• If you currently own, previously owned or want to own an Avalanche, we welcome you to become a member today. Membership is FREE, register now!

What's Up With MSN Auto?

A

Awesomebase

GUEST
Just a note to everyone here. I took a brief look at the top 10 gas guzzlers, and, to my surprise they listed virtually every GM 5.3L and 8.1L truck (including the Avalanche). However, what surprised me the most was what the list was based on. Looking at the rates, they listed the trucks as having 10/12 up to 10/13 city/hwy. ratings for those trucks! Am I mistaken here? I thought the ratings were 14/18 and 13/17 city/hwy. I can't imagine that the 5.3L engines would be consuming so much gas like that... I mean, what would be the point of having them then? You might as well outfit all the trucks with the big 8.1L. Also, to my surprise, NO GM vehicle with the 6.0L used in the Cadillac Escelade and Escelade EXT were mentioned in the list, and I understand that they consume more gas than the 5.3L engine.
So, my question is did they get their figures wrong? It seems like it to me. I can't believe that nobody from the editors would have caught that mistake. What do you think happened? And is there a way to alert them of this?
 
I found a link to Mr. Flinn and wrote the following about the misinformation they've posted. As always don't trust the media, or anyone until you check out the facts. I trust MSN as much as I trust Bill Gates.

Mr. Flinn,

I read this story with curiosity, which turned to skepticism and then distrust.

I have looked at purchasing a Chevy Avalanche for a few months, also looked at the Suburban as well. Your story on MSN "Top Ten Gas Guzzlers" states the two get 10/13/12 City/Hwy/Combined mileage. But if you go to the Avalanche feature page on MSN you state 14/18 for the two wheel and 13/17 for the four wheel drive model. A visit to the EPA's 2002 website shows the same data, the 2003 data shows 10MPG when used with Ethanol and 14 with Gasoline.

To me you've quoted the lowest number rather than showing true comparable data. I can only assume that all of your information is wrong as well, thus leading me to mistrust all the data on your site. I can only conclude that your information was wrong or you had an agenda by sharing this misinformation. In the future please do all of your readers a favor and use accurate and comparable data. The data used in the story doesn't even match your source.

Sincerely,
 
It seems unrealistic to trust that kind of information... especially when the stats for those vehicles and engines are readily available from many other sources.
 
I read this article this morning as well. They used different figures than any that I've seen. Only GM products on the list. ?They don't even list the mileage for the 2500 in their (MSN) chart, since the EPA doesn't ?test the 3/4 tons yet. I wonder how they came up with that number? If you click on the Av for specifics, their own chart shows highway mileage for the 5.3L as 18 mpg (2wd) and 17 (4wd). Seems like somone has an axe to grind with the General. You can bet that any retraction or correction will be very small, and hard to find. Where can I find the link that was used to complain about the article? ?
 
I had a look at the data from the quoted source......

Make.......Trans..........Eng/cylinders....City/Hwy......$ per year ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
BUICK ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Rendezvous AWD ............... ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?3.4/6 ? ? ?18/24 ? ? ?$1,162 ? ? ?
CADILLAC ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Escalade AWD.................. ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?6.0/8 ? ? ?12/16 ? ? ?$1,660 ? ? ?
Escalade ESV AWD ............. ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?6.0/8 ? ? ?12/16 ? ? ?$1,660 ? ? ?
Escalade EXT 4WD ............. ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?6.0/8 ? ? ?12/16 ? ? ?$1,660 ? ? ?
CHEVROLET ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Blazer 4WD ................... ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?4.3/6 ? ? ?15/19 ? ? ?$1,453 ? ? ?
Blazer 4WD ................? ? ? ?M5 ? ? ?4.3/6 ? ? ?15/20 ? ? ?$1,367 ? ? ?
K1500 Avalanche 4WD .......... ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?13/17 ? ? ?$1,551 ? ? ?
K1500 Avalanche 4WD FFV ...... ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?10/13 ? ? ?$2,249 ? ? ?E85
K1500 Avalanche 4WD FFV ...? ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?14/18 ? ? ?$1,453 ? ? ?Gas
K1500 Avalanche AWD .......... ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?13/17 ? ? ?$1,551 ? ? ?
K1500 Avalanche AWD FFV ...... ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?10/13 ? ? ?$2,249 ? ? ?E85
K1500 Avalanche AWD FFV ...? ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?14/18 ? ? ?$1,453 ? ? ?Gas
K1500 Suburban 4WD ........... ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?13/17 ? ? ?$1,551 ? ? ?
K1500 Suburban 4WD FFV ....... ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?10/13 ? ? ?$2,249 ? ? ?E85
K1500 Suburban 4WD FFV ....? ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?14/18 ? ? ?$1,453 ? ? ?Gas
K1500 Suburban AWD ........... ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?13/17 ? ? ?$1,551 ? ? ?
K1500 Suburban AWD FFV ....... ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?10/13 ? ? ?$2,249 ? ? ?E85
K1500 Suburban AWD FFV ....? ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?14/18 ? ? ?$1,453 ? ? ?Gas
K1500 Tahoe 4WD .............. ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?4.8/8 ? ? ?14/18 ? ? ?$1,551 ? ? ?
K1500 Tahoe 4WD ...........? ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?13/17 ? ? ?$1,551 ? ? ?
K1500 Tahoe 4WD FFV .......... ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?13/17 ? ? ?$2,249 ? ? ?E85
K1500 Tahoe 4WD FFV .......? ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?14/18 ? ? ?$1,453 ? ? ?Gas
K1500 Tahoe AWD .............. ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?13/17 ? ? ?$1,551 ? ? ?
K1500 Tahoe AWD FFV .......... ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?10/13 ? ? ?$2,249 ? ? ?E85
K1500 Tahoe AWD FFV .......? ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?14/18 ? ? ?$1,453 ? ? ?Gas
Tracker 4WD Conv ............. ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?2.0/4 ? ? ?22/25 ? ? ?$1,011 ? ? ?
Tracker 4WD Conv ..........? ? ? ?M5 ? ? ?2.0/4 ? ? ?23/25 ? ? ?$970 ? ? ?
Tracker 4WD Hardtop........... ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?2.0/4 ? ? ?22/25 ? ? ?$1,011 ? ? ?
Tracker 4WD Hardtop........? ? ? ?M5 ? ? ?2.0/4 ? ? ?22/25 ? ? ?$1,011 ? ? ?
Tracker LT 4WD................ ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?2.5/6 ? ? ?18/20 ? ? ?$1,223 ? ? ?
Tracker ZR2 4WD .............. ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?2.5/6 ? ? ?18/20 ? ? ?$1,223 ? ? ?
Tracker ZR2 4WD Conv ......... ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?2.0/4 ? ? ?22/25 ? ? ?$1,011 ? ? ?
Tracker ZR2 4WD Conv ......? ? ? ?M5 ? ? ?2.0/4 ? ? ?23/25 ? ? ?$970 ? ? ?
Trailblazer 4WD .............. ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?4.2/6 ? ? ?15/21 ? ? ?$1,367 ? ? ?
Trailblazer EXT 4WD .......... ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?4.2/6 ? ? ?15/20 ? ? ?$1,367 ? ? ?
Trailblazer EXT 4WD .......? ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?14/18 ? ? ?$1,551 ? ? ?
DODGE ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Durango 4WD .................. ? ? ?A5 ? ? ?4.7/8 ? ? ?14/18 ? ? ?$1,453 ? ? ?
Durango 4WD ...............? ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.9/8 ? ? ?12/17 ? ? ?$1,660 ? ? ?
FORD ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Escape 4WD.................... ? ? ?M5 ? ? ?2.0/4 ? ? ?22/25 ? ? ?$1,011 ? ? ?
Escape 4WD.................? ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?3.0/6 ? ? ?18/23 ? ? ?$1,162 ? ? ?
Expedition 4WD ............... ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?4.6/8 ? ? ?14/18 ? ? ?$1,551 ? ? ?
Expedition 4WD ............? ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.4/8 ? ? ?13/17 ? ? ?$1,551 ? ? ?
Explorer 4WD ................. ? ? ?A5 ? ? ?4.6/8 ? ? ?14/19 ? ? ?$1,453 ? ? ?
Explorer 4WD FFV ............. ? ? ?A5 ? ? ?4.0/6 ? ? ?11/15 ? ? ?$2,249 ? ? ?E85
Explorer 4WD FFV ..........? ? ? ?A5 ? ? ?4.0/6 ? ? ?15/21 ? ? ?$1,367 ? ? ?Gas
Explorer Sport 4WD ........... ? ? ?A5 ? ? ?4.0/6 ? ? ?15/20 ? ? ?$1,367 ? ? ?
Explorer Sport 4WD ........? ? ? ?M5 ? ? ?4.0/6 ? ? ?15/19 ? ? ?$1,367 ? ? ?
GMC ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Envoy 4WD .................... ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?4.2/6 ? ? ?15/21 ? ? ?$1,367 ? ? ?
Envoy XL 4WD ................. ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?4.2/6 ? ? ?15/20 ? ? ?$1,367 ? ? ?
Envoy XL 4WD ..............? ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?14/18 ? ? ?$1,551 ? ? ?
Jimmy 4WD .................... ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?4.3/6 ? ? ?15/19 ? ? ?$1,367 ? ? ?
Jimmy 4WD .................? ? ? ?M5 ? ? ?4.3/6 ? ? ?15/20 ? ? ?$1,367 ? ? ?
K1500 Yukon 4WD .............. ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?4.8/8 ? ? ?14/18 ? ? ?$1,551 ? ? ?
K1500 Yukon 4WD ...........? ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?13/17 ? ? ?$1,551 ? ? ?
K1500 Yukon 4WD FFV .......... ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?10/13 ? ? ?$2,249 ? ? ?E85
K1500 Yukon 4WD FFV .......? ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?14/18 ? ? ?$1,453 ? ? ?Gas
K1500 Yukon AWD .............. ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?5.3/8 ? ? ?13/17 ? ? ?$1,551 ? ? ?
K1500 Yukon AWD ...........? ? ? ?A4 ? ? ?6.0/8 ? ? ?12/16 ? ? ?$1,660 ? ? ?

It looks like most of the bad figures come from the FFV's (Flexible Fuel Vehicles) but you will also see that the some other makers cars did just as badly as the GM vehicles did.
 
The folks at MSN Auto will be getting a message from me too... I just read that article and couldn't believe it. On my daily loop (which is mostly in town driving) I am getting just under 14 and on long trips I have been getting 16mpg. This is with a truck that has about 1500 miles on it also.

If you go to the EPA's fuel economy site and look up the AV, an Avalanche 1500 2wd 5.3L was 14/18/16 and the 1500 4wd 5.3L was 13/17/14. Not only that but the ones they sell here in NH are classified as ULEV vehicles.

Where MSN got their figures is anyone's guess.

Update: Just read Skidd's prior posting... yeah if they are using E85 numbers (Gasohol) that makes sense but that is a distortion since very few people IMHO run E85. I just sent an email to John Flynn, the Editorial Director, advising him to check the numbers and do an apples to apples comparison.
 
CNN's Gas Mileage List with one quote that was interesting:

"Many people have sent us e-mails asking about the Ford Excursion. Surely this behemoth vehicle, which averages about 12 miles to the gallon with a V10 engine, ought to be on our Worst Gas Mileage list, right?

Well, yes, probably. Except that, in the interest of overall fairness, we're only comparing official United States Environmental Protection Agency mileage estimates here. The EPA hasn't tested the Excursion's fuel efficiency and it's not going to. The EPA, you see, only rates the mileage of "light duty" vehicles. The Excursion, at 19 feet long, 6 feet 8 inches wide, and 8,500 pounds fully loaded, is a "medium duty" vehicle.

In other words, the Ford Excursion is just too big for this list."

FARK Users comment on MSN Auto's Fuel Efficiency Article -- Most people seemed to agree that the MSN article was very Anti-General Motors. NOTE: Some posts may contain offensive language.

David
 
What really got my goat was comparing Gasoline to Ethanol is just plain wrong. ?Its biased reporting.
 
Just bad research?? I think someone doesn't like GM.

I agree with Y-Guy, don't let stuff like this go, it takes the same amount of time to send an email as it does to post here.

I sent the following to ALL the editorial staff at MSN Autos and I copied GM public relations.

- Rondo

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mr Flinn & Co.,

I read the story on the MSN Autos website with quite a bit of amazement. I own an Avalanche in fact a 2500 series. I get as good as the mileage you were listing for the 1500 series GM trucks. So I did a little research using your own sources.

From the EPA database at: ?http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bestworst.shtml?

The mileage you listed in your article was for E85 fuel, an ethanol gasoline blend (Flex-Fuel). In the EPA database only General Motors vehicles have a mpg rating listed for E85 fuel, which is also 3-6 mpg lower than their gasoline mpg rating. As an example the 1500 Avalanche (2WD) is listed as 14city 18hwy on gas and only 10city and 13hwy for E85. There wasn't even an E85 listing for the 4WD only gas 13/17.

You misrepresented the information. I also find it very interesting that only GM products were on the Top Ten Gas Guzzlers (except for the exotics). In fact the EPA database actually has different vehicles listed than you do and the E85 mileage you listed isn?t even referenced.

Least Efficient Standard Pickup Trucks
Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup, 4WD 8 cyl, 5.9 L, Automatic 12City, 16Hwy
Ford F150 Pickup, 2WD 8 cyl, 5.4 L, Automatic 12City, 16Hwy
GMC K1500 Sierra Denali , 4WD 8 cyl, 6 L, Automatic 12City, 16Hwy

This type of mis-information does nothing for the credibility of your website, in fact I am very disappointed because in the past I used you site quite a bit. It almost looks as if someone wanted to take a shot at the General.

Sincerely,


Copy to GM Public Relations


 
Well, I'm glad that someone found out it was the difference in gasoline types. What I can't figure out is why the Toyota Land Cruiser wasn't on the list. That vehicle is a notorious gas guzzler and is rated somewhere around 11/13.
I'm not upset that GM gets criticized, I think every company should be subject to some scrutiny. But I am really upset that this looks to be a deliberate attempt to treat those vehicles differently than the rest. I'm especially surprised that some of the editors, who until recently I had respect for, would have all signed their names to that list! :8: I mean these are people who have done thousands of vehicle reviews... you would think that at least ONE of them would catch on to something funny with those figures. I haven't test driven thousands of vehicles, but I've got a pretty good memory when it comes to engine sizes, fuel economy, horsepower and torque, etc. Didn't even ONE of them notice?
 
I sent my letter to the editor at MSN as well. I wonder what GM's response, if any, will be?
 
I've sent an email to their list of editors, but I think that tonight I'm going to type out an actual letter and mail it to MSN's corporate headquarters. There are two many people out there who believe everything they read or see when it comes from such places as MSN, and other media outlets. It is a disgrace to the journalism world that such nonsense is published by a large media outlet such as MSN Autos, owned by MSN. There is no question that they should have either quoted both fuel ratings, the E85 & the gasoline, or they should've been very clear that they were only quoting the E85 ratings & given a reason why they were only quoting the E85 ratings. :8:
 
If you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it.

I think that this is just another way for those 'who know what's best for us' to smear the AV's name.

Several years ago there were reports about how the samuri would practicaly roll over if you looked at it wrong. Becasue the media jumped on this faulty report, sales plumeted. Then the line was canceld here in the US.

First they tried to shame us by exhaust out put. Oh the AV has an ultra-low emisions rating. So they went for the religous shaming in 'what would Jesus drive'. No one bought into, instead they poked fun at it. So now they are turning to lieing about gas mileage.

Only if my AV was fully loaded down, carrying 6 passangers and towing a boat up a hill would I get sustained gas mileage in the low teens - IMHO. Our hwy gas mileage is hovering around the mid 17-18 currently. I know that I am not alone on this either.
 
Just wanted to send post a thank-you to those who are taking action to respond. I do agree with a previous post that mentioned that some people will believe anything they read.
I also can't understand the logic of using a gasoline that is difficult to find in most U.S. states. I thought tests were supposed to be based on what users encounter in an everyday situation.
Here is an interesting question that I would like to post to people reading this thread. What do you think gas guzzler ratings would be if the mpg read as a ratio to the weight of the vehicle? It would be interesting to see which companies actually pull off more fuel-efficient engines. After all, if an engine can push an extra 1000 lbs. for virtually no loss in fuel-efficiency, wouldn't that translate into a stronger, more efficient engine? I'd like to see what that top 10 list would be!
 
Awesomebase said:
Well, I'm glad that someone found out it was the difference in gasoline types. ?What I can't figure out is why the Toyota Land Cruiser wasn't on the list. ?That vehicle is a notorious gas guzzler and is rated somewhere around 11/13.
Click to expand...

Glad I could help, your post got me interested and so I downloaded the fuel economy guide through the EPA site and done some reading. ?As has been said earlier they have clearly not compared apples to apples.

As for the Toyota Land Cruiser, it is listed in the guide with the following details;

Maker - Toyota
Model - Land Cruiser Wagon 4WD
Trans type/speeds - A-5 (is that right?? a 5 speed auto? )
Eng size/cylinders - 4.7/8 (is that right again?? an 8 cyl 4.7 litre? )
MPG City / Hwy - 13/17
Annual fuel cost - $1,660

It was by far the worst of the toyota models. ?:cool:

The report makes for some interesting reading if you want to see who else sucks the fuel...

Ferrari (enzo) Trans;A-6 ?Eng size/cyl; 6.0/12 MPG City/Hwy; 8/12..... it's only a two seater!!

Aston Martin (DB-7 Vantage Coupe) Trans;M-6 ?Eng size/cyl; 5.9/12 MPG City/Hwy; 11/18..... It's a minicompact car!!!

Ferrari (456 MGT) Trans;A-4 ?Eng size/cyl; 5.5/12 MPG City/Hwy; 10/15..... It's a sub compact car!!!

Bentley (Arnage) Trans;A-4 ?Eng size/cyl; 6.8/8 MPG Ciyt/Hwy; 10/14..... It's only a midsize.

Ford (F150 pickup 2WD bi-fuel) Trans;A-4 ?Eng size/cyl; 5.4/8 MPG City/Hwy; 11/15..... Maybe they forgot that one. ?:rolleyes:


 
I loaded up MSN Messenger today and at the bottom where there is usually an ad, today had the picture of the yellow sports car and the link for the Gas Guzzler article mentioned in here.

They're really going out of their way to make sure people see this article.

David
 
I know my driving habits are out of the ordinary because of all the highway driving i do, but i still get 18.5 to 19.2 on the highway and 14.5 in and around town. These guys really showed their stuff on that article...
Do you think he has a large quanity of Ford stock.
I noticed it showed the GMC sierra at lower than the AV.. dugh.........................EARTH TO MISTER FLYNNNNNN,, COME IN
ZEEYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
 
Well ya made me do it. I went over and posted a nice letter also. Was not rude, just stated the facts that they are quoting 2 different things on their site. In their reviews they give the factory rated mileage and i be danged if i could not believe what they posted on the top ten list. I have never got that bad even in town all week playing with the HPP3 :8:
I did bring up the fact in my letter that the Ford super crew 1/2 ton was not mentioned and all the guys i know down here get 15 on the highway.......... Somebody over there got a cousin at Ford or what..............
Earth to Flinn,,,,,,,,,,,,HELLOOOOOOOOOOO :7:
 
I received a response from MSN Auto. Here ya go;

Dear Mr. ,

When originally published, our story on the Top Ten Gas Guzzlers inadvertently excluded information that some of the vehicles were ranked by their EPA efficiency rating with E85 fuel (85% Ethanol).

We have republished the article noting EPA estimates for both E85 and traditional fuel where applicable.


Please look for additional articles on overall fuel efficiency coming soon from MSN Autos, and thank you for your comments.


The Editors of MSN Autos

Not much of an excuse for sloppy journalism and p-poor research.
 
:7:What is up with the media, can they get anything right?
New truck trend delivered today on there Long term updates for the vehicles they are testing gives good comments on the AV.
There Horsepower rating shows the AV at 252@6100 rpms................what is wrong with this quote??????????
6100 rpmssssssss?????????????
they did get the Horsepower rating correct on the GMC denali quadrasteer with 325@5000 rpms,,,,,,,,that is a little more like it..
I don't know where they come up with the )(*&(^^*^
Of all the articles they have had on the 5.3 they have all showed the 285, they must have been looking at 2 screens when they printed this one out...........
what next???????????
One of their statements was "The exterior styling is tough to swallow" another being "While not everyone is charmed with its looks"............I think this is why i like the Avalanche so much "IT MAKES A STATEMENT" And i guess they are right not everybody likes it, but i love it.........
ZEEYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA





 
I got my reply as well and I checked out their website. :7: All they did was add the gas estimates. They did not included any of the vehicles that the EPA had in their list ie the Dodge RAM and Ford.

-Nice job MSN

Rondo
 
Time for another round of letters, me thinks. You would think that after a bunch of complaints that they would try to make a legitimate effort to fix it. Instead, we get an apples to oranges comparison. After all, the article was titled "Gas Guzzlers". Why are they skewing the results by using the GM products ethanol numbers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top