http://autos.aol.com/article/general...11132109990002

Way to go GM!

 

Well, yeah, it is quite amazing that the Chevy brand has a a higher averege fuel economy than Toyota, but, with 88(?) models its not hard to do. That's all I have to say.

 

Huh?

 

MINI really has 12 different kinds of cars?

 

The way they define different models is retarded... Chevy has 88 vehicles?

These stats really make no sense. Just an average of each model with an identical weight given to each?? Stupid.

How about separating them by class and then averaging each class or even giving us a vehicle by vehicle run down segmented by class? Or maybe by sales numbers? I mean something of significance other than by model variants by name.

 

90% of statistics can be made to say anything you want, 50% of the time. LOL

 

Nice. You hit the nail on the head with that one. Although in fairness to Chevrolet. They probably have more truck models than car models if they count every trim level of every regular, extended cab, crew cab etc. So those would hurt them.

 

I bet they counted all the foreign models as well??

 

So, are the brand averages a function of volume-weighted averaging (like CAFE), or did someone just go through the EPA fuel-economy handbook and do a simple average of each model's rated economy? The first method is fairly meaningful, while the latter is nearly worthless.

 

What? Quantity shouldn't have anything to do with it. If anything, having all those different models might hurt Chevrolet, considering that they have so many truck variations.

Besides, how do you then explain Pontiac and Saturn? I've been saying for a while now that GM ought to take advantage of the fact that both these brands are known for selling cars, not trucks.

 

Yeah, something doesn't add up ... with Pontiac selling just cars and Chevy selling dozens of varieties of trucks, how can Pontiac not come out ahead? They really need to explain their methods better.

And I'll agree with Eric that they need to somehow weight the volume of each model. It wouldn't make sense that if (for example) Chevy sold only one variant of pickup truck that got 18 mpg and sold 750,000 units, that it would have the same weight as a niche variant of a Cavalier that gets 35 mpg.

 

Being a manual afficionado, I feel the need to qualify this-

It seems that many manufacturers are putting manuals with shorter final gearing than their auto counterparts. Honda is doing this across a big part of their line (I don't think Civic, though), and it makes the whole notion misleading.
For instance, my TL- in auto form, final drive in 5th is 2.11, providing about 2000rpm at 68mph. With the manual, final drive is 2.53, providing 2000rpm at 60mph. With that sort of deviation (which is the same in the TSX), it's easy to see why the manual can't beat the auto under these conditions.

I'm guessing that they're doing this to either-
1. make the car feel "peppy" as compared to the auto.
2. reduce low-RPM loading to reduce engine lugging possibility and/or NOx emissions.

In any case, it's weak. Stick cars with equal gearing would pick up 1-2mpg easily. I have both a 5spd auto TL-S (2002) and a 6spd manual (2006), and the manual kills the '02 in city driving. Like a solid 3mpg better over a few thousand miles logged.

 

But that would tell you more about people's taste in cars than what the manufacturer is building.

 

Since those numbers are consumer driven and trucks are tanking and cars are gaining... how would you throw the numbers together?

With a company like Chevy having several different models of trucks and Mini having none, how does Chevy get a fair shake?

 

Separate "cars" and "trucks" if you will - but without weighting the results with the fleet production volumes, there's no meaningful information to be found in averaging the EPA numbers.