Earlier today filled up the fuel tank, reset my DIC and drove 53.5 miles. Gas station to highway was less than 1 mile, off highway to destination about 3 miles. My max MPG was 26.8...had to do a double take..thought it was wrong. Total trip 53.5 miles, max MPG 26.8, used 2.0 gallons, ave speed for the entire trip 58.9 MPH. At destination MPG was 26.2. I averaged between 60-65 MPH on highway. Also, a/c was on through the entire trip and I have crossrails, running boards and side window weather deflectors installed!! I have a 2LT FWD. Thought that was pretty impressive...so impressive I took a picture of it!!....any more MPG stories you will like to share??
Impressive MPG
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
looks impressive.
Now were going to ask you to hand calculate this gas consumption so that well know how accurate your DIC is to reality.
Not calling you a liar.....
But on some cars the DIC is right on.. on others the DIC is way off.
so next time you do this same trip- gas up- drive and then gas up again--- then divide the number of miles by the number of gallons it took to refill your tank....
Lets hope that your DIC is fairly accurate...
I would like to in the future purchase a Traverse that gets this mileage on the highway...
I do similar speed limit+ 5 miles on the freeway in my trailblazer.
Now were going to ask you to hand calculate this gas consumption so that well know how accurate your DIC is to reality.
Not calling you a liar.....
But on some cars the DIC is right on.. on others the DIC is way off.
so next time you do this same trip- gas up- drive and then gas up again--- then divide the number of miles by the number of gallons it took to refill your tank....
Lets hope that your DIC is fairly accurate...
I would like to in the future purchase a Traverse that gets this mileage on the highway...
I do similar speed limit+ 5 miles on the freeway in my trailblazer.
Joined
·
112 Posts
I wonder if the DIC uses Canadian gallons on the Canadian versions? Yes, we use litres, but I'm old and like to look at things the good old way. Our gallons (among other things 
) are bigger than Americans. I am just wondering, if I view the MPG will it be Canadian gallons?
) are bigger than Americans. I am just wondering, if I view the MPG will it be Canadian gallons?I believe this now.
Took my 2010 Trav to the airport- I reset the DIC- since I was under 500 miles- I kept it under 60.
But most of the way I kept varying the RPM's and going from about 45-60-45 - varying the speed and RPM's pretty much.
The return trip now had 4 adults and luggage
I was surprissed to see that I reached 26.4 MPG on the round trip.
On subsequent days- I drove in LA rush hour traffic and it finally dropped to 19 MPG
I refueled yesterday- and this morning hit rush hour traffic again- when I got to work- I was seeing 18.3 MPG.
Once I refuel in a week- I will compare with a hand calc.
Took my 2010 Trav to the airport- I reset the DIC- since I was under 500 miles- I kept it under 60.
But most of the way I kept varying the RPM's and going from about 45-60-45 - varying the speed and RPM's pretty much.
The return trip now had 4 adults and luggage
I was surprissed to see that I reached 26.4 MPG on the round trip.
On subsequent days- I drove in LA rush hour traffic and it finally dropped to 19 MPG
I refueled yesterday- and this morning hit rush hour traffic again- when I got to work- I was seeing 18.3 MPG.
Once I refuel in a week- I will compare with a hand calc.
Joined
·
1,880 Posts
Think the DIC needs more math classes!rbarrios said:
No matter how "gingerly" I drive my Traverse, I have not gotten above 20 mpg in 2500 miles. I did better with my 2002 4x4 TrailBlazer ...that was ALWAYS good for 24mpg.
Bob
I figured that Id drive it in the break in mode (no constant RPM/speeds)... to finish breaking it in....
Ive been driving it easy- so that the trans learns my driving style.
Ive been accelerating easy-- and the 1-2 shift occurs around 2000 rpm's.... Ill reconfirm this as I cant always look down at the tach when it shifts... but it is early....
So hopefully it will learn that im an easy driver.. and gives me very nice MPG...
my 2WD 03 trailblazer--- was broken in the same way and driven the same way--- and consistantly gave me 18 MPG (hand calc) in mixed city, hwy.
Highway- Id get a good 23-24 MPG..... this was great considering that the trailblazer forum's many complained of getting 12-16 MPG....
Ive been driving it easy- so that the trans learns my driving style.
Ive been accelerating easy-- and the 1-2 shift occurs around 2000 rpm's.... Ill reconfirm this as I cant always look down at the tach when it shifts... but it is early....
So hopefully it will learn that im an easy driver.. and gives me very nice MPG...
my 2WD 03 trailblazer--- was broken in the same way and driven the same way--- and consistantly gave me 18 MPG (hand calc) in mixed city, hwy.
Highway- Id get a good 23-24 MPG..... this was great considering that the trailblazer forum's many complained of getting 12-16 MPG....
Well on my 2nd tank of ownership- im down to about 1/4 tank and my DIC is reporting 18.4 MPG.
This is Hwy/city combined (and half of the highway is rush hour traffic- stop and go- Los Angeles Style).
My 1st gear shift occurs in the 1800 to 2100 range.
This is Hwy/city combined (and half of the highway is rush hour traffic- stop and go- Los Angeles Style).
My 1st gear shift occurs in the 1800 to 2100 range.
Well Folks,
Did another brief trip to Reno and back on Interstate 80 at cruise on 83-mph. It got 21.6 mpg average after about 150-miles at the ends of both trips. Relatively flat terrain, little wind, no traffic in the left lane, tires at 35-36 cold and loaded with furniture and shopping loot to boot on the return trip.
Not as good as the Caddilacs, but dang respectable for a 5,000-pound vehicle with considerable frontal area.
For sure, it is LOT quieter and smmother than either the '94 Councors or '99 DeVille.
Oh, BTW, I use 85 or 87 octane.
IMHO,
Did another brief trip to Reno and back on Interstate 80 at cruise on 83-mph. It got 21.6 mpg average after about 150-miles at the ends of both trips. Relatively flat terrain, little wind, no traffic in the left lane, tires at 35-36 cold and loaded with furniture and shopping loot to boot on the return trip.
Not as good as the Caddilacs, but dang respectable for a 5,000-pound vehicle with considerable frontal area.
For sure, it is LOT quieter and smmother than either the '94 Councors or '99 DeVille.
Oh, BTW, I use 85 or 87 octane.
IMHO,
I never could fully figure out why hand calc is always higher than DIC. I only guess that the fuel delivery monitor is not that good. From what I know about fluid dynamics I don't see how it could be that good anyway at this price point. (I.E. you'd probably pay as much for the measurement device as the Traverse for something that could measure this small of flow with more accuracy...) I've seen the same calc difference in 3 GM vehicles with DIC that I've owned.
Narg,
I don't think that any "fuel flow sensor", (like a tiny turbine meter, or some positive-displacment type), is actually used.
The fuel injectors (6 of a new multi-port design, [each injector has mutiple points of injection]) are a solenoid opening/closing a fixed orifice. The fuel pressue is closely-controlled, in particular with "direct injection" during the power stroke. I think the fuel pressue is something like 1,740-psig. Considering the compression ratio is a whopping 11.3 /1 - its probably dang important to monitor and control that fuel pressue and delivery/timing.
Each injector's pulse frequency and duration (if this parameter even changes) are each determined by the computer.
Therefore, the computer already knows by counting pulses (and duration - if used), precisely how much fuel was delivered every second or whatever I/O cycle of the computer. Considering there are a LOT of pulses to count relative to rpm/load, etc, compared with a single mag/pulse-pickup on many other fuel flow sensors, I would guess the accuracy and repeatability to be very high.
The computer only has to do some easy math with the distance traveled to get the MPG.
Just guessing here, but perhaps a GM Engineer type can really answer.
Thanks
I don't think that any "fuel flow sensor", (like a tiny turbine meter, or some positive-displacment type), is actually used.
The fuel injectors (6 of a new multi-port design, [each injector has mutiple points of injection]) are a solenoid opening/closing a fixed orifice. The fuel pressue is closely-controlled, in particular with "direct injection" during the power stroke. I think the fuel pressue is something like 1,740-psig. Considering the compression ratio is a whopping 11.3 /1 - its probably dang important to monitor and control that fuel pressue and delivery/timing.
Each injector's pulse frequency and duration (if this parameter even changes) are each determined by the computer.
Therefore, the computer already knows by counting pulses (and duration - if used), precisely how much fuel was delivered every second or whatever I/O cycle of the computer. Considering there are a LOT of pulses to count relative to rpm/load, etc, compared with a single mag/pulse-pickup on many other fuel flow sensors, I would guess the accuracy and repeatability to be very high.
The computer only has to do some easy math with the distance traveled to get the MPG.
Just guessing here, but perhaps a GM Engineer type can really answer.
Thanks
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!