

I guess it depends on whether you are referring to gross/net or percentages.

Which then returns to a fundamental question. Who routinely stifled technology for so long as to get us into this problem? Definitely not the oil industry. Personal testimony from Exxon executives - GM (et al) would routinely deny or reject innovations from the oil companies. Even GM engine problems (that never appeared in Japanese products) would get blamed on oil companies. It happened so frequently that everyone here should have understood this. Instead, GM is so good at propaganda that the naive instead blame the oil companies. GM is so good at propaganda that we have one here repeatedly praising GM products.

Solutions for our excessive oil consumption would have been started in the early 1980s. 30 MPG on a large SUV therefore would have been normal. Instead, those same size engines get only 1960 technology gas mileage - even with the better gasolines provided by the oil companies.

[tw]

Originally Posted by BrianR

I have a 2007 Chevrolet Avalanche. (pictures coming soon). it has the 5.7l V8 FlexFuel engine.

If it was a responsible or innovative product, then it does 399 Hp or more - a technology developed in mid-1970 GM. That year 2000+ product does nothing near to what is minimally acceptable. A 5.7 liter V-8 is a trophy of anti-American mentality. There is no SUV that should need a V-8. But because that GM engine is so crappy and pathetic, then many Americans use the Saddam WMD thinking to know they need a V-8.

Want to see why $5 per gallon gasoline is all but inevitable? Look at the anti-Americans who need 5.7 liter or 5.0 Liter engines.

So what is in the Chevy Suburban/Tahoe/etc? 6.4 liters and 4000+ pounds to move one 200 pound human? Those numbers say 'stifled innovation' in spades. Those numbers say why American will remain in denial until gasoline approaches $5 per gallon.

Flex fuel? From the same fools who said hydrogen was the solution. Problem never was the fuel - blame the oil companies. Problem remains in companies who promote myths (ie need for a V-8) while stifling innovation - GM. No wonder GM was promoting a lie - hydrogen as a fuel.

[BrianR]

The engine puts out 320 hp stock. I will be bumping that number up later. I am looking for 400 hp due to trailer towing needs. I would not have bought that SUV unless I needed it. I need to carry a lot of cargo, have off-road capability and tow up to 7000 lbs. The truck meets my needs and my wife likes it besides.

I buy what I need, not what I want, although I must admit I have wanted one of these ever since they came out.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Blah blah blah

Your rant has NOTHING to do with what I posted - why bother quoting me?

BTW, did you get turned down or fired from GM?

[elSicomoro]

So...if I post about the awesomeness of our Toyota RAV4, does that mean that Toyota is good at propaganda?

[tw]

Originally Posted by sycamore

So...if I post about the awesomeness of our Toyota RAV4, does that mean that Toyota is good at propaganda?

I don't see you posting from known facts. I see you posting myths from GM. If GM products are so good, well, explain why those J-cars have such a bad reputation - even the most recent models?

An honest post would have noted the poor reputation of Cobalts; but yours does not seem to have all those problems. You did not post that. Instead you posted praise of GM – stating the GM makes great products.

So where are these innovations in that J-car that did not exist ten years ago? Oh. That car is only doing what every responsible auto company was doing ten and fifteen years ago. Why so much silence - as America consumes record amounts of energy wastefully and as others instead blame the oil industry.

[elSicomoro]

Tommy, I posted the fact that I got 20 miles per gallon in my Cobalt while delivering pizzas in an urban environment, a 5 mile per gallon improvement over my previous vehicle (a 2003 Chevrolet Malibu).

I then posted the fact that my car attained 40 miles per gallon during a highway drive. Incidentally, I achieved that again last night, which my wife can verify.

I then posted revised fuel economy ratings from the US Government, refuting your statement that 40mpg was standard for compact cars 15 years ago...it wasn't standard 10 years ago, and isn't now. I don't doubt that some of those cars can achieve 40mpg in certain conditions, though...mine does. It exceeds what the government says it should get by 25%.

I then threw in the subcompacts then and now...even those cars aren't rated at 40mpg.

You mentioned that 70hp/L has been standard for 20 years...I posted the hp/L ratings that I obtained from Wikipedia entries for the Civic, Corolla and Cavalier...the ratings I obtained refute your statement.

You then stated that the Vega, Cavalier and Cobalt were J-body cars...again, I pulled information from Wikipedia that refutes that statement. Only the Cavalier was a J-body.

And you can also pull such information from other places besides Wikipedia...that site happened to be the most convenient.

You say that the Cobalt has a poor reputation...in general, I have not seen reports as such. There have indeed been complaints about the interior being cheap and that it is not as fun to drive as other compacts. In addition, the older models apparently did not fare well on crash-test ratings, though it scores well now.

So, Tommy, I posted facts that can be backed up. Can you back yours up?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Ah man, don't harsh his mellow, with facts.

[classicman]

"facts?? I don't need no stinkin facts...."

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

"facts?? I don't need no stinkin facts...."

Badges!!! We need Badges!!

[tw]

From the NY Times of 27 May 2008:

Soaring Fuel Prices Take a Withering Toll on Truckers
More than 45,000 vehicles, or 3 percent of the tractor fleet, have disappeared from the highways since early last year, according to America’s Commercial Transportation Research in Columbus, Ind. That surpasses the last great shakeout, in the early 1980s, when deregulation, along with a recession, high interest rates and the second Arab oil embargo, took out 33,000 tractors. ...
Trucks are also going abroad. Nearly 24,000 used, over-the-highway tractors have been exported since early last year, the Commerce Department reports, or nearly three times the number in 2006.

[elSicomoro]

I noticed that there was a small difference in gas mileage between what my car said (21.2, mostly delivering the last 2 days) and what it actually was when I filled up (20.1). I don't expect the computer to have it perfect, but I decided to see if there was a discrepancy with highway miles. So I took Cleo out on the road this morning...racked up about 70 miles.

Cleo said 37.3. Actual? 40.6.

Those damned people at GM...trying to manipulate gas mileage!

[HungLikeJesus]

sycamore, is your actual mileage calculated by miles driven/amount of gas to fill the tank? If so, there are several sources for uncertainty and error, particularly if you are only using a small part of the tank. It's better if you keep track over a whole tank, or even several tanks in a row, and try to fill always to the same point (this is easier with a motorcycle than with a car), at the same time of day, same station, etc. for consistency.