Fuel efficiency drop in newer models ?

[viven44]

I’m a little bit use to paying for premium gas from before with my Camaro ZL1 but the Tahoe has about double the size of fuel capacity. I usually fill up with Top Tier rated gas from Costco 93 octane when I can or Sam’s Club 93 octane which was as low as $2.89 up to recently $3.39, on this trip gas was cheapest at $3.06.

Same here, Costco if possible always.. the 87 is usually 20-25% cheaper

 

[rlhmarines]

Just to add a little foot note to the fuel economy conversation, but while down in Florida I did notice that most of the gas stations had not 1 but 2 ethanol free gas rated pumps for regular and also for premium at each pump island. I guess it’s mostly due to increased demand for ethanol free gas for the high popularity of boats in the area.

edit: Gas locally just went up over 25 cents in the last 2 days for no apparent reason but Costco and Sam’s are still holding at the previous price level.

 

[vcode]

Premium is now a buck more here in SE WI. $3.80 vs $2.80. Plus we have to use reformulated crap.

 

[rlhmarines]

Premium is now a buck more here in SE WI. $3.80 vs $2.80. Plus we have to use reformulated crap.

It’s crazy especially when the price for a barrel of oil has dropped over $1.00 on the market due to a rise in our own oil supply here and also OPEC’s recent increase in production on the global markets.

 

[rlhmarines]

Premium is now a buck more here in SE WI. $3.80 vs $2.80. Plus we have to use reformulated crap.

I know from past experience when we lived in California during my military service that our fuel economy would suffer during the months we had to use reformulated gas and it smelled different also but we’re talking about a long time ago so hopefully it’s not that bad but it seems from your perspective it’s still seems like a hit on the fuel economy average.

 

[DuraYuk]

Makes no sense that the 5.3L is doing worse in fuel economy. I guess we can’t complain at least it gets us from point A to B without needing much TLC and on 87 octane.

All the 6.2L guys are going to need better fuel economy anyway to pay for premium gas and now premium oil

It does make sense. Efficiency is not just about engine size and power. If a bigger engine doesnt need to work as hard as a little one it will be efficient. This can be seen across a lot of brands especially when they use little 4 cylinders vs a v6. The v6 doesn't work as hard. Doesn't have to rev as much etc.

 

[viven44]

It does make sense. Efficiency is not just about engine size and power. If a bigger engine doesnt need to work as hard as a little one it will be efficient. This can be seen across a lot of brands especially when they use little 4 cylinders vs a v6. The v6 doesn't work as hard. Doesn't have to rev as much etc.

Yeah that's very true and could be...

Yes, most if not all manufacturers have moved onto small turbo engines with the claim to boost "fuel economy"... that's complete BS and we know it is to boost "the profit margins" as its cheaper to build a smaller engine and make it work harder and not last as long (sell more vehicles in the long run)... genius marketing move.... at least this is true on trucks as we know the fuel economy rating is almost the same on these small turbos as their V8 predecessors. The engine should be sized just right ..... too big and you will leave power on the table, and too small and you will work it harder (bad economy).

I just didn't expect (if it is true) for the 5.3L to be too small... maybe it is with DFM and all..

Incidentally, I want to make an observation that I don't find DFM working as often as the AFM on the 5.3L per my scanner.... but this needs to be validated some more

 

[DuraYuk]

Yeah that's very true and could be...

Yes, most if not all manufacturers have moved onto small turbo engines with the claim to boost "fuel economy"... that's complete BS and we know it is to boost "the profit margins" as its cheaper to build a smaller engine and make it work harder and not last as long (sell more vehicles in the long run)... genius marketing move.... at least this is true on trucks as we know the fuel economy rating is almost the same on these small turbos as their V8 predecessors. The engine should be sized just right ..... too big and you will leave power on the table, and too small and you will work it harder (bad economy).

I just didn't expect (if it is true) for the 5.3L to be too small... maybe it is with DFM and all..

Incidentally, I want to make an observation that I don't find DFM working as often as the AFM on the 5.3L per my scanner.... but this needs to be validated some more

Smaller turbo engines with dual over head cams are not cheaper to make than a larger naturally aspirated 4 cylinder or v6.

It is a quest to get more efficiency and power. The problem isn't the powerplant but the one size fits all approach. A company isn't making bespoke engines for every model. So in some cars the motor works great but in a heavier car the engine is more stressed and uses more gas.

Turbo charging engines have been a thing for decades and some of the most long lived reliable engines are boosted.

Contrary to popular belief the companies are not trying to sully their own reputation as thats all they really have. And so many makes cant shake it once the damage is done. For example toyota had to recall every engine for the tundra/lx600 because of them blowing up (debris inside etc) but because of their reputation no one really bats an eye.

Now similar thing with 6.2 but GM and everyone loses their minds.

The companies want their customers to have faith in their products so they become brand loyal. It would be stupid to ruin reputation to save 25cents. This is largely a conspiracy with no basis in reality.

Another example was the unintended acceleration in toyotas. It was determined that folks were putting floor Matt's on top of floor Matt's which would jam the accelerator. Rather than shift the blame to the customer they cut the accelerator in half to prevent some idiot from killing themselves even tho it was no fault of toyota. Again it's to preserve the reputation.

To be frank there is a lot of misinformation in this forum.

 

[Fless]

Another example was the unintended acceleration in toyotas. It was determined that folks were putting floor Matt's on top of floor Matt's which would jam the accelerator. Rather than shift the blame to the customer they cut the accelerator in half to prevent some idiot from killing themselves even tho it was no fault of toyota. Again it's to preserve the reputation.

I take it that you probably mean floor "mats," not floor Matthews.

 

[DuraYuk]

I take it that you probably mean floor "mats," not floor Matthews.

Are you sure i didn't mean floor Matthew's? Lol

My phone just autocorrects lmao