By on April 19, 2012


Old habits die hard. Whether it’s GM’s desire to slice-and-dice its fuel economy achievements to make them look better than they are, or our instinct to correct the record, it’s all just a little bit of history repeating.

GM, like most of the Detroit automakers, has never had an easy time marketing its fuel economy achievements. With a huge percentage of its sales and an even higher percentage of profits traditionally coming from full-sized trucks and SUVs, GM has had to respond to rising gas prices with some questionable claims. Perhaps the most infamous: 2008’s campaign touting the assertion that Chevrolet sold more cars getting 30 MPG on the highway than Honda or Toyota. Not only did this claim ignore the most accurate measures of fleet-wide efficiency, but it also stretched the truth rather badly. When TTAC’s readers analyzed this claim, they found that Chevy was counting different bodystyles as different models, effectively “double counting” cars like the Aveo (which was counted the four- and five-door models as separate cars). When the same counting technique was applied to Toyota’s model range, it was shown to have even more 30 MPG-capable cars than Chevy, essentially invalidating what was already a fairly marginal marketing claim.

But since 2008, the pressure has only mounted on GM to show improvement in its fuel economy. Though gas prices aren’t higher than they were back in the Summer of ’08 (yet), GM’s bailout has created a new kind of pressure. As I pointed out in a December 2010 NY Times Op-Ed, President Obama’s green justification for the bailout seemed to be something of a mirage. With gas prices then falling and pickup and SUV sales picking back up, Detroit was hardly living up to Obama’s vow that

This restructuring, as painful as it will be in the short term, will mark not an end, but a new beginning for a great American industry. An auto industry that is once more outcompeting the world; a 21st-century auto industry that is creating new jobs, unleashing new prosperity and manufacturing the fuel-efficient cars and trucks that will carry us toward an energy-independent future.

Now, not only is GM facing pressure put on it by a President who seemed to offer fuel economy leadership from Detroit as a public reward for the public’s investment, but gas prices are also beginning to rise once more. And though GM has absolutely improved its fuel economy in the meantime, it still significantly lags the rest of the industry on an objective fleet-wide basis. And what’s worse, it’s marring its modest but admirable achievements by falling back on the old “most models over 30 MPG” chestnut.

In a post titled “Digging Into GM’s Fuel Economy Record” at his new “BTW” blog, GM’s VP for Communication Selim Bingol resurrects GM’s pre-bailout canard by arguing

GM has been selling a lot of fuel-efficient vehicles in many different sizes and styles – and more than you may think.

Just look at March.  We sold more vehicles in the United States that deliver an EPA-estimated 30 mpg or better on the highway than ever before – more than 100,000 – and the figure includes cars like the Chevrolet Camaro V-6 and crossovers like the GMC Terrain.

It might surprise you to know that these results make GM far and away the leader among the “Detroit” Three automakers, and we’re not that far off the pace set by Toyota.

So, instead of “more models over 30 MPG than Toyota,” GM is claiming 30 MPG option leadership over its Detroit competitors. And, to its undying credit, it’s not misleading the public by double-counting models this time around. Thanks to its genuinely improved offerings, GM legitimately has 12 options rated at over 30 MPG on the highway. On the other hand, the fact that GM sells more 30 MPG cars than its Detroit competitors is, as Bingol admits, at least

partly a function of our scale.

But although Bingol makes a more credible case for the “more models over 30 MPG” claim than his predecessors, achievements like these don’t get better with age. For one thing, the competition has moved on: Hyundai, for example, now reports the percentage of its sales that are rated at 40 MPG on the highway… some 41% as of March. Bingol as good as admits that GM is still playing catchup when he notes

Of course, 30 mpg is not the goal line.  We can and will move the needle higher because customers and our CAFE commitments demand it.  Soon enough, 40 mpg will be the new 30.

Here’s the thing: it already is. GM is touting a claim that might have been impressive four years ago… had it been accurate. Today, with well over 20 models available with at least 40 MPG highway ratings, it’s a yawner.

But not only has the industry moved on since 2008, the market has as well. Thanks to the rise of sites like TrueCar and Edmunds, consumers have access to more data on new cars than ever before. And since transparency has improved in the auto market, there are now far more accurate ways to compare manufacturer fuel economy than existed in 2008. With the fuel economy leader Hyundai self-publishing its sales-weighted fleet fuel economy numbers, TrueCar has stepped in to provide similar data for the entire industry. And isn’t the best way to compare fuel economy by measuring what the manufacturers actually sell?

By this measure, however, GM does not come out looking like an industry leader. In fact, as a manufacturer, GM doesn’t even make the industry average fuel economy. And its greatest deficit is in the car segments, where it’s nearly two MPG off the industry average. Moreover, GM’s rate of improvement in March was one of the lowest in the industry, which means it’s actually falling behind the competition. By brand, the picture is similar: each of GM’s brands comes in below the industry average, with truck-free Buick coming the closest at just .1 MPG off the mean.

This is not to say that GM hasn’t made improvements. As Bingol points out, GM sells a far more balanced mix of cars, trucks and crossovers than ever before. By segment, GM’s offerings beat the industry average for Large Cars, Large and Small Trucks and Large and Midsized SUVs. In fact, TrueCar shows that GM’s Midsized SUV offerings are by far the most efficient in the industry, at 24.1 MPG compared to a 21.9 MPG average.

Though these are clearly signs of movement in the right direction, they’re not enough to give GM a credible claim to fuel economy leadership… even among the Detroit automakers. But then, that was fairly apparent from the moment The General dusted off an ineffective marketing claim from  2008. Thanks to the relatively slow run-up in gas prices, pickup and SUV sales are remaining strong and GM needs their profits far more than it needs to become a fuel economy leader. But if the market experiences another Summer ’08-style rush towards high-efficiency cars, GM is going to have to come up with a better pitch to economy-minded consumers. And ultimately, it’s going to have to work harder than everyone else if it ever wants to make good on Obama’s promise of fuel economy leadership.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

48 Comments on “Blind Spot: Digging Deeper Into GM’s Fuel Economy Record...”

  • avatar

    At least while slanting the subject this one paragraph pulls out the real story:
    ” By segment, GM’s offerings beat the industry average for Large Cars, Large and Small Trucks and Large and Midsized SUVs. In fact, TrueCar shows that GM’s Midsized SUV offerings are by far the most efficient in the industry, at 24.1 MPG compared to a 21.9 MPG average.”
    So is GM the “ungreen” automaker because they offer a broad range of vehicle segments and match design and production to meet market demand?
    The only fair way to present something like this is to show how each automaker performs in each segment and the 5-10 year trend.

    • 0 avatar


      Ford and Chrysler up next? Or is this “Slam GM” day again?

      Sorry, not buying into this.

      • 0 avatar

        I agree. The only vehicle out of those listed above that is genuinely a bit low in efficiency I would say is the Verano, and that’s only because the 2.4 Ecotec is quite old. If/when GM replaces the 2.4 with a 2.0 (making nearly as much power but much more efficient) I don’t see why 35-36 MPG+ wouldn’t be possible, which isn’t too bad considering it’s billed as a small luxury car.

        Also, the TrueCar or whatever system TTAC uses to demonstrate “true efficiency” is a load of bull. Hyundai doesn’t sell any trucks, and if I’m not mistaken the Sante Fe is car-based and not BOF. I sure darn hope they have higher overall average fuel efficiency compared to GM, Ford or Chrysler.

      • 0 avatar

        While I don’t disagree with your comment, the reason they have “trucks” is because the US goverment (the EPA) has classified those vehicles as trucks. All the domestic crossovers are included in the truck category and effectively raise the Big 3 truck averages.

        If you’re demanding that Ford and Chrysler be slammed, then that just means you’re as seemingly biased as you consider this article to be. GM is called out because they’re “gloating” of their great efficiency when, in fact, they are average (as they have always been).

      • 0 avatar

        In case you have not noticed, it is always slam GM day here at TTAC.

        GM cannot and never has done anything right! Have you not been reading TTAC since the change at the helm.

    • 0 avatar

      Ford offeres a “broad” range of vehicles to meet market demand, yet they have been able to beat GM. While the editorial does sound like bias, it isn’t inheriently wrong.

      Perception is the problem for GM. Ford IMO has been really good at marketing fuel economy, GM, not so much. Recently a co-worker got a new Focus. First comment around the water cooler “you must be spending way less on gas now.” Nobody says that about the guy driving a Cruze…well if anyone around here drove a Cruze…but we sure as heck don’t say that to the Escalade driver.

  • avatar
    Dave M.

    Wait….after decades of skimming the truth you expected GM to be forward and factual?

    Duh. What did Reagan say….”Trust but verify”?

  • avatar

    “And isn’t the best way to compare fuel economy by measuring what the manufacturers actually sell?”

    If you want to know about fleet averages, then it is.

    If you want to know what they offer for sale at the higher end of the range, then no, it isn’t.

    Since they’re not attempting to address the first point, GM is correct in this instance.

    Still, it’s bad marketing. This is very typical of the flaws of GM advertising — they accentuate one supposed strength, and claim to be the biggest or “number one” in that particular category.

    Sorry, GM, but nobody cares. A consumer ultimately buys the whole package, not a single data point. It’s hard to get anyone who isn’t a fanboy excited about a single data point. And since most buyers of high volume cars aren’t fanboys, the effort fails.

    Toyota has fabulously boring, but ultimately solid advertising. Much of it revolves around man-on-the-street testimonials. Not exciting to watch, but it’s the sort of message that works for those who are shopping for a car. The ads are good because they assure the consumer that he isn’t going to have to worry about it falling apart or it being an embarrassment that makes him look like a fool to his friends and neighbors. That’s far more reassuring than the knowledge that the cars that you didn’t buy get over 30 mpg on the highway.

  • avatar

    Chrysler is going to have to sell a whole poop pile of Darts to get their numbers up. They’re making GM look very good currently.

  • avatar

    What is it with auto marketing and bad commercials or dubious claims? I’m a fairly young person and I see the marketing as enough to not want to look at new cars.
    Some of the worst commercials I can think of:

    Chevy circa 09 that had a bunch of people in a dealer closing doors and saying “feels like a solid car”

    Ford more recently explorer commercial where they say “has more room than a Rav 4” yeah its a bigger vehicle, try comparing the escape and Rag 4.

    On another note in the 09 NFL playoffs after Fox was M-Fing GM up and down for taking bail out money, the Chevy ads in the playoffs and super bowl that ran on fox were so big I would figure the games would be pay per view if GM pulled their sponsorship

    On another note, progressive insurance are THE MOST ANNOYING COMMERCIALS EVER TO AIR

    Good commercials:
    New mustang commercial is good and simple.
    New prius commercials are totally spot on for their audience.
    The Cadillac cts commercial where the hot girl say “when your turn on your car, does it turn you on?” With the band pheonix playing in the background

    • 0 avatar

      If car advertisements were truly honest, they would go something like this.

      “Want to spend $25,000 on something that loses a quarter of its value when you drive off the lot?

      Want to be stuck paying an arm and a leg for parts and service as soon as the warranty runs out?

      Want to deal with sketchy service managers, crowded dealerships, and pushy sales people who will lie to your face to sell you this product?


    • 0 avatar

      The problem I have with most commercials is that they want them to be funny, so they make someone look bad–either people who like their products or their sales staff or similar. Two that come to mind are Chevy commercials:
      – One has a salesman is “goin’ to sell some Texas editions today” and his fellow salespeople laugh at him and ask if he’s wearing chaps & spurs (which he is). This commercial tells me Chevy salesmen are stupid/clueless. Since I don’t want to deal with stupid people, I’m not motivated to go see a Chevy dealer.
      – Another has a dealer manager giving his sales staff a pep-talk and says “Take a knee.” One does, and then the manager is befuddled. This tells me that people who run Chevy dealerships are clueless, out-of-touch with reality, and have no idea what they are doing/saying. Again, I don’t want to deal with such people, so I am not motivated to go to a Chevy dealership.

      This is a common theme and certainly isn’t isolated to Chevy. Conversely, the luxury brands who show their buyers being smarter, prettier, & more successful than their competitors get it right–because it sends the message: “If you like out product, you too must be smarter, prettier, & more successful.”

  • avatar


    GM makes slightly outlandish claims in fuel efficiency.

    So has LITERALLY every other automaker. There is a lawsuit against Hyundai for false MPG claims, the only Ford’s that can get even close to 40 mpg require a special package that doesn’t pay back for decades, and VW has only diesel engines to make up for what are otherwise unimpressive fuel economy numbers.

    I just don’t get why GM is taken to task so often over marketing techniques but other companies aren’t

    • 0 avatar

      To be fair, direct inject engines are touchy when it comes to efficiency. The efficiency loss on DI engines is much higher from a cold start than a non DI engine.

      • 0 avatar

        Do you have a citation for this? I have noticed poor cold mpg figures from the trip computers in some recent press cars, but hadn’t considered that DI might be a cause.

      • 0 avatar


        What MK said. Can you back this up? I’ve heard this before about DI and cold weather. If there is ANY merit to this at all would make an awesome TTAC piece.

        Hello, TTAC gods, AWESOME piece.

      • 0 avatar

        The EPA FTP for the city cycle is a cold start (albeit @ room temp). Are we seeing lower mpg ratings on DI engines here?

      • 0 avatar

        Inflow of cold air at intake stroke, especially in winter, lowers temperature of combustion chamber, resulting in incomplete vaporization of gasoline for combustion and power loss.

        Injection of gasoline fuel into combustion chamber at intake stroke cannot ensure gasoline fuel, especially those with high number of carbon chains, being vaporized completely and mixed with air rapidly for efficient combustion.

        I’ve seen other things on this, I will try and find them. I don’t know this has much more of an impact than in the colder months and when first starting the vehicle, although I will note from personal experience that my 2012 Focus took a larger efficiency hit last winter than previous cars without DI. Of course, once spring rolls around your car is “heated up” in maybe 3 minutes, so that’s more of a non-issue. All the same, this effect isn’t as prevalent on non-DI engines. I always figured this might have been part of why Hyundai and Kia were having trouble. I know my 2010 Kia Forte EX (R.I.P.) would get 28 if I were lucky, on a 68 MPH 35 mile each way commute, while being rated at I want to say 34.

      • 0 avatar

        So are we going back to the days of ThermAC systems with a air intake stove from the exhaust manifold? Like what my ’77 Chevelle has (probably more sophisticated than a vacuum motor and a temperature switch)

        I’ve noticed on it, that with it disconnected, mileage is 12-13 and with it connected and working correctly it gets 15-16 in town.

        sounds to me what DI needs to do to bring the mileage up quicker? Or is there some sort of emissions penalty for that?

      • 0 avatar

        But if the difference is cold intake air not vaporizing fuel, why doesn’t the same thing happen with normally injected fuel? The air will be just as cold inhibiting fuel vaporization the same. The difference could be the time the fuel has to vaporize while the cylinder is compressing versus being injected into an already compressed & hot cylinder.

        Rather, my first guess for a drop in the Focus’ winter mpg would be something to do with its high compression ratio and varible timing if not an emissions adjustment during warm-up. I can’t support that guess, but it would be the first place I’d look.

    • 0 avatar

      Hyundai has 28.1 mpg average fuel economy, eh? That’s fantastic! Their pickup trucks must get great mileage!

      — They don’t sell trucks.

      No? Not even little ones?

      — Nope.

      Hmm. That’s no good. I run a business and I need pickup trucks. But I also need vans. How about fuel-sipping vans?

      — Not in the U.S.

      Oh. Well, I’ve always like the Suburban…do they make a super fuel efficient one of those?

      — No. They do not offer truck-based SUVs.

      What about a big CUV, then?

      — There’s the Veracruz. 22mpg highway.

      Well, that’s not that good…but I’ll take it.

      — It’s being discontinued.

      Arrrgh! A minivan, then!

      — Nope.

      Does Hyundai even WANT MY BUSINESS?

      — No. They’d rather boast about having the best average MPG.

      • 0 avatar

        Sounds like they’ve chosen to meet the highest demands of the market. H/K sold such vehicles, very poorly, and pulled them when they realized it wasn’t worth the wasted effort and money trying to sell the Borrego and Sedona. I bet there is a large crossover in the Genesis line-up plans…they have the platforms.

      • 0 avatar

        the problem with that thinking is that Hyundai doesn’t want that market… and they are making money hand over fist

        play to your strengths

  • avatar

    In truth – GM currently offers quite a few models that should get at least 30 mpg on the highway. I can’t see myself driving an e-assist LaCrosse, but it’s there if you want one.

    Does GM also sell some models with a V-6 and of course offer some body-on-frame guzzlers to boot? – Why certainly –

    Toyota and Nissan also offer some body-on-frame guzzlers that don’t sell too well.

    So please TTAC fans, don’t let an Armada or Sequoia get in the way of some GM bashing.

  • avatar

    Why does this matter? Why can’t I just leave GM alone? If the new guys at GM had read their not-so-distant history, they’d know this approach to fuel economy messaging had been tried without much success.

    As for the “full spectrum automaker” thing, TrueCar breaks the numbers out and GM is competitive in truck and SUV fuel economy. It’s the cars that lag the industry average.

    I give GM credit where it’s due. They’ve shifted a lot of their SUV business to CUVs where they lead the industry in fuel economy, and they’re generally headed in the right direction. But it’s too early to start crowing, and the new communication guys need to know when they’re stepping on shaky historical ground.

    • 0 avatar

      “It’s the cars that lag the industry average.”

      The ad claims that nine models have highway MPG ratings of 30 or higher. The information that you’ve provided supports that position.

      I realize that you are trying to develop a sort of expose here, but you aren’t. The fact that GM sells other cars that get lower mileage doesn’t change the number of models that achieve this benchmark.

      If you want to argue that the advertising isn’t very effective, then I would agree.

      But you’re trying to uncover some sort of deceit where it doesn’t exist. That only provides ammo for the GM fanboys, who can use these apples-and-oranges comparisons to bolster their claim that you want to be critical just for the sake of it, even when the facts don’t back you up.

  • avatar

    This MPG vs Brand stuff only matters to politicians.

    Consumers don’t purchase the entire brand; they only buy one car and its performance is all they care about.

  • avatar

    I keep seeing crap like “highest corporate fuel economy” or “most cars with more than N miles per gallon” or whatever in corporate advertising (not just GM, either) and I keep wondering, why would any consumer care? If I’m looking to buy a pickup truck, I don’t care that you have the highest number of economy compact cars. I’m looking at one or two specific models and I’m not in the market for the other ones. Why is this even part of ad copy?

  • avatar

    Toyota and Honda has some nice V8 sports, don’t they? Convertibles too! What no eight cylinder gas guzzlers passenger cars? Turbo fours? Boring, but efficient.

  • avatar

    Well over 20 models with 40mpg or better…I didn’t believe it at first, but wow, there are a LOT:

    Mitsubishi i-MiEV 112e
    Ford Focus Electric 100e
    Nissan LEAF 99e
    Toyota Prius Plug-in 95e
    Chevy Volt 93e
    Toyota Prius c 53/46
    Fisker Karma 52e
    Toyota Prius 51/48
    Toyota Prius v 44/40
    Honda Civic Hybrid 44 (hwy)
    Honda Insight 44 (hwy)
    Audi A3 TDI 43 (hwy)
    Lexus CT 43/40
    Toyota Camry Hybrid 43 (city)
    VW Passat TDI 43 (hwy)
    Chevy Cruze Eco 42 (hwy)
    VW Golf TDI 42 (hwy)
    VW Jetta TDI 42 (hwy)
    VW Jetta Sportwagen TDI 42 (hwy)
    Ford Fusion Hybrid 41 (city)
    Honda Civic HF 41 (hwy)
    Lincoln MKZ Hybrid 41 (city)
    Chevy Sonic 40 (hwy)
    Ford Fiesta SE/SFE 40 (hwy)
    Ford Focus SE/SFE 40 (hwy)
    Hyundai Accent 40 (hwy)
    Hyundai Elantra 40 (hwy)
    Hyundai Veloster 40 (hwy)
    Hyundai Sonata Hybrid 40 (hwy)
    Mazda 3 i SkyACTIV 40 (hwy)

    • 0 avatar

      You also have to keep in mind some of those “on the fence” vehicles that may not be rated it but might, from time to time, achieve 40+.

      I always thought Honda Fit drivers were full of it when they said they could sometimes get 40+ until I got my Focus and saw several trips at as high as 43 MPG. I usually settle at around 38-39 MPG highway, 31-32 city, though.

      I’d also assume the last-gen Camry and current (non Mondeo) Fusion hybrids could probably pull 40 MPG.

      • 0 avatar

        I have a 2009 Yaris. I get 34mpg using it as a drive to work M-F, in mixed traffic.

        I don’t drive it on the highway much,but when I do I get 41 mpg.

  • avatar

    …Hyundai, for example, now reports the percentage of its sales that are rated at 40 MPG on the highway… some 41% as of March…

    And just as would say good luck getting the highway MPG rating in most GM vehicles today, so I will say good luck actually getting 40 MPG out of Hyundai’s claimed highway MPG also.

    I’ve had two Hyundais and a Kia as rentals this year, none of them came remotely close to their MPG ratings. Which isn’t a defense of GM – but a condemnation of the entire EPA MPG BS numbers themselves.

  • avatar

    If you want truth in fuel economy, then just scrap the EPA “highway” number. Most people are lucky if they hit the city number in their real world driving.

    • 0 avatar

      Not among the people I know. The people you know must be very agressive drivers.

      • 0 avatar

        This has been my experience. I regularly get within a couple tenths of the combined rating of 29 mpg. There have been instances where I’ve not hit the city mileage rating of 25 and they’ve usually been times when I’ve been too close to redline, had to use climate control for one reason or another, or had some hard starts.

        In a car rated 25/34/29 I consider myself to be doing pretty well considering about 70% of my driving is in the suburbs and I’m not typically on the freeway for very long.

        I never understand when people say I get ‘x mpg in the city and y mpg on the freeway.’ The question that always comes up is how does one get that specific unless one is even more anal about tracking mileage than I am?

        I can hit my freeway rating with relative ease if I ever have a full freeway run, but this rarely occurs so the only number I care about is combined rating.

  • avatar

    This is interesting but I think that some of what is going on here is a little unfair to GM (not entirely unfair just a little)

    GM makes a ton of fleet sales of abysmal mpg trucks vans etc. Those count rather heavily against it’s average.

    Also, comparing Ford to GM.. ehh How many people are really buying Lincolns these days compared to Cadillacs? MPG of Cadillic is pretty deplorable.

    I don’t see BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, Audi/VW there also. While VW/Audi is probably higher, I’m not so sure about the others.

    My point being that GM is at least represented in every market, I’m not so sure any of the others are, and if they are in a particular market segment their presence oftentimes is negligible.

    However having said all that I do think that GM also needs to up it’s game especially in the MPG department.

    When I get back to the USA I’m strongly looking at buying a Kia not a GM or Ford Product. For much of the same reasons everyone states here.

  • avatar

    pre-f__ked trophy wife…..every sales effort going forward will live in the shadow of the past peak decades of yore

  • avatar

    Its this one of those meaningless statistics?
    Either you have to look at the availability of fuel efficient vehicles within a companies, which means GM (& Hyundai’s) point is accurate.
    Or you rely on consumer preference, In Australia GM & Ford are the only mainstream brands to offer “affordable” V8. That doesn’t mean they don’t offer economical vehicles, the statistic skews against them by offering what some consumers want.
    Otherwise I could enter the market selling only 1 liter engines and be the most economical car maker in world. But I might not be profitable…. A well, perception is everything…
    Maybe GM need a sub brand called Mr-Min Motors (MMM) and only sell rebrand 40mpg + vehicles.. :-)

  • avatar

    The op is either the biggest troll or has no shame. This article puts many of Bertel’s sleazy manipulative articles and half truths to shame. Fat rusho and faux news are wondering how soon they can put on their payrolls.

    “it still significantly lags the rest of the industry on an objective fleet-wide basis.”

    Who comes up with **** like this for you guys? How is that a GM’s problem? Should they deny a sale to anyone looking for a pickup truck? Should they force a Tahoe buyer to buy a Sonic instead? You could walk into a GM dealership now and buy any car/truck and bet that that is probably the most fuel efficient in its segment.

    Most fuel efficient sub compact – GM
    Most fuel efficient compact – GM
    Most fuel efficient non hybrid midsize – GM
    Most fuel efficient full size – GM
    Most fuel efficient mid size cuv – GM
    Most fuel efficient large CUV with V6 – GM
    Most fuel efficient luxury midsize – GM

    • 0 avatar

      The problem is that supply of of funny/interesting stories from Bertel, Jack and Murilee has run out, so it’s full speed ahead for tilting at windmills.

      Maybe it’s time for us to play TTAC Bingo. Looking at today’s articles I already see one instance of Northstar bashing…

  • avatar

    You see clearly there is absolute initiative to lie like Hyundai has, why because while they did it and it was wrong, they reap the benefits for years later. The problem is the marketing of said lie hasn’t really stopped, just tweaked, and who really hears about a court case involving the wrong MPG on the line up, a few journalists? Definitely NOT the public.

    • 0 avatar

      So; Hyundai lies = good. GM lies = bad. Seems to be the way it works. Yup.

    • 0 avatar

      Any proof that Hyundai lied about MPG is anecdotal, not scientific.

      Few consumers are aware of how EPA ratings are conducted, and even fewer actually drive that slow. Edmunds routinely sets the cruise on their California cars at 75 mph, driving through 7000 foot mountains, and then complains about the MPG of the cars it tests.

      Does anyone drive an average of 48.3 mph on the highway?

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Jeff S: Again if you have children then why should I care especially if you don’t care about your children and...
  • crtfour: Wow a column shifter, fender skirts, landau top and drum brakes. Compare this garbage to what...
  • JMII: I used Herculiner to do the bed on my 20 year old Dakota Quad Cab. The hardest part was scuffing up the clear...
  • Art Vandelay: Naa. Many I disagree with are fine. But if the shoe fits…and I mean fits like that slipper on...
  • teddyc73: Freedom units? Those darn Americans using their own units of measurements and wanting freedom and such.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber