2010 Chevy Traverse: 10 MPG?!

geez, that can't be right. How the hell do you guys drive. Perhaps Inside Land is flogging this car like a race car.

This is really bad, wow. Don't know what to say; it has Direct Injection and a 6 speed tranny programmed to shift into the highest gear ASAP. Anyone have any ideas what is going wrong?

Jeez... my 2002 Excursion 4wd with the guzzling V-10 averages 11.5 around the city. Did you leave this idling for 24 hours?

You have to understand though, that when the car is just being driven short distances the vehicles computer begins to average out the MPG even when you're idling. So lets say you drove it on surface streets from your office to Downtown LA... The red lights between those two points count for zero MPG. Then accelerating to the next intersection is not helping. Take it on another day trip-check the tire pressure-and reset all the stats in the onboard computer (average speed/average MPG/trip computer) and check that.

I have a MINI Cooper and unless I take it out on the freeway often, the trip computer usually says my Average Mpg is usually around the 22 mark. However give me a good hour or two trip and its right back up to 37mpg.

ya like bkapps said.
If you idle lots, or lots of stop and go, mpg is way low.
If you drive in a city like NYC, expect mpg to be 5-10 mpg below the listed city mpg.
The advertised mpg is for a moving vehicle, not an idling or stuck in traffic vehicle.

Wow, that's awful. I'm glad to hear from the Traverse again though, some of these cars go missing for months at a time.

Average of 13 is well below the EPA's estimated 19 combined. It's even 3 below what CR got overall and you are usually pretty close to them for the overall average after a month or two. Heck, their city-only cycle, which is usually pretty low, still eked out 11 for the Traverse.

Turn that frown upside down. This could be considered a good or even a great news story for the oil companies!

What were we expecting from more than 2 tons of family fun on wheels anyway?

While everyone has made some good points about what city driving and idle time does to your MPG, I would like to make one point:

Chevy Traverse with 3.6l V6 - 12.9 avg MPG

Ford F-150 Raptor with 6.2l V8 - 12.8 avg MPG (from Dec MPG update)

Make me feel a bit better about my Honda Pilot's 20.9 mpg average. And here I was thinking that the Traverse was possibly a GM replacement for the 8-passenger 4wd Pilot?
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/richc/pilot

Someone's been siphoning gas out of the Traverse and putting it in the . . . Sonata? :-p

"(one of eight tanks below 10 mpg -- there are 15 tanks between 10.0 and 10.9"

The 15 tanks are what concerns me the most. Anyone can have really bad tank due to a combination of conditions but 15?

That's not a fluke, that's a trend.

The 20mpg average on the Sienna below just adds insult to injury. This is absolutely dreadful mileage- I'm pretty sure pre-$3-gas Suburbans can beat this.

I think the griswold family truckster trumps these mpg numbers

Didn't the Flex average almost 10 MPG more?

Why doesn't the Traverse ever see the highway? Was there a big falling out between the staff and the Traverse? Are people not excited about it because of the Enclave not too long ago? It seems like it should be a desirable trip vehicle, but it is never mentioned at all for such trips. It's simple never mentioned. What's up?

What was the lifetime average of the Enclave a few years back?

What happened to the Enclave anyways? I can't find a wrap up or anything!

Anyways this looks like a case of heavy right foots and city driving, nothing more.

@bkapps,

That would be true, but notice the tank MPG's that were posted. There were 8 tanks that averaged below 10 mpg and 15 tanks between 10 and 11 mpg. If Edmunds calculates their mpg figures by dividing miles driven by gallons and ignoring the computer, just driving on the highway a bit will not change these average figures.

Funny how when GM's fuel economy readout shows high numbers it's dismissed as being inaccurate. Apparently they managed to calibrate it right for only the Traverse.

I have honestly tried my best for a single tank in my mustang to get as bad as fuel economy as I could and the lowest I ever got was 12mpg. You guys have to be idling that thing or there is something seriously wrong with it.

This is why hybrids were invented.

If my daily driving resulted in that much idling, I'd go completely insane.

That's not too far fetched, I've had many sub 16 mpg tanks on my Mazda3 over the years- especially in the cold winter months where I use the auto climate control. My current tank is returning 17.5mpg and my car only weighs 3000 pounds with a 2.3L I-4.

@typography: They got it right on the G8 as well plus or minus a tenth.

This is a sad sad post. I mean seriously my Explorer built back in 1995 got better MPG than this thing. Granted its not as big, but for its time they where the same leage. I got avg 22-24 mpg in that brick.

My moms 2006 Envoy get 20 mpg avg, and has never and I mean never seen below 13 when we tried out in the mountains.

My G8 is avg 22 mpg now, and im really sure I could get it down to this guy but not without really trying. Lowest I got was 8 mpg and that was on a race track. Normal low has been 15 mpg and that was mostly city.

Here is the problem. 5000+ lbs is alot of weight for the 3.6l to lug around. I would like to see a long term fuel economy-off between a new Explorer with 7 seats, new Durango with hemi and V-6, and this Traverse. I bet that the big V-8 isn't any worse. The engine simply doesn't have to be revved like the smaller 6's do.

buick enclave averaged 17.52mpg for IL

CAFE at work. Nothing to see here, people, move along.

It's not like they have to sell this thing in countries where people care about fuel economy.

http://www.insideline.com/buick/enclave/2008/long-term-test-2008-buick-enclave-cx.html

There ya go. -mm

I have a feeling that this vehicle is playing taxi for lunch runs and test equipment. Only the IL editors can say why this is so low with any certainty. GM's 3.6 liter will drink gas at a rapid rate if you're constantly flooring it, but this is very low. For some reason editors refuse to put it on the highway for any significant travel, so the Enclave will have to represent the high mpg point for these SUV twins.

Here's the long term fuel economy summary of the Enclave:

Best Fuel Economy: 29.7 mpg
Worst Fuel Economy: 10.5 mpg
Average Fuel Economy: 17.5 mpg

@ htr_hardtec: I'm not the resident Defender of All Things General Motors here (I am sure we will hear from him later,) but there is absolutely no way that you could get 22 to 24 MPG in an Explorer of any vintage in Los Angeles city driving. That is completely impossible in city driving.

City mileage is stop and go driving, gridlocked freeways, and traffic light upon traffic light, not "driving on the interstate moving along at a steady 65 mph while I happen to be in the city." I've seen tanks where I got 15 MPG in a 4 cyl Accord I used to own due solely to city driving and traffic.

Sounds like you'd be dumb to trade your Tahoe or Suburban in for something like this in attempt to get higher mpg's.

@msh1

Yeah 22-24 didnt happen in all city. But and I have to say I had a 50 mile 1 way trip, that had a total of 35 lights in that period. With about 25 of those lights happening in a 10 mile area. Took me roughtly 2-3 hours to get home. All of these on "highways" with 65 mph posted limited. So it was a race to the next end of the line after a intersection. (I dont drive this route anymore but it now has a toll way)

I still averaged ~20...

Bottom line this really sucks. The worse I got in my explorer was in the mountains when it was having a MAF sensor problem and knocking. It was 13 mpg, carring 5 people + 5 days of clothing for everyone, electronics. And no kids, only 1 light person in the group at 175. The way back after the fix was in the 22-23 range. But that was highway.

So this car is rarely seen on the blog and when it is, it gets 10 mpg??? Me thinks something is fishy. Maybe its being used by sales people who drive it like a rental car?

@ htr_hardtech:
You initially stated your "average mpg" in the explorer was 22-24. Then you said on a pure highway drive (after the fix), you were getting 22-23. How is your *average* mpg as high as it was on a pure highway drive. In a later post, your average was "~20". Hmmm...

Fuel economy is drive cycle dependant, so unless you're on the same drive cycle (unlikely), you can't compare #s. Your '95 Explorer was EPA rated at 14city/18hwy (assuming it's 4WD/auto).

Are you sure that there isn't something wrong with your Traverse? If it were my personal vehicle I would take it to the dealership and have it checked out

I'm thinking he was running undersized car tires on a truck that was optioned with oversize tires. That would make the odo count up too fast and compute a falsely high mpg.

There is no way a 4.0 V6 Explorer or Ranger w/ 4WD and auto would do any better than 18 or maybe 20mpg even on a pure highway trip. If it is 2wd and/or manual, well, then you left out key info.

"Fuel economy is drive cycle dependant, so unless you're on the same drive cycle (unlikely), you can't compare #s. Your '95 Explorer was EPA rated at 14city/18hwy (assuming it's 4WD/auto)."

Agreed. And a '95 Explorer 4WD with the 4.0L pushrod V6 getting "22-24" is impossible. My family had one, even when new you'd be lucky to hit 19 mpg on highway trips.

@vtirocz easy, I was hauling a lot of gear and people. I don’t think may people haul around 5 days of clothing for 5 people, with 5 people in the car. 60-70 lbs for clothes and other per person, and avg weight per person was about 210. So that was an easy 1100 pounds extra it had to haul on that trip.

Yes I had a commute that I avg'ed 20, but I only had the commute for a year. I had the SUV for 5. My normal commute ended up being about 60% city, 40% highway.

Yes and no on the compare. The G8 GT #'s are within close spec of my numbers that I get. The numbers they got on a few other cars (GTI, WRX, M3(e46)) that my friends have they get close. Big SUV's they have gotten about on par for what they should get. This one is way out of line.

95 explorer that didn’t care what MPG was when designed vs a new SUV that is designed to get to top gear ASAP all the name of a bit better MPG. Yes I expect it to do better. It should be at least on par +-2 with a 2006 Envoy (GM Made) with a curb weight of 4400. The Traverse is what ~300 more. Why does 300 pounds = 60-70% worse?

Should I expect less or more?

I got 20ish mpg avg in my 94 4.0l explorer, it was a manual though

Around town (Chicago, where traffic is just as bad as LA) I averaged 18-19 mpg in my '07 Forester 2.5 automatic. So 10 in the much larger Traverse doesn't really surprise me that much. It's really not intended to be a city driver.

comparing the mileage of this to the Enclave proves my point- its all about how each vehicle is driven. The proof is right there- in fact, the Buick is probably a little heavier due to Quiet Tuning and it still got 17.5mpg overall. If you drive the Traverse in urban traffic you will end up averageing 13mpg. No shock there. The Saturn regularly got 14mpg in the city vs a 17mpg rating and it was 1200lbs lighter than this vehicle.

You cannot compare the mileage ratings of vehicles in the fleet without any knowledge of how they were driven during their stays with IL. A vehicle that spends 75% of its time in LA traffic will fail to come close to EPA combined mileage. A vehicle that splits it time between urban traffic and road trips will come close to EPA mileage.

hopefully those that specialize in exposing GM's EPA fooling tricks can explain how the Enclave got 17.5mpg during it's stay.

I know this probably won't matter but here goes.

1999 Ford F-150 4x4 5.4L V8 Regular Cab Long Bed @ 1665XX miles with 2 inch lift kit and 245\75\R16 E rated Goodyear Wrangler Silent Armor tires on a 3.55 ratio axle.

100% Midwestern suburban city driving with speeds no faster than 45-50 mph.

MPG: 12-14 depending on gas blend.

I get can get 10-12 on the highway if I do the speed limit (70 mph).

In the end I think somethings odd with how IL must be using this thing.

"Agreed. And a '95 Explorer 4WD with the 4.0L pushrod V6 getting "22-24" is impossible. My family had one, even when new you'd be lucky to hit 19 mpg on highway trips."

I've never had an Explorer but my 95 Grand Cherokee with a 4.0 push rod straight 6 gets 19 to 20 mpg on my daily city commute and up to 24 mpg on long hwy trips. No reason an Explorer couldn't match it. And yes my numbers are accurate, I've owned the truck for many years (and no I'm not using Imperial gallons).

"City mileage is stop and go driving, gridlocked freeways, and traffic light upon traffic light, not "driving on the interstate moving along at a steady 65 mph while I happen to be in the city"

Why does city driving have to the be the absolute worst case? In truth it's a combination of every type of driving, not just stop and go.

@firstwagon,

"No reason an Explorer couldn't match it. "

By what reasoning? The Grand Cherokee is a different vehicle with a different powertrain. Sure some of the basics are similar (mid-size SUV, ancient 6-cylinder, 4-speed auto, 4WD) but that doesn't mean they can match each other's fuel economy. The Explorer was EPA rated 14/18. My immediate family has owned 9 Explorers and Mountaineers beginning with the '95 model... we've also had the 4.0L SOHC engine, the 5.0L V8, AWD and ControlTrac 4WD. To say I know the vehicle well is an understatement.

bimmerjay

By what reasoning?

How about the EPA numbers you quote?

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car2tablef.jsp?column=2&id=12460

In case that link doesn't work they are rated the same... which shows the EPA numbers don't always reflect reality.

The EPA says I should average 15 mpg. Instead I average 19 mpg driving through a large city in a 16 year old truck with 200,000 miles on it. True my commute doesn't involve much stop and go due to the odd shifts I work but to regularly beat the hwy figure in the city says a lot.

I see no reason not to believe htr_hardtech.

Maybe it's time to have the valves scoped? DI engines can be prone to intake valve deposits...and I don't believe GM requires synthetic oil in the Traverse, so valve deposits seem possible in theory at least. Rental Acadia AWD (similarly equipped) got 13 mpg during peak season gridlock in Miami with 5 adults and their associated accoutrement with one of them using it as a mobile office at least 4 hours a day.

The oft-repeated phrase "your mileage may vary" comes to mind. Some of us live at higher or lower altitudes than others. Some are in a small town, or even out in the sticks, while others daily deal with the heavy traffic and congestion of a big metropolis. Some people use the gas pedal sparingly in a conscious effort to maximize fuel economy. Others may disgregard speed limits and drive the maximum speed they can get away with without losing control of their vehicle. I see people every day weaving in and out of traffic, seemingly coming within inches of causing a wreck or being involved in one, all with the apparent goal of saving a few seconds. It's almost like some people are daily emulating race car drivers.

While some practice preventive maintainance and keep their vehicle in tip-top, like new condition, others pay no heed until something goes wrong or they have a breakdown. The spectrum would include everyone in between.

"Why does city driving have to the be the absolute worst case? In truth it's a combination of every type of driving, not just stop and go."

Thats true on the EPA loop, not true in real city driving in a densely populated area. I looked at the details of the EPA city test and they are extremely optimistic and unrepresentative of city driving in my area. It's more akin to suburban/exurban driving.

@firstwagon,

"The EPA says I should average 15 mpg. Instead I average 19 mpg driving through a large city in a 16 year old truck with 200,000 miles on it. True my commute doesn't involve much stop and go due to the odd shifts I work but to regularly beat the hwy figure in the city says a lot."

Yes but that's in your Grand Cherokee. Without accounting for a different final drive, frontal area, coefficient of drag, accessory usage and draw, basic engine efficiency, gearing, drive system and power losses, curb weight, etc... how can you make the comparison that they should be able to equal each other? Granted the EPA numbers are similar, I'll give you that.

i agree with these findings i swear that atleast in my case this is true i had a 2010 traverse i used to fill up the tank every sunday night by wed i need to fil up again until friday that was my week in ny at 349 a gallon i was spending about 120 for five days of gas a full tank would give me about 210 miles a did a test where i would reset my odo in trip a everytime i would reach 10 miles i would check the gallon it would be a galon less so in asumption i was avg 10 miles a gallon now i have a highlander get 268 miles a gallon put gas every 4 days i was happy with the travese space with the gas was more imptornt to me and i did lose resale value got the car in march 2010 now in feb the car was worth in trade 24 568 bouth it at 35000 what a lose good thing i put 10,000 down

dj_malkriado,

Wow I just read your post and I am so sorry. 10 mpg average, $120 for five days, and your car depreciated 10K when you went to sell it in the first year? O_O Sorry to hear.

10 mpg makes me appreciate my wife's Outlander Sport's 31 mpg.