2007 Chevy Tahoe: Fuel Range Low? Like no duh.

when i had a 2000 chevy impala as a rental i hated it. it guzzled gas compared to my civic which was in the shop for a month. and since it guzzled gas i was always on E and when it really mattered all it could tell me was low fuel range.

I love when people like bmxkid7117. Compare econo box tiny cars with cars that have nearly 2x the torque, and are about 150% bigger. Then they are SHOCKED a bigger heavier car would burn more gas.

The onboard computer switches to "fuel range low" when it can no longer accurately predict the miles remaining. Obviously, the "miles to empty" is approximate, and GM wouldn't want to predict 10 miles remaining (for example) if the driver floored it and reduced it to 2 in the space of a quarter mile. Seems like a pretty trivial complaint...was it actually meant to be under the Saturn Aura blog?

This was one of the most idiotic entries I've read from you people. Um, this is NOT a GM specific quirk. Have you actually driven other cars from different makes with trip computers? My Mazda's does the same thing. When the range gets too low, the computer cannot accurately calculate how many "miles to empty" so it simple goes blank. At least the Tahoe's computers gives you a statement.

thanks for the imformative post. Totally necessary and helpful. Unless GM is the only one that does this (unlikely) the post was a waste of keystrokes. I understand that this Scott dude hates large vehicles but if that is the case maybe he should find another line of work or just refrain from driving the vehicle types he loathes. Otherwise it would be best to stick to making real points.

my alti does the same thing....but it doesn't have the redundancy of having an extra fuel light
 
it is annoying though...maybe i should just refill the tank (but i think i have over 100 miles of range when it gives me the warning)

I try to fill up at around 1/8th of a tank anyway, so this light rarely comes on. I don't see the point of regularly driving until you've used every last drop from the tank.
 
And agreed, at a certain point the computer just can't accurately predict distance left on the remaining gas, and once you get that low any inaccuracy can be a liability, so it is best to just say "fuel range low".
 
Man, two pointless posts in a row. Not a good day so far.

When I worked at an Acura dealership, the fuel mileage to empty countdown was a lifesaver. Most cars ran on empty, so knowing exactly how much fuel was left (or at least a close approximation) was incredibly useful. I'm going on a two-mile test drive and the car says I can go 9 miles based on crappy test-drive fuel economy -- good to know. There was a couple times I drove to the gas station with it registering 0 miles to empty, so there's still some left over. No, this isn't useful for most people, just an anecdote.
 
I don't know why everyone is saying this is such an awful post. Obviously people shouldn't be driving their vehicle down to ridiculously low fuel levels, but if the car can't accurately predict distance to empty under 40 miles, I agree that its usefullness can be questioned. Forty miles is a pretty long distance to stop reporting miles remaining. I could go to work and back twice in 40 miles with a few miles to spare -- I'd appreciate knowing that I could put off filling up another day.
 
Do any GM drivers know if this is the standard distance for these vehicles, or is it just for thirsty ones like the Silverado?

the guys at edmunds must really be getting bored in that california sun...

It seems to me like the thirstier vehicles should get greater accuracy because there are more gallons left to measure for the same distance. Maybe I'm wrong but that would make more sense to me.

Youch, 40 mile range with a Tahoe. That's gotta suck if you live in the sticks. If I had a beast like that, I wouldn't want to go less than a quarter of a tank. Too risky.

Could it also be the fact that GM does not want you to run the tank right empty and damage the fuel pump?

I'd say range information is ONLY important (to me) when it's less than 50 miles. Above that, I'm not going to pay much attention to it.
 
It's not a GM-only issue, but it's definitely an issue.

"Do any GM drivers know if this is the standard distance for these vehicles, or is it just for thirsty ones like the Silverado?"
 
does it really matter that much? Unless you drive around with your DIC on the "miles to empty" display I dont think this is something most people would know. I know i don't. If you have that much of a problem with the Tahoe being inaccurate below 40 miles to go try filling up at 1/8 a tank or something. This is a nonissue. Unless you are on a desolate midwest interstate or in the desert this isnt a big deal. Besides, with nav (or Onstar) you should be able to find the nearest gas station if you are really coming down to the wire and dont know where to go to get gas.

I have an '02 Trailblazer and an '06 Trailblazer. The '02 goes to Fuel Range Low at 27 miles. After that, you're stuck. With the '06 you can toggle back to the miles to empty after it shows Fuel Range Low. It may be the same way with the Tahoe.

At 40 miles, you better be looking for a gas station. What more warning do you need?

"I'd say range information is ONLY important (to me) when it's less than 50 miles. Above that, I'm not going to pay much attention to it." Thanks Carlisimo. My sentiments exactly.
 
I think the generic "fuel range low" renders moot the whole point of having a "miles to empty" gauge. I don't care if I have 300 miles until empty. I do care if I have 15. A 1993 Chrysler minivan will provide an accurate estimate of miles remaining... all the way down to 5 (as low as I've taken it). A 2001.5 VW Passat will give an accurate reading as well. So will a 2006 Ford Mustang. No cryptic messages. No guesswork. Just accuracy when you need it most.

We get it Scott. You hate the Tahoe. Perhaps someone else is better suited to write about it from now on?

Yeah, I don't see what the problem/complaint is. The reason they do that is because the accuracy of range when there's less than a gallon or two left in the tank isn't all that great (i.e. one full throttle launch 0-60 could quickly drop your range from 40 miles to 10 miles in a matter of seconds). The point of the message is to get gas now stupid. Maybe it should say that instead of range low.
 
At least it is better at warning you than most Nissan/Infiniti vehicles, which have nothing more than a little orange LED light buried in the gas gauge itself. Doesn't even say low fuel - just a random orange light that you're supposed to know means that. You would have to be staring at the gas gauge to even notice it come on.
 
To answer another poster's question: this is standard GM functionality for all vehicles with the driver information console. My '02 Z06 says the same thing. It gives two warnings: "LOW FUEL" and "RANGE LOW". I forgot what the mile range is when each comes on. It also has an extra warning on the dash and the head-up display that says "check gauges" when it gets to "range low". You would have to be completely brain dead not to notice all the low fuel warnings.

anythingbutgm, I don't know what you're saying. Are you saying that you took this to mean the Tahoe has a range of 40 miles? If so that's absurd. Are you saying having 40 miles left when you get a low fuel warning is bad? Maybe, but it runs counter to your argument that it is bad for people who live out in the sticks. If you're that far from a gas station, an earlier low fuel warning is more helpful. As per your user name, you've made up your mind about what you want to believe about GM vehicles, and you'll say anything to make what you want true.

Few if any gas guages are acurate for the last gallon. Wide flat tanks like the Tahoe are the worst of all. The gas moves around constantly while driveing making it impossible to give a precise measurement.
 
A read out that went right down to zero miles would be giving false info most of the time.

I'm gonna go with Kurt here and say that it's another useless feature. Why have anything else other than a fuel gauge. You look: you see it's near E, you get gas; pretty simple. Why have any other mumbo jumbo. Unless you're an idiot and the concept of the E is too complicated for you.

I also love how the car has to tell you on which side the fuel filler is. But I guess most of these cars are made for rental fleets anyways so it kinda makes sense.

"anythingbutgm, I don't know what you're saying. Are you saying that you took this to mean the Tahoe has a range of 40 miles? If so that's absurd. Are you saying having 40 miles left when you get a low fuel warning is bad?"
 
I'm saying if I owned one of these things, I would never let my tank get below say a 1/4. Travel out to western MA sometime, Gas stations CAN be 40 miles apart, or more.
 
"As per your user name, you've made up your mind about what you want to believe about GM vehicles, and you'll say anything to make what you want true."
 
What a lame comeback. Ya that's it, so I shouldn't believe that the Tahoe is a gas guzzling pig. Nothing needs to be "made up" here because it's a fact. Oh, and if you've got a problem with my handle, take it up with the mods.

anythngbutgm, would you happen to be the one posting on the carsurvey website as well under the 2007 tundra review?

No, I don't even know which website you're talking about, sorry. Is that on Edmunds?

Benson- it's hard to develop an opinion when you're so light on facts. Just about every car I've driven in recent memory has an indicator in or adjacent to the fuel gauge indicating which side the fuel filler neck resides.
 
Perhaps you should spend less time trying to be clever and do a little more research.
 
ie: http://66.160.188.111/roadtests/1466

"What a lame comeback. Ya that's it, so I shouldn't believe that the Tahoe is a gas guzzling pig. "
 
what does that have to do with the blog entry? Nothing. The Tahoe is no more of a pig than the Q7 or any number of other large V8 SUVs but of course you wouldn't know that since you are oblivious to any negative attributes of non-GM vehicles.
 
If the blog author or anyone else has a problem with the DIC display with regards to remaining range they should a)ignore it or b)gas up the vehicle when at 1/4 tank to avoid getting to the point where there are less than 40 miles of range left. The whole blog post is stupid and is just one more rant by an anti-SUV fanatic who is out to prove that the world would be better off without what he deems an unecessary product.

chavis what facts? The fact is that my opinion is that an arrow on the fuel gauge indicating where the filler cap is is insulting. How can you not know where the filler cap is on your car unless you have some kind of short term amnesia. I presume the only reason would be if the car was intended for fleet duty. What facts or research do I need to say that? I guess I could go out and find pictures of interiors that don't have the indicator but I don't have that much time on my hands.

"The Tahoe is no more of a pig than the Q7 or any number of other large V8 SUVs but of course you wouldn't know that since you are oblivious to any negative attributes of non-GM vehicles."
 
lol and what does the Q7 have to do with the blog? DO you have any clue as to what I was responding to? Obviously you don't because once again you have taken someones argument out of context and turned into some Pro-GM rant. Too funny.

Insulting? What can it hurt, Benson? A little piece of triangular ink on the face of the gas gauge costs nothing.
 
Some people have more than one car at home - sometimes 3 or 4. And the side on which the filler is located is far from standardized - not even within a brand. And yes, some models sell heavily into rental car and other fleets. I can see not caring about such things, but I can't see how it is insulting.

This entire discussion is crazy!! If 40 miles is not good enough, what would be? 20 miles ? 10 miles? 5 miles???? Come on!
You have already driven the car waaaay BELOW the empty line, the orange light is on and the car is telling you the fuel range is too low! There is absolutly nothing wrong with the car but there is something seriously wrong with the driver!! Just go get some gas!
  
This is a truck that most likely has a trailer hitch, too. So when this thing shows 40 right before you load it up and start pulling a boat, how long do you think the range will actually really be??
I can already hear the stranded-by-the-side-of-the-road-lazy bastards crying and saying:" but when I started the car, the range said 40 miles....". Just go get some gas already!!

Carsurvey.org.
I don't really agree with the fuel filler light coming on at 40 miles. It's an odd number, for starts. And sometimes situations do arise where you end up going so far without filling up that that light is needed. But, if that were to happen and the light came on, I'd want to know exactly how many miles are left. 40 is an awfully large range, so I mean the gas could be anywhere from 39 miles to 8 miles and no one would know the difference. Either you keep expecting to run out of gas soon and you don't, or (most likely) you run out of gas much sooner than expected. I don't like driving with doubts about such things, especially if it happens to be out of my hands for the time being. If I were to pass a gas sign that said "gas 33 miles," I'd want to know for sure that I can make it there safely and not be succumbed to guess-work on the matter.
I have a '94 Cherokee, 14 years old, that tells me the mileage remaining down to the last mile. And, its accurate too. Found that out the hard way. So why can't a vehicle 14 years newer? o.O

Benson,
"The fact is that my opinion is that an arrow on the fuel gauge indicating where the filler cap is is insulting. How can you not know where the filler cap is on your car unless you have some kind of short term amnesia. I presume the only reason would be if the car was intended for fleet duty"
 
So it is your argument that every car that has a gas filler arrow is for a rental fleet? That's the most ridiculously stupid point I've ever heard. It's amazing what lengths people will go to just to try and bash GM.
 
R class, Fit, Miata, Camry, G35, etc all have fuel door arrows. Guess they're all intended for Hertz....
 
http://66.160.188.111/roadtests/1055
 
http://66.160.188.111/roadtests/1605
 
http://66.160.188.111/roadtests/.ee99246
 
http://66.160.188.111/roadtests/.ee9b968
 
http://66.160.188.111/roadtests/191
 
Also, since your time is so precious, try and use it more efficiently and come up with better, more sound critisms.

"ol and what does the Q7 have to do with the blog? DO you have any clue as to what I was responding to? Obviously you don't because once again you have taken someones argument out of context and turned into some Pro-GM rant. Too funny."
 
How is stating that many manufacturers produce large vehicles with poor fuel economy a "pro-GM rant"? Too funny indeed. Lets stop with the double standards and call a spade a spade. If we are going to attack all vehicles with less than Prius mileage than lets do it consistently.

Benson,
 
I would have to say Chavis proved his point effectively. I dont know why you thought that a fuel door arrow was stupid but he has shown that MANY brands do this. Of course, you have never seen that in a non GM vehicle but I think he did a good job of clearing things up for you since you were a little misinformed.

The lengths that people will go for saying "I'm right and you're wrong" astounds me.
 
This whole "feed me" light thing is totally dependent on the driver and the driver's habits and not the car's technology. While having a gauge that says "I can go this far until I die on you." is handy, squeezing every drop out of the tank is not necessary, unless you want to brag to your friends that you got 400 miles from one tank of gas and how you were nervously sweating and biting your lip the last 10 miles for fear of your car starving.
 
And if you're going to come back with the "I want to see how far I can go" argument: Take your best ever fuel economy number, multiply that by the capacity of your tank, then you get the maximum safe distance you can get with your tank under the same driving conditions.

Jiminy Christmas.
  
I'm really surprised, again, at the attacks on the entry, the author, and the car. I mean, okay, Scott doesn't like the Tahoe, but he still has to drive it. Right? The editors can't only drive the cars they like or you'd never get anything but glowy reviews! (How boring would that be!)
  
And if he's got to drive it, he's got to write about it. Since he's an editor, so.. I'm not sure what it is you all want him to do.
  
Haven't you ever been stuck with a car you didn't like? Didn't everything about it drive you up the wall and make you hate it more?
  
tackepj has the best point, I think:
"The onboard computer switches to 'fuel range low' when it can no longer accurately predict the miles remaining."
  
I don't find the estimated numbers useless, myself. It's happened on occasion that I've not paid close enough attention to the fuel level and frankly, it's useful to know you've got enough to make it out of Joshua Tree National Park and into 29 Palms to get gas and not just be stressed out hoping you'll make it. (:
  
@benson
I'm not trying to dogpile, but I personally think the fuel door arrow is a very cool thing. How can people forget which side it's on? Easy, the same way people forget about /a ton/ of what might be considered basic information. It happens.
  
It's nice that the OEMs have this little reminder that you don't have to hunt down in case you /do/ forget.
  
On top of which, a lot of people don't even realize what that arrow's for! And folks I've met, once they find out its use, they're just tickled about it. So, insulting? Really? I don't think that's the point of it.
 
(also: what altimadude00 said. (: )