Comments on: GM introduces fuel-efficient XFE full-size SUV and pickup models

By: zoomnbyu

zoomnbyu — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:06:29 +0000

Wow. What a concept. Why not just make all of their trucks like this instead of some special package? 1MPG is OK in the big scheme of things but not exactly something that will beg you check it off on an options list.

By: DeansterTJ

DeansterTJ — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:16:17 +0000

easy inline6, you’re cruising for a rape of your mother

By: bigp

bigp — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:45:50 +0000

it all adds up when one do the math

By: maxcar

maxcar — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:07:35 +0000

inflate your tires.

By: inline6

inline6 — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:13:48 +0000

Deanster, did you forget your Zoloft today?

Just HOW is GM fleecing the public with these vehicles? GM isn’t charging a dime more for them AND they get better fuel economy, according to the EPA, not GM.

Toyota could improve the Prius’s mileage to 60mpg and double its sales, and it still wouldn’t have the impact these trucks getting 1mpg better would have on this country’s fuel usage.

So take a double dose, sit down, and shut up until you know what you’re talking about.

By: DeansterTJ

DeansterTJ — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:59:12 +0000

This is why everyone hates american car companies. Because this is the sort of ****ing **** they pull on everyone. We’re not all that stupid you knowm you ****ing asspacker GM execs. One day someone’s going to rape your milf wives and make you pay for fleecing the public, you ****ing dickswallowing homos.

By: inline6

inline6 — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:22:04 +0000

Galaxy, 1MPG in the 4 months since gas prices hit $3.50/gallon is MONUMENTAL. Do you see any other manufacturer moving this fast to improve the fuel economy of its vehicles in response to current conditions? I don’t.

Product lead times mean that it takes months…even years…to see changes in vehicles. Or would you rather the manufacturers not spend the time they take testing the vehicles for safety, durability, and reliability?

By: GalaxyCruiser316

GalaxyCruiser316 — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:15:21 +0000

I’m speechless…1 MPG is the best they could do?

By: jayjc08

jayjc08 — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:46:54 +0000

Why are all of you complaining? This will probably just be spread through the normal line up as standard, and the modifications aren’t nearly expensive. When they say lower roll resisting tires, they mean ones without as wide of a tread as standard, but definitely ones you could buy yourself off the shelf, probably not anything special.

By: inline6

inline6 — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:23:52 +0000

Because, with the way these trucks sell, a 1mpg improvement cuts down on fuel consumption overall by more than if Toyota improves the Prius’s mileage from 45 to 60.

650,000 trucks @ 17mpg combined @ 12,000 mi/year driven = 460,000,000 gallons of fuel annually.

650,000 trucks @ 18mpg combined @ 12,000 mi/year driven = 433,500,000 gallons of fuel used annually.

The difference (460mil – 433.5mil): 26.5 million gallons of fuel.

150,000 Priuses @ 45mpg combined @ 12,000 mi/year driven = 40,000,000 gallons of fuel annually

150,000 Priuses @ 60mpg combined @ 12,000 mi/year driven = 30,000,000 gallons of fuel annually

The difference (40mil-30mil): 10 million gallons of fuel.

By: stingbutt1

stingbutt1 — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:14:45 +0000

why would GM waste the money to get one mile per gallon better?

By: C6Racer

C6Racer — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:09:31 +0000

GM can do much better than this! My 2000 GMC Sierra 2WD gets 25 highway mpg. Everything is bone stock except for the high-flow intake and exhaust.

By: RaineMan

RaineMan — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:02:14 +0000

That’s what those high-end cooled seats are for. >:)

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:56:53 +0000

Nightblack_97: interesting concept except how do you get ball sweat out of upholstery?

By: oldman420

oldman420 — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:54:49 +0000

The funny part about this is i have been putting these trucks out in my dealearships showroom for monthes now. Soft tonneau cover, gm intake and cat-back exhaust comes to about $1450 in accessories and saves the customer on gas and gives them slightly a bit more power. Sounds like i should have a job at GM head office instead of getting paid SFA as a GM partsman.

By: Nightblack_97

Nightblack_97 — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:30:16 +0000

This sounds like a Barack Obama energy solution, well that plus infalting your tires. And don’t forget to go on a diet. Heck, if everyone drove naked we’d save another 5-10 pounds in clothes, belts, and shoes.
At this rate we won’t even need middle east oil again

By: MercMark

MercMark — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:07:48 +0000

Leave the wife at home and save money!? The fatter she is the more you save on gas!

By: RaineMan

RaineMan — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:55:28 +0000

Actually MercMark I think waxing might cost you .001MPG… more weight on the car.

Now maybe they should sell the trucks without tailgates… that has to save what 40 pounds?

Low rolling resistance tires just mean no traction.

By: MercMark

MercMark — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:49:59 +0000

And if you wax it you can save another .001 mpg!!

By: bauer100

bauer100 — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:49:50 +0000

^^ no, it better not roll over when they have ESC.

By: crackerhemi

crackerhemi — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:40:57 +0000

Does adding low resistance tires to a vehicle already prone to rolling over not make anyone nervous?

By: gehrhardt

gehrhardt — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:13:05 +0000

Man, if GM wants to save money, they should just kill off GMC or just have them stick to commercial trucks. I really doubt the people buying GMC will never consider a Chevy truck as an alternative.

That will work better than charging extra for a 1MPG difference.

By: HemiRoadRunner

HemiRoadRunner — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:52:20 +0000

1MPG increase is considered to be “Xtra Fuel Efficient”??? Doesn’t ALOT of it depend on driving habits?

By: RaineMan

RaineMan — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:32:56 +0000

The sad thing is that you could get better mileage gains and more power with an aftermarket short-ram intake, free flowing cat-back exhaust, and a ECU reflash. It would cost less than $1000 per vehicle and net atleast 5MPG. That claimed 1MPG increase is just a boldfaced lie to get more people interested… I doubt that they actually did anything.

By: ktulu

ktulu — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:29:12 +0000

who do they think they’re fooling?

By: acura_el2000

acura_el2000 — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:45:01 +0000

best way to make these more efficient is to not drive them