Review: 2008 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD

[ifcar]

But you have no grounds to make such a claim about a different kind of motor in a heavier duty truck.  You have no two comparables.  I agree with Roy.  Take the paragraphs out if you can't substantiate them.  Speculation is what people do in gossip magazines. 

Unless it is strictly stated as an editorial piece, use data where it calls for data.

Big engine + big truck = low mileage. I wouldn't speculate how many miles per gallon, but I can certainly with total certainty that its mileage is low.

Though I don't see why an editorial would be held to any different standard.

[the Teuton]

It shouldn't be.  You should substantiate your claims with facts.

[TBR]

Big engine + big truck = low mileage. I wouldn't speculate how many miles per gallon, but I can certainly with total certainty that its mileage is low.

Though I don't see why an editorial would be held to any different standard.

Then say that it gets bad fuel mileage. The 1500 is entirely irrelevant to that.

[Minpin]

What is the plural of RPM?

Isn't it already plural?

Revolutions per Minute.


Sounds pretty plural to me....

[Eye of the Tiger]

What about 1 RPM...

[giant_mtb]

Isn't it already plural?

Revolutions per Minute.


Sounds pretty plural to me....

I know.  I was nit-picking because in the article, iffy says "The big ?Duramax? diesel engine can feel sluggish but builds speed deceptively quickly and acceptably quietly, helped by diesel?s low rpms."

Not sure why Duramax is in quotes, either.  That's like putting "LS7" or "Chevrolet" in such a way.

[ifcar]

I know.  I was nit-picking because in the article, iffy says "The big ?Duramax? diesel engine can feel sluggish but builds speed deceptively quickly and acceptably quietly, helped by diesel?s low rpms."

Not sure why Duramax is in quotes, either.  That's like putting "LS7" or "Chevrolet" in such a way.

I'll do that when it's something likely to be unfamiliar to a reader. I reach a lot of non-experts. So I would likely have put "LS7," or "Epsilon II," in quotes.

[S204STi]

I'll do that when it's something likely to be unfamiliar to a reader. I reach a lot of non-experts. So I would likely have put "LS7," or "Epsilon II," in quotes.

By capitalizing it aren't you already indicating a proper noun?  (Or at least an official name).  Simply placing it in quotes doesn't make it any less ambiguous to the reader, who should be expected at any rate to do some followup research on what the Duramax is.  Either that, or use the space in your blog entry to explain it for your reader.  For example, "The 6.6L Duramax engine is a turbocharged and intercooled V8 diesel making XXXhp and XXXft/lbs of torque and is the corporate diesel engine for all GM light and medium duty trucks."  Maybe that itself needs work, and I know you said something to that effect in the article, but it isn't necessary to dumb things down for your readers.  Take the approach used by Consumer Reports; they deal in the bare bones facts with enough elaboration to give the passing reader at least somewhat of an understanding of what they just read.

In fact, I believe your earlier blog entries reflect that style much better than they have lately.  Recent reviews have seen you referring to yourself, have seen more editorializing, and have seen more of these interesting journalistic faux pas than your earlier material.  Maybe you want this blog to become an opinion piece.  Or maybe you're just looking to add some color do your articles, but I think you should consider sitting down and figuring out just what you want and expect from yourself, and then stick to those guidelines.  Either that or consider having someone you personally know and trust for their journalistic acumen proofread and edit your blog entries for you.  That's a normal part of journalism anyway, from what I've heard, so maybe now it is good time to start getting used to being accountable to someone else.

[Tave]

I agree that you need to address the fuel efficiency comment. It's bad form. You can't give one product a negative review based on your prior experience with a completely different product. That's ethically unsound.

If you feel the need to point out the fact that pickups generally don't get great gas mileage compared to cars, then do so, but the way you did it isn't right.



Would you write this:

"One sore spot on the new Chevy Malibu is fuel economy. This thing is a gas hog. The last Impala I tested recorded 13 in city, 17 on the highway."

?


Of course you wouldn't. It sounds stupid.

[ifcar]

By capitalizing it aren't you already indicating a proper noun?  (Or at least an official name).  Simply placing it in quotes doesn't make it any less ambiguous to the reader, who should be expected at any rate to do some followup research on what the Duramax is.  Either that, or use the space in your blog entry to explain it for your reader.  For example, "The 6.6L Duramax engine is a turbocharged and intercooled V8 diesel making XXXhp and XXXft/lbs of torque and is the corporate diesel engine for all GM light and medium duty trucks."  Maybe that itself needs work, and I know you said something to that effect in the article, but it isn't necessary to dumb things down for your readers.  Take the approach used by Consumer Reports; they deal in the bare bones facts with enough elaboration to give the passing reader at least somewhat of an understanding of what they just read.

In fact, I believe your earlier blog entries reflect that style much better than they have lately.  Recent reviews have seen you referring to yourself, have seen more editorializing, and have seen more of these interesting journalistic faux pas than your earlier material.  Maybe you want this blog to become an opinion piece.  Or maybe you're just looking to add some color do your articles, but I think you should consider sitting down and figuring out just what you want and expect from yourself, and then stick to those guidelines.  Either that or consider having someone you personally know and trust for their journalistic acumen proofread and edit your blog entries for you.  That's a normal part of journalism anyway, from what I've heard, so maybe now it is good time to start getting used to being accountable to someone else.

The review is supposed to be personal. Any review is a pure opinion piece.

Tave, inferring is common practice when no other data is available, as long as it's made clear that it's an inference. For gas mileage, for example something commonly mentioned is how the previous generation did when a car is redesigned.

[giant_mtb]

When was the last time you put quotations around any proper noun, regardless of whether or not somebody may or may not know what it is?

[TBR]

The review is supposed to be personal. Any review is a pure opinion piece.

Tave, inferring is common practice when no other data is available, as long as it's made clear that it's an inference. For gas mileage, for example something commonly mentioned is how the previous generation did when a car is redesigned.

Your inference is a huge stretch. The 1500 is much lighter and has an entirely different powertrain.

[ifcar]

When was the last time you put quotations around any proper noun, regardless of whether or not somebody may or may not know what it is?

I just use it to signify "no, it's a term you're expected to know."

[S204STi]

The review is supposed to be personal. Any review is a pure opinion piece.

Maybe so, but when factual claims are made I believe they should be substantiated. 

[ifcar]

Maybe so, but when factual claims are made I believe they should be substantiated. 

Indisputable fact: the Silverado 2500HD and all other full-size pickup trucks get low gas mileage.

[S204STi]

Indisputable fact: the Silverado 2500HD and all other full-size pickup trucks get low gas mileage.

Got numbers?

[Tave]

Indisputable fact: the Silverado 2500HD and all other full-size pickup trucks get low gas mileage.

You don't get it.

People aren't questioning the assertion that 3/4 tons use a lot of gas.

They're criticizing your inclusion of the 1500 gasoline V8 numbers.

[S204STi]

You don't get it.

People aren't questioning the assertion that 3/4 tons use a lot of gas.

They're criticizing your inclusion of the 1500 gasoline V8 numbers.

Basically the article is inferring fuel economy numbers based on a different model, different engine, etc. which is kinda lazy and completely useless information.

[ifcar]

Got numbers?

The only diesel numbers I've ever seen are from a Consumer Reports comparison a couple of years ago of 2008-model crew cab half-tons to 3/4-tons. In their testing, the Silverado 1500 5.3-liter got 15 miles per gallon, the F-150 5.4 got 14, the Ram 1500 5.7 got 13, while the Silverado 2500HD, F-250, and Ram 2500 diesels got 13, 10, and 10, respectively.

That makes me confident enough to say that they get low mileage, and I use the other Silverado to give ballpark contest of full-size pickup gas mileage.

[S204STi]

The only diesel numbers I've ever seen are from a Consumer Reports comparison a couple of years ago of 2008-model crew cab half-tons to 3/4-tons. In their testing, the Silverado 1500 5.3-liter got 15 miles per gallon, the F-150 5.4 got 14, the Ram 1500 5.7 got 13, while the Silverado 2500HD, F-250, and Ram 2500 diesels got 13, 10, and 10, respectively.

That makes me confident enough to say that they get low mileage, and I use the other Silverado to give ballpark contest of full-size pickup gas mileage.

Why didn't you include numbers in your article if it was that easy to dig some up?  Even EPA numbers are easy to find.

[ifcar]

Why didn't you include numbers in your article if it was that easy to dig some up?  Even EPA numbers are easy to find.

The EPA didn't rate the Silverado 2500, or I would have used the numbers, and CR gets pissy about other reviewers using their stuff.

[S204STi]

The EPA didn't rate the Silverado 2500, or I would have used the numbers, and CR gets pissy about other reviewers using their stuff.

Oh yeah, you already mentioned that the EPA doesn't rate those trucks. 

Well then I guess that means that making factual claims without support is easier, so let's stick with that.

[the Teuton]

Editorializing supposed facts in the name of substantiation of claims is not cool.  Journalists get fired for that kind of shit all the time.

And no, a review is not completely opinion-based.  If this is truly a review, it needs to have more merit behind it.

[ifcar]

Editorializing supposed facts in the name of substantiation of claims is not cool.  Journalists get fired for that kind of shit all the time.

And no, a review is not completely opinion-based.  If this is truly a review, it needs to have more merit behind it.

It's not a "supposed fact." It's true. Inarguable.

[S204STi]

It's not a "supposed fact." It's true. Inarguable.

Still not getting it. 

Based on this conversation I won't bothering to read your amateur blogs anymore.  There's nothing I can get from your articles that I can't get from reading any other car rag or countless other worthless pay-per-view internet blogs.  I'm done here.

[ifcar]

No, I understand what you're saying, I just don't think you're right. Providing a rough idea of what sort of mileage a full-size pickup gets -- that it's below 20 miles per gallon -- is necessary context for some people, even though it's very imprecise in this case. However, I went out of my way to avoid suggesting a specific number that the 2500 would get. Would it be clearer, do you think, to list a mileage range of the biggest trucks the EPA has data for without mentioning the Silverado 1500 specifically, or is that also unacceptable in your view?

Again, the only suggestions here have been to go back in time and record some mileage numbers on the truck I drove or to strike any mention of gas mileage. Neither is feasible.

[Tave]

Again, the only suggestions here have been to go back in time and record some mileage numbers on the truck I drove or to strike any mention of gas mileage. Neither is feasible.

That isn't true, but it doesn't matter, because it isn't our job to fix your article for you.

We identified a paragraph we think needs to be rewritten. Change it or keep it as is, but don't demand a solution from us. Don't tell us to do your job.


I think you need to learn to take our criticism if you're going to be peddling your blog on here. If that means you have to ignore us and not do anything we suggest....

Right now you're comming across as pissed-off and very unobjective.

[the Teuton]

Did I already mention that the Hummer H1 got better mileage than the H2?  Neither of them have "recorded" figures, but the diesel car is more efficient than its lighter gas cousin.

Speculation is not something good journalists do.

[ifcar]

Did I already mention that the Hummer H1 got better mileage than the H2?  Neither of them have "recorded" figures, but the diesel car is more efficient than its lighter gas cousin.

Speculation is not something good journalists do.

Yes, you did mention it. I asked for a source, because I don't believe it. I never saw one.

That isn't true, but it doesn't matter, because it isn't our job to fix your article for you.

We identified a paragraph we think needs to be rewritten. Change it or keep it as is, but don't demand a solution from us. Don't tell us to do your job.


I think you need to learn to take our criticism if you're going to be peddling your blog on here. If that means you have to ignore us and not do anything we suggest....

Right now you're comming across as pissed-off and very unobjective.

I would like to make a change if someone can suggest a change that doesn't eliminate the context of truck gas mileage. But no one has done that.

Just because we disagree doesn't make me wrong and you right either. I would and have made suggested changes I've seen on this and other forums, when I agree with them.

[TBR]

Just say that although you don't have specific numbers for this particular truck, in general full size trucks don't get good gas mileage and this one probably isn't an exception.