VO2 Max not reasonable

Go for a run instead. Then it will be a lot easier to reach 70% of max HR and keep it for at least 10 minutes.

I agree but unfortunately, I broke my right foot twice and cannot run.

It sill leaves the question why 33 ml/kg/min is considered to be bad.

It depends on your age 33 is average to good if you are older than 60 years. If you are a woman the rating is different.

5180222 said:

I agree but unfortunately, I broke my right foot twice and cannot run.

It sill leaves the question why 33 ml/kg/min is considered to be bad.

I would say, yes it is.
If you are not able to fast walk for 10 minutes and keep your HR over 70% of your HRMax it is not good.
I do couple runs per week, my HRMax is 180, and 80 to 90% of run time I have my HR above 70% of HRMax.
My VO2Max is estimated to 45 and I'm 53 years old.

Max HR is practically unrelated to fitness (unlike VO₂max). It only changes with age. In contrary to popular belief, Max HR can even slightly drop at highly trained persons (due to bigger and stronger heart).

I would not look at VO₂max at all in your case. It is not a metrics suitable for you, since you do not run. If you really want to follow your fitness with the help of VO₂max, and cannot run, then you could use the cycling VO₂max, though you need a bike with power meter (or use a indoor bike in a gym, accordingly equipped).

I know that and I rely on my LTHR and VO2Max not on HRMax. 
But question was about VO2Max and how it reflect to author fitness level and for me (of course we don’t know his age) this number is poor. 
Moreover when I do check VO2Max calculates for my walks (Runaluze) is showing such, they are similar to my run VO2Max. 

Agreed, male, almost 60 years old. The different sources I found have slightly different criteria but somewhere between average and good is what they say. My point is though why did Garmin implement this obviously quite different ? It looks sloppy imho.

Good point. Will look at the bikes in the gym today.

5180222 said:

My point is though why did Garmin implement this obviously quite different ? It looks sloppy imho.

I do not think it is sloppy. Garmin has the data from tens of millions of users. That's more than any scientific researchers can ever collect. Garmin's levels are likely based on their statistics. For example the top level "Excellent" represent the top 5% in given age and gender category.

Of course, the stats may be also little bit skewed by the fact that the watches are primarily used by people taking care about their health and fitness, hence having perhaps a bit higher VO₂max than the remaining population, but I think it is not necessarily bad thing comparing yourself to people alike.