Seriously, though....did you really expect this anonymous blogger to give his real name so he could win the prize? If he did, he's an idiot who deserves to be outed.
The only problem with that is, I believe no single Tor node knows where the communication originated, except the one it actually originated at, and it ain't tellin'.
So even if a government controlled all Tor exit nodes in the country, it has no way of knowing whether the communication coming to that node originated 1 hop, 3 hops, or 27 hops away. Or even if it originated in the country in question.
Both of these are very nebulous, and virtually impossible to truly measure.
Is your customer satisfied because you did a good job? Or because the last company they had to deal with was their communications provider who basically said "You don't owe that money? Well, we say you do. Pay up."
Have you not had any serious problems because IT is proactive at preventing them? Or just because your setup negates most of the big problems that hit the news recently?
I frequently find that the idiot IT guy who gets people back up and running after a major worm infection, enabled by said IT guy's lack of security patching, gets much higher kudos than the one that did all the preventive maintenance beforehand, and didn't get their users infected in the first place.
Just need to upgrade your network and disk I/O. I get 14, easy.:-)
Seriously, though...I think the submitter is right. You should be trying to reduce the total number of tickets, but then you've got to be wary of trying to improve your performance score by saying "That's too small an issue to be opening a ticket for. I'll just ignore it/fix it on my lunch break/tell the user to bugger off."
I don't think any single metric is useful. Probably something like:
average # of tickets open X 2 + average hours from open to close X 5 + # of security breaches in past year X 100 + # of times with no open tickets in past week X 1 =
your IT performance score. Obviously, lower is better. Change the weightings to your preference, and if you'd rather a higher number be better, divide 10 by your result.
Surely somebody's got some formula like this already. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some obscure standard somewhere that nobody uses because it'll make management look bad......
Being in running condition after massive abuse is loosely correlated with durability, and therefore reliability.
No, nobody runs over a car with a bulldozer and expects to still drive it. Nobody dumps a truck in the North Sea for 12 hours and expects to drive it, either, but the import fans seem adamant to use that as an example of the reliability of Toyota.
There's a massive double standard here, and it pisses me off.
Abuse a Toyota = look how reliable it is. Abuse a Buick = nobody does that to cars. Who the hell cares?
I did a similar post a while ago about the economy of my Chevy, and a number of people stated that 30MPH highway, roll-away start, no traffic, no air conditioning, windows up in a Honda Insight should be compared to my Chevy during normal city driving, and "look how much more efficient the Insight is! GM sucks!"
I admit there are domestic fanbois who are just as bad. I'm more of a performance guy myself. Economy isn't the be all end all. I'd rather have immediate power as soon as I tip my foot into the pedal. On that note, the Supra is a really fast car. But every import commuter car that I've ever driven is sluggish as crap below 3500RPM. The Supra is an anomaly in it's performance, as far as Japanese cars go.
But GM has some cars that get very good fuel economy. The comparisons that are usually done by the import fans though, are things like a Honda Insight or Toyota Echo to a GMC Envoy.
Of course the car is going to get better mileage. Try putting a Chevy Optra up against a Honda Pilot and see what happens.
Make your comparisons apples-to-apples, and I won't have a problem with it. On some, the imports will come out ahead. On others, domestics will win. Mid-size fuel economy comes to mind. The Malibu hybrid wins the class hands down.
But don't do these BS lopsided comparisons and expect me to just roll over and take it.
I'm pretty good at finding recalls? All I did was type "Toyota safety recall" into Google. It's not that difficult.
And the Saturn Vue rear suspension collapse was hardly "under normal driving conditions." It only ever happened under aggressive, abrupt lane changes at high speed. Besides...that is something that was being investigated by the NHTSA prior to 2006, and no safety recall has ever been issued for it. If it was even a remote problem on even a small number of vehicles, there would have been a recall. There hasn't been one, after 3-4 years, so we can pretty much conclude that it was either a one time thing, or somebody had previously modified the suspension, then complained that it failed when he did something stupid on the highway.
Then there's the Ford tire problem that you quote. If you remember, which you obviously don't, you'll recall that the problem was nothing to do with the vehicle, but rather, was a tire problem. That was a Firestone manufacturing defect. Not a Ford one. And then, it only manifested itself when people did not check tire pressure and ran for a significant period of time on a very under pressurized tire. Maybe I'll buy a Honda, not change the oil for 20,000 miles, and when the engine fails, I can conclusively state that Honda builds shit engines, because when you don't maintain them, they fail. That makes about as much sense as what you're claiming here....
and the ascendancy of Toyota to the #1 manufacturer.
You mean the Toyota that builds cars where the power windows may shatter, flinging glass in the drivers face, when you put them up or down? (Which, incidentally, also affects certain Pontiac vehicles that were manufactured in part by Toyota...) http://www.automotive.com/2004/49/toyota/corolla/recalls/77773.html
Well, the most smoke-spewing, oil-belching 80's car that I know of were the Chrysler minivans.
But that was only when they had...get this...a Japanese engine.
The domestic Chrysler engines ran fine. The 2.6 Mitsubishi engine was a piece of crap that burned oil, blew head gaskets, and overall gave Chrysler a bad reputation.
You sound like someone covering their ears and shouting "lalalalala" when somebody gives you irrefutable proof that you're wrong. "It can't be right, because it disagrees with my preconceived notions! Go away!"
Oh...you mean the Toyota that they kind of dent a little with a wrecking ball that swings 10 feet, then say "Ooooh! Look how tough it is! It's dented, and it still starts!!!"
That Toyota - I watched that vid a year or so ago - had a nice cushion of falling concrete when it dropped from the sky scraper, which is possibly the worst test it had. After all of it, the wrecking ball, the sky scraper, the North Sea; it still looked like a truck.
That Buick looks like it's been...well, run over with a bulldozer. It doesn't look like a car anymore. There's virtually no body left, all the electrical systems are nearly destroyed, there are no rear wheels, and the thing still fucking drives.
Besides....mechanical engineers are not auto mechanics. My auto mechanic says the best minivan to get, bar none, is a Chrysler. Not a Honda, Toyota, or anything import. A Chrysler.
But you're making a blanket statement that all American cars are crap, and all Japanese ones are good. Remember the 90's Civic del Sol? Worst body integrity in the industry, according to Consumer Reports. How about the first Civic to sell in North America? It was crap. Absolute crap.
Every company goes through periods of good products, then periods of crap. Look at MS. Windows 3.0, crap. 3.1, not bad. 3.11 WfW, pretty good. 95, crap. 95 OSR2, reasonable. 98, reasonable. 98SE, pretty good. Me, crap. 2K, pretty good. XP, pretty good. Vista, crap.
For MS, that cycle seems to be about 5-6 years long. For car manufacturers, it's more like 40 years. Well, the domestics had their latest crap period in the late 80's, early 90's. The Japanese imports had it in the late 60's and 70's.
That means the Japanese are due sooner for their next period of crap than the domestics are.
Quality manufacturing. Yeah. You mean like the car that can have the hood removed, then get run over, end-to-end - twice - by a 20 ton bulldozer, and then not only still start up, but still drive? After cutting the roof off to get somewhere to sit, of course....
For the same reason we'll allow tens of thousands to die every year in auto accidents due to driver error but we'd never consider automating driving because maybe somebody might die every year or two due to a computer error.
That's nothing to do with it. At least, not for me.
I don't want my driving automated because I enjoy the act of driving. Giving a computer the job would make every drive I take seem sterile and boring. Now, if you wanted to automate the driving of anybody who's caused an accident in the past, say, 10 years, so they can't do it again, then sure, I'm all for it.
But then you've got the problem that when you cause an accident, don't drive for 10 years, then get your manual control back....then you're a crappy driver who's caused an accident, and you're 10 years out of practice to boot. Not exactly the best situation...
Hey, if you're reading this script kiddies, get out of the country NOW.
If this story is true, I doubt it's the work of script kiddies. They have info about every single server of T-Mobile's, which is much more than just "Huh huh huh...I got him to open my virus by claiming it was Cornholio!! Huh huh huh..."
And my second point....what makes you think they're in the country in the first place?
I do realize that. And I'm quite sure I've got a plum (opposite of a lemon, if you haven't heard the term before).
That car is rated 21MPG combined, 32 highway. I get about 35-36 highway, and 21 combined, but I drive it pretty hard in town sometimes.
But that makes the normal highway -> 50MPG gap only 14MPG. Also, hybrids typically do poorer in real world highway driving than EPA economy, due to the fact - from my understanding - that the short EPA test doesn't discharge the batteries enough to really need the engine, whereas driving 200 miles to the next big city does. So it's probably more like 40MPG to 67MPG for the Honda.
So no, my car is probably not a perfect example, but it's still a GM product, and it still does incredibly good on fuel when driven in a miserly way. Now, on the other hand, if I'm pushing it hard, according to the fuel economy gauge, I'm getting 6 MPG. Which is probably pretty accurate when I'm flat to the floor.....:)
I wasn't hypermiling. I enjoy my power too much for that. That is, after all, why I drive an Impala.:)
This was simply an experiment to see how good my economy could get, driving in the same fashion as the guy in the Honda on Youtube did.
Very gentle acceleration, top speed of 30MPH or so, no air, windows up, don't touch the brakes unless you have to stop.
I have a feeling everybody thinks I meant my town/highway average mileage for regular driving was 50MPG. If I read that, I'd think bullshit, too. But that's not what I claimed. My in town mileage on that car the way I normally drive is around 21. My highway mileage for normal driving is roughly 35.
But it's possible, using fuel-efficient driving, to run over 50MPG for a single trip with a full-size domestic car. That's what I was claiming.
First reference: not the same car as mine. Second reference: the 27 MPG one isn't the same car as mine. Third reference: there isn't a 27MPG rating for any 2000 Impala.
Now, before bashing me any more, go and watch the Youtube video.
Do you question a 67MPG rating from a Honda Insight? You should. According to the EPA, that car only gets ~50MPG highway. But by driving at only 30MPH, with no air conditioning, the windows up, and rolling away from the stop at barely more than a "let your foot off the brakes" acceleration rate, he managed to get an extra 17MPG.
So with my Impala, which is rated @ 32MPG highway, if I drive the same way - no air, windows up, barely accelerating, and not breaking 30MPH - why is it so difficult to believe that I'd get the same 17MPG increase to 50MPG?
Well, for a start, the car you referenced doesn't even have the same engine as mine, and it's also claiming 21MPG combined, not highway, which is what I claimed in my first post. For highway, the 3.8 gets 27MPG, according to your own reference.
According to the EPA rating on the MotorTrend website the 3.4 V6, which is what I have, gets 32MPG highway. That will be 55MPH driving, and pretty damned close to my 35MPG @50-55MPH.
First lesson: don't jump to conclusions, and assume I have the most powerful version of said car.
Now, when I drop down to 30MPH, my fuel economy increases significantly, probably due to the "frontal area of a barn door" I mentioned. At that, I get 50+MPG.
If you want to argue with me, fine, but don't pull out all sorts of irrelevant or apples-to-oranges references to support your point.
If I drive on the highway @ 50-55MPH, I get 35MPG. And that's from calculations based on fuel usage and distance, not some random estimation.
Dropping the speed to 30MPH or less, as they did in the video for the Honda, I break 50MPG, according to the instant MPG reading - which is the exact same test they did in the Honda. And incidentally, my instant readout agrees with my fuel/mileage calculations at 35MPG, too.
"But that can't be right, because he's driving a GM, and everybody knows GM products get no better than single digits! DOWNMOD!!"
This is steady highway driving @ about 30MPH, which is exactly what the Honda driver did to get 67MPG in the video I referenced, and I get over 50MPG.
Lying? Hardly.
Maybe you didn't actually read what I posted: "every little thing they could do to get every inch out of the fuel they're using." That doesn't mean ramming your foot down until you're doing 70MPH.
Slashdot Mirror
So maybe they got the wrong guy? :-)
Seriously, though....did you really expect this anonymous blogger to give his real name so he could win the prize? If he did, he's an idiot who deserves to be outed.
Pants. My favorite example is pants. Many crimes are very hard to commit without pants.
Except flashing your privates in public. :)
The only problem with that is, I believe no single Tor node knows where the communication originated, except the one it actually originated at, and it ain't tellin'.
So even if a government controlled all Tor exit nodes in the country, it has no way of knowing whether the communication coming to that node originated 1 hop, 3 hops, or 27 hops away. Or even if it originated in the country in question.
I'm sure I've moderated and posted anonymously on the same story before.
I don't think I had to log out to do it.
Both of these are very nebulous, and virtually impossible to truly measure.
Is your customer satisfied because you did a good job? Or because the last company they had to deal with was their communications provider who basically said "You don't owe that money? Well, we say you do. Pay up."
Have you not had any serious problems because IT is proactive at preventing them? Or just because your setup negates most of the big problems that hit the news recently?
I frequently find that the idiot IT guy who gets people back up and running after a major worm infection, enabled by said IT guy's lack of security patching, gets much higher kudos than the one that did all the preventive maintenance beforehand, and didn't get their users infected in the first place.
Just need to upgrade your network and disk I/O. I get 14, easy. :-)
Seriously, though...I think the submitter is right. You should be trying to reduce the total number of tickets, but then you've got to be wary of trying to improve your performance score by saying "That's too small an issue to be opening a ticket for. I'll just ignore it/fix it on my lunch break/tell the user to bugger off."
I don't think any single metric is useful. Probably something like:
average # of tickets open X 2 +
average hours from open to close X 5 +
# of security breaches in past year X 100 +
# of times with no open tickets in past week X 1 =
your IT performance score. Obviously, lower is better. Change the weightings to your preference, and if you'd rather a higher number be better, divide 10 by your result.
Surely somebody's got some formula like this already. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some obscure standard somewhere that nobody uses because it'll make management look bad......
Being in running condition after massive abuse is loosely correlated with durability, and therefore reliability.
No, nobody runs over a car with a bulldozer and expects to still drive it. Nobody dumps a truck in the North Sea for 12 hours and expects to drive it, either, but the import fans seem adamant to use that as an example of the reliability of Toyota.
There's a massive double standard here, and it pisses me off.
Abuse a Toyota = look how reliable it is.
Abuse a Buick = nobody does that to cars. Who the hell cares?
I did a similar post a while ago about the economy of my Chevy, and a number of people stated that 30MPH highway, roll-away start, no traffic, no air conditioning, windows up in a Honda Insight should be compared to my Chevy during normal city driving, and "look how much more efficient the Insight is! GM sucks!"
I admit there are domestic fanbois who are just as bad. I'm more of a performance guy myself. Economy isn't the be all end all. I'd rather have immediate power as soon as I tip my foot into the pedal. On that note, the Supra is a really fast car. But every import commuter car that I've ever driven is sluggish as crap below 3500RPM. The Supra is an anomaly in it's performance, as far as Japanese cars go.
But GM has some cars that get very good fuel economy. The comparisons that are usually done by the import fans though, are things like a Honda Insight or Toyota Echo to a GMC Envoy.
Of course the car is going to get better mileage. Try putting a Chevy Optra up against a Honda Pilot and see what happens.
Make your comparisons apples-to-apples, and I won't have a problem with it. On some, the imports will come out ahead. On others, domestics will win. Mid-size fuel economy comes to mind. The Malibu hybrid wins the class hands down.
But don't do these BS lopsided comparisons and expect me to just roll over and take it.
I didn't say it was mine, because that would be a lie.
It's not mine.
Where did you get the idea that it was mine?
It's not some random person on a forum.
I know the guy. He lives in my home town.
I'm pretty good at finding recalls?
All I did was type "Toyota safety recall" into Google. It's not that difficult.
And the Saturn Vue rear suspension collapse was hardly "under normal driving conditions." It only ever happened under aggressive, abrupt lane changes at high speed.
Besides...that is something that was being investigated by the NHTSA prior to 2006, and no safety recall has ever been issued for it. If it was even a remote problem on even a small number of vehicles, there would have been a recall. There hasn't been one, after 3-4 years, so we can pretty much conclude that it was either a one time thing, or somebody had previously modified the suspension, then complained that it failed when he did something stupid on the highway.
Then there's the Ford tire problem that you quote.
If you remember, which you obviously don't, you'll recall that the problem was nothing to do with the vehicle, but rather, was a tire problem. That was a Firestone manufacturing defect. Not a Ford one.
And then, it only manifested itself when people did not check tire pressure and ran for a significant period of time on a very under pressurized tire.
Maybe I'll buy a Honda, not change the oil for 20,000 miles, and when the engine fails, I can conclusively state that Honda builds shit engines, because when you don't maintain them, they fail.
That makes about as much sense as what you're claiming here....
and the ascendancy of Toyota to the #1 manufacturer.
You mean the Toyota that builds cars where the power windows may shatter, flinging glass in the drivers face, when you put them up or down? (Which, incidentally, also affects certain Pontiac vehicles that were manufactured in part by Toyota...)
http://www.automotive.com/2004/49/toyota/corolla/recalls/77773.html
Or the Toyota that builds cars where the wheels might fall of when you're driving, due to crappy rims?
http://www.automotive.com/2004/49/toyota/corolla/recalls/66552.html
Or maybe the Toyota that builds cars where that nice safety feature called an air bag just plain doesn't work?
http://www.automotive.com/2007/49/toyota/camry/recalls/50400.html
Yes, I have. And it doesn't even come close to the abuse this Buick takes.
I was right. You're an idiot.
A giant tupperware tub? Really? That's the best you could come up with?
When every Honda and Toyota I've been in recently looks like it was made by Fisher Price, but maybe without the horrendous colours?
I haven't seen a Japanese car from _any_ manufacturer recently that didn't look like plastic puked inside, and you're bitching about the domestics?
And another thing....either your sig line or your homepage link completely borks the formatting of your posts. Fix it.
Well, the most smoke-spewing, oil-belching 80's car that I know of were the Chrysler minivans.
But that was only when they had...get this...a Japanese engine.
The domestic Chrysler engines ran fine. The 2.6 Mitsubishi engine was a piece of crap that burned oil, blew head gaskets, and overall gave Chrysler a bad reputation.
You sound like someone covering their ears and shouting "lalalalala" when somebody gives you irrefutable proof that you're wrong.
"It can't be right, because it disagrees with my preconceived notions! Go away!"
Oh...you mean the Toyota that they kind of dent a little with a wrecking ball that swings 10 feet, then say "Ooooh! Look how tough it is! It's dented, and it still starts!!!"
That Toyota - I watched that vid a year or so ago - had a nice cushion of falling concrete when it dropped from the sky scraper, which is possibly the worst test it had.
After all of it, the wrecking ball, the sky scraper, the North Sea; it still looked like a truck.
That Buick looks like it's been...well, run over with a bulldozer. It doesn't look like a car anymore. There's virtually no body left, all the electrical systems are nearly destroyed, there are no rear wheels, and the thing still fucking drives.
Besides....mechanical engineers are not auto mechanics. My auto mechanic says the best minivan to get, bar none, is a Chrysler. Not a Honda, Toyota, or anything import. A Chrysler.
But you're making a blanket statement that all American cars are crap, and all Japanese ones are good.
Remember the 90's Civic del Sol? Worst body integrity in the industry, according to Consumer Reports.
How about the first Civic to sell in North America? It was crap. Absolute crap.
Every company goes through periods of good products, then periods of crap. Look at MS. Windows 3.0, crap.
3.1, not bad.
3.11 WfW, pretty good.
95, crap.
95 OSR2, reasonable.
98, reasonable.
98SE, pretty good.
Me, crap.
2K, pretty good.
XP, pretty good.
Vista, crap.
For MS, that cycle seems to be about 5-6 years long.
For car manufacturers, it's more like 40 years.
Well, the domestics had their latest crap period in the late 80's, early 90's.
The Japanese imports had it in the late 60's and 70's.
That means the Japanese are due sooner for their next period of crap than the domestics are.
Like American car manufacturers to Honda/Toyota
Oh, not this shit again.
Quality manufacturing. Yeah. You mean like the car that can have the hood removed, then get run over, end-to-end - twice - by a 20 ton bulldozer, and then not only still start up, but still drive? After cutting the roof off to get somewhere to sit, of course....
Was it a Toyota? Honda? Maybe a Mitsubishi?
No.
It was a Buick.
Watch the vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwIHRWSULRs
That mangled piece of crap they show @ 1:45 still starts, runs and drives.
Honda and Toyota wouldn't even know how to start building a car that tough.
For the same reason we'll allow tens of thousands to die every year in auto accidents due to driver error but we'd never consider automating driving because maybe somebody might die every year or two due to a computer error.
That's nothing to do with it. At least, not for me.
I don't want my driving automated because I enjoy the act of driving. Giving a computer the job would make every drive I take seem sterile and boring.
Now, if you wanted to automate the driving of anybody who's caused an accident in the past, say, 10 years, so they can't do it again, then sure, I'm all for it.
But then you've got the problem that when you cause an accident, don't drive for 10 years, then get your manual control back....then you're a crappy driver who's caused an accident, and you're 10 years out of practice to boot. Not exactly the best situation...
Somebody downloaded WMA.Wimad in an audio file using Limewire on the control computer for the plane, right?
And then it bluescreened, and caused the plane to....errr....crash.
Hey, if you're reading this script kiddies, get out of the country NOW.
If this story is true, I doubt it's the work of script kiddies. They have info about every single server of T-Mobile's, which is much more than just "Huh huh huh...I got him to open my virus by claiming it was Cornholio!! Huh huh huh..."
And my second point....what makes you think they're in the country in the first place?
I do realize that. And I'm quite sure I've got a plum (opposite of a lemon, if you haven't heard the term before).
That car is rated 21MPG combined, 32 highway. I get about 35-36 highway, and 21 combined, but I drive it pretty hard in town sometimes.
But that makes the normal highway -> 50MPG gap only 14MPG.
Also, hybrids typically do poorer in real world highway driving than EPA economy, due to the fact - from my understanding - that the short EPA test doesn't discharge the batteries enough to really need the engine, whereas driving 200 miles to the next big city does. So it's probably more like 40MPG to 67MPG for the Honda.
So no, my car is probably not a perfect example, but it's still a GM product, and it still does incredibly good on fuel when driven in a miserly way. :)
Now, on the other hand, if I'm pushing it hard, according to the fuel economy gauge, I'm getting 6 MPG. Which is probably pretty accurate when I'm flat to the floor.....
I wasn't hypermiling. I enjoy my power too much for that. That is, after all, why I drive an Impala. :)
This was simply an experiment to see how good my economy could get, driving in the same fashion as the guy in the Honda on Youtube did.
Very gentle acceleration, top speed of 30MPH or so, no air, windows up, don't touch the brakes unless you have to stop.
I have a feeling everybody thinks I meant my town/highway average mileage for regular driving was 50MPG. If I read that, I'd think bullshit, too.
But that's not what I claimed. My in town mileage on that car the way I normally drive is around 21. My highway mileage for normal driving is roughly 35.
But it's possible, using fuel-efficient driving, to run over 50MPG for a single trip with a full-size domestic car. That's what I was claiming.
First reference: not the same car as mine.
Second reference: the 27 MPG one isn't the same car as mine.
Third reference: there isn't a 27MPG rating for any 2000 Impala.
Now, before bashing me any more, go and watch the Youtube video.
Do you question a 67MPG rating from a Honda Insight?
You should. According to the EPA, that car only gets ~50MPG highway.
But by driving at only 30MPH, with no air conditioning, the windows up, and rolling away from the stop at barely more than a "let your foot off the brakes" acceleration rate, he managed to get an extra 17MPG.
So with my Impala, which is rated @ 32MPG highway, if I drive the same way - no air, windows up, barely accelerating, and not breaking 30MPH - why is it so difficult to believe that I'd get the same 17MPG increase to 50MPG?
And "because it's a GM" isn't good enough.
Well, for a start, the car you referenced doesn't even have the same engine as mine, and it's also claiming 21MPG combined, not highway, which is what I claimed in my first post. For highway, the 3.8 gets 27MPG, according to your own reference.
According to the EPA rating on the MotorTrend website the 3.4 V6, which is what I have, gets 32MPG highway. That will be 55MPH driving, and pretty damned close to my 35MPG @50-55MPH.
First lesson: don't jump to conclusions, and assume I have the most powerful version of said car.
Now, when I drop down to 30MPH, my fuel economy increases significantly, probably due to the "frontal area of a barn door" I mentioned. At that, I get 50+MPG.
If you want to argue with me, fine, but don't pull out all sorts of irrelevant or apples-to-oranges references to support your point.
If I drive on the highway @ 50-55MPH, I get 35MPG. And that's from calculations based on fuel usage and distance, not some random estimation.
Dropping the speed to 30MPH or less, as they did in the video for the Honda, I break 50MPG, according to the instant MPG reading - which is the exact same test they did in the Honda. And incidentally, my instant readout agrees with my fuel/mileage calculations at 35MPG, too.
"But that can't be right, because he's driving a GM, and everybody knows GM products get no better than single digits! DOWNMOD!!"
I get 20MPG in town.
This is steady highway driving @ about 30MPH, which is exactly what the Honda driver did to get 67MPG in the video I referenced, and I get over 50MPG.
Lying? Hardly.
Maybe you didn't actually read what I posted: "every little thing they could do to get every inch out of the fuel they're using."
That doesn't mean ramming your foot down until you're doing 70MPH.