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

 

[Stbentoak]

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

That's a big gripe of mine and another big reason (Of many) why I won't own another vehicle that takes premium. It used to be .30 cents more a gallon, then .60, now a buck more a gallon is standard. That's flat out highway robbery. Any decent vehicle out there demands premium and usually gets pretty lousy mileage. That's why I was stuck with diesel the last 10 plus years...

Also, the reason Toyota didn't get blowback on the engine contamination issue is right out of the box they said "Hey we will just replace them all no problem". GM isn't doing that..... they're putting conditions and band aids on it to see what little they can get away with....

 

[DuraYuk]

That's a big gripe of mine and another big reason (Of many) why I won't own another vehicle that takes premium. It used to be .30 cents more a gallon, then .60, now a buck more a gallon is standard. That's flat out highway robbery. Any decent vehicle out there demands premium and usually gets pretty lousy mileage. That's why I was stuck with diesel the last 10 plus years...

Also, the reason Toyota didn't get blowback on the engine contamination issue is right out of the box they said "Hey we will just replace them all no problem". GM isn't doing that..... they're putting conditions and band aids on it to see what little they can get away with....

That's not true. People were having catastrophic engine failures and toyota was rebuilding them. It wasn't until consumer sentiment got soured that they said screw it. We are putting in new engines. It's to preserve the reputation.

 

[viven44]

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.

Its not a conspiracy. Obviously, nobody wants to sully their own reputation, THAT IDEA would be ignorant.... however, that doesn't mean the company's engineering decisions aren't ignorant ESPECIALLY if those fancy DOHC / Turbo engines are more expensive to manufacture.

Unfortunately, the generally public are easily swayed by fancy advertising gimmicks (ALL new twin-turbocharged Tundra!) but you can't fool a good engineer.

I don't care what vehicle it is but the data speaks for itself. On small cars turbocharging is only a means to make the vehicle more zippy when you hit the throttle by making it make torque at higher RPMs, not to make it fuel efficient, in fact quite the contrary, at the sacrifice of reliability in many cases.

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

If you are going to say that you'll need to be more specific, are you referring to well built tank-like diesel engines? or are you referring to light car/truck turbo engines ? The spectrum is wide and the ideas and end results don't necessarily carry over...

 

[DuraYuk]

Its not a conspiracy. Obviously, nobody wants to sully their own reputation, THAT IDEA would be ignorant.... however, that doesn't mean the company's engineering decisions aren't ignorant ESPECIALLY if those fancy DOHC / Turbo engines are more expensive to manufacture.

Unfortunately, the generally public are easily swayed by fancy advertising gimmicks (ALL new twin-turbocharged Tundra!) but you can't fool a good engineer.

I don't care what vehicle it is but the data speaks for itself. On small cars turbocharging is only a means to make the vehicle more zippy when you hit the throttle by making it make torque at higher RPMs, not to make it fuel efficient, in fact quite the contrary, at the sacrifice of reliability in many cases.



If you are going to say that you'll need to be more specific, are you referring to well built tank-like diesel engines? or are you referring to light car/truck turbo engines ? The spectrum is wide and the ideas and end results don't necessarily carry over...

I dont mean to be rude but yeah. I don't think you fully grasp what I'm saying and I don't know that I'm the person to convince you.

Some turbo charged motors that are known for being stout? The rb series, the jz series, the 4a series, s58, ej series, fa series, sr series, lc2, s63, ltg, ea888, 3sgte, m276, b202, b48, k20c1 i mean I could go on and on and on and on. These are all gasoline btw.

 

[viven44]

I dont mean to be rude but yeah. I don't think you fully grasp what I'm saying and I don't know that I'm the person to convince you.

Some turbo charged motors that are known for being stout? The rb series, the jz series, the 4a series, s58, ej series, fa series, sr series i mean I could go on and on and on and on. These are all gasoline btw.

I appreciate that.. but you are probably correct I have no experience with those engines or brands so I should not assume anything about them without personal experience.

My idea of a perfect daily drive car is an early 2000s Buick with the 3800 series 2 V6, and I frankly think most people don't need anything more than that (strictly in terms of powerplant) so I think we are probably in different worlds.

I have been loyal to Ford/GM on their pushrod naturally aspirated technology for many years. I have stayed away from any new technology that doesn't improve my ownership experience and cost of ownership.

 

[vcode]

That's a big gripe of mine and another big reason (Of many) why I won't own another vehicle that takes premium. It used to be .30 cents more a gallon, then .60, now a buck more a gallon is standard. That's flat out highway robbery. Any decent vehicle out there demands premium and usually gets pretty lousy mileage. That's why I was stuck with diesel the last 10 plus years...

Also, the reason Toyota didn't get blowback on the engine contamination issue is right out of the box they said "Hey we will just replace them all no problem". GM isn't doing that..... they're putting conditions and band aids on it to see what little they can get away with....

Yep, total rip off. Like you said, used to be 30 cents, then 40, then 60, now a buck.

 

[viven44]

Anyway.... I think we've moved onto Turbo here.... but thats not the point of this thread.

I'll put it another way...

Spot the problem

Our 2002 Yukon and our 2024 suburban have the same engine displacement (5.3L)
Our 2002 is just a simple port injected engine and our 2024 has cylinder deactivation and DI fuel system
Our 2002 has a 4-speed transmission and our 2024 has a 10 speed
Our 2002 is more fuel efficient than our 2024 for city/hwy driving
Our 2002 can tow as much as our 2024

I hope it is clear

 

[DuraYuk]

Anyway.... I think we've moved onto Turbo here.... but thats not the point of this thread.

I'll put it another way...

Spot the problem

Our 2002 Yukon and our 2024 suburban have the same engine displacement (5.3L)
Our 2002 is just a simple port injected engine and our 2024 has cylinder deactivation and DI fuel system
Our 2002 has a 4-speed transmission and our 2024 has a 10 speed
Our 2002 is more fuel efficient than our 2024 for city/hwy driving
Our 2002 can tow as much as our 2024

I hope it is clear

Yukon xl? Or yukon?

There is a weight difference. The new engine makes more power too. Wheels are bigger. Im sure we can get to the bottom of it.

 

[viven44]

Yukon xl? Or yukon?

There is a weight difference. The new engine makes more power too. Wheels are bigger. Im sure we can get to the bottom of it.

Yeah if it was an XL, maybe would add a few hundred pounds... not enough to matter. You will see the rated fuel economy doesn't vary greatly

More power -- yes but simply shifting the torque to the higher RPM bands. HP is nothing but Torque x RPM / 5,252... yeah torque has gone up too (325 vs 383), but again peak in the upper RPMs.

What matters is fuel economy and tow rating for a truck. On the 1/2 tons, are you going to say GM has done a spectacular job in the last 20 years on those 2 metrics ?

 

[DuraYuk]

Yeah if it was an XL, maybe would add a few hundred pounds... not enough to matter. You will see the rated fuel economy doesn't vary greatly

More power -- yes but simply shifting the torque to the higher RPM bands. HP is nothing but Torque x RPM / 5,252... yeah torque has gone up too (325 vs 383), but again peak in the upper RPMs.

What matters is fuel economy and tow rating for a truck. On the 1/2 tons, are you going to say GM has done a spectacular job in the last 20 years on those 2 metrics ?

Your 2024 has way more features and way more safety.

You act like none of that matters. Or how much larger the interior is?

I mean if you just wanna believe yourself that's fine but objectively on this you are incorrect respectfully.