Heavy-Duty GM Pickup Fuel Economy Numbers Published By CR

[5.3Avalanche]

I understand you two believe your opinions should be as important to everyone else as they are to you. I find information such as this very useful. That's another opinion. Opinions are not facts nor the truth. Here's some facts...

 

5.3 Motor data from Fuelly.com

 

http://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/silverado_1500/2017?engineconfig_id=63&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

Based on data from 67 vehicles, 1,444 fuel-ups and 439,317 miles of driving, the 2017 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 gets a combined Avg MPG of 16.46 with a 0.14 MPG margin of error.

 

​Enough said.

 

So to prove that the CR data somehow allows readers to make a decision, you show that you have to go to an alternative source in order to find additional data in order to draw a conclusion? Interesting thought process.

 

Thanks for replying and showing that Fuelly.com provides more meaningful data than CR does which is what we are criticizing. So really, all CR managed was to coax it's readers to go find data elsewhere because their own data was not sufficient in order to draw a meaningful conclusion.

 

From Fuelly.com we can find the information that everyone wants to know about.

 

2017 Chevrolet 2500HD with 6.6 diesel : 14.9 mpg average

2016 Chevrolet 2500HD with 6.0 gas : 11.2 mpg average

2016-2017 Chevrolet 1500 with 5.3 gas : 16.5 mpg average

2016-2017 Chevrolet 1500 with 6.2 gas : 16.5 mpg average

 

http://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/silverado_2500_hd

http://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/silverado_1500

[j-ten-ner]

From the CR ( https://www.consumerreports.org/pickup-trucks/heavy-duty-pickup-truck-fuel-economy/?loginMethod=auto )

 

Quote:

 

"...

What we found in our tests was that the efficiency of the diesel engines wasn't enough to offset the added bulk of these monstrous trucks. The heavy-duty diesels achieved only 14-15 mpg, which was 1-2 mpg less than their gasoline-powered light-duty counterparts.

The extra power and brawn of the heavy-duty trucks do give them more hauling capability.

But for those just looking for improved fuel efficiency from a diesel engine, it's not worth upgrading to a heavy-duty truck. ..."

 

And yes, I've heard people talking about switching to a HD diesel just for fuel economy reasons.

 

so long

j-ten-ner

[Gofas]

They compare the 2 cause little wankers justify driving big diesels over lil light duties for daily driving without carrying payloads nor trailers. Thinking they are getting just as good mpg's.

[Grumpy Bear]

 

So to prove that the CR data somehow allows readers to make a decision, you show that you have to go to an alternative source in order to find additional data in order to draw a conclusion? Interesting thought process.

 

 

 

2017 Chevrolet 2500HD with 6.6 diesel : 14.9 mpg average

2016 Chevrolet 2500HD with 6.0 gas : 11.2 mpg average

 

 

Nooooo. I added the Fuelly information for the second person replying that no one with the 5.3 got worse than 20 mpg. Thus my opening. 'you two'. Has nothing to do with my thought process and everything to do with two answers in one posting.

 

Fuelly proves nothing one way or the other about CR. The Fuelly data base is a composite of hundreds or trucks thus conditions vs CR's control study of the same conditions is oranges to apples. Neither tells you what YOU will get driving either truck. So from that stand point nobody's research would be of any value. Good thing no one studies medicine. Right?

 

Funny reply from the fella that said we shouldn't have to sift data. Me thinks you just like to argue.

[truckofwinandawesome]

The mileage numbers they are reporting are a lot lower than what almost everyone with these trucks are getting. How did they bungle it that badly?

 

Most people are averaging a lot closer to 20 mpg overall with the 5.3 1500's.

Same with the diesel 2500's. Most people are getting much higher overall numbers than what CR is reporting.

I have a 9000 mile overall average of over 20 mpg US on my '17 Sierra 1500 4x4 with 5.3 and 3.42 gearing. That includes highway, city, stop and go & everything.

Even when I tow an enclosed cargo trailer with 2000# of cargo, I get much better mileage than CR is reporting.

 

I've never put a lot of credence into CR's reporting & this just supports my position even more.

not only that, they will try their hardest to push you into a Tundra or a Titan anyway because they are heavily biased towards the Japanese brands.

[Nanotech Environmental]

I understand you two believe your opinions should be as important to everyone else as they are to you. I find information such as this very useful. That's another opinion. Opinions are not facts nor the truth. Here's some facts...

 

5.3 Motor data from Fuelly.com

 

http://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/silverado_1500/2017?engineconfig_id=63&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

Based on data from 67 vehicles, 1,444 fuel-ups and 439,317 miles of driving, the 2017 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 gets a combined Avg MPG of 16.46 with a 0.14 MPG margin of error.

 

​Enough said.

Good Lord!!

So many things wrong with this, I don't know where to start. How many of those trucks were loaded? Pulling trailers? empty? City only? Highway only? Driven above speed limits? Below? By leadfoots? Hypermilers? winter driving? summer driving? rear end gears? etc,etc,etc.....

This data maybe potentially gives an overall fleet mileage idea but nothing more and says nothing about what the CR article was trying to infer. it says nothing about individual mileage and neither does the CR report. Pretty much everyone on the fuel mileage threads is beating these numbers by a significant margin.

[Grumpy Bear]

Good Lord!!

So many things wrong with this, I don't know where to start. How many of those trucks were loaded? Pulling trailers? empty? City only? Highway only? Driven above speed limits? Below? By leadfoots? Hypermilers? winter driving? summer driving? rear end gears? etc,etc,etc.....

This data maybe potentially gives an overall fleet mileage idea but nothing more and says nothing about what the CR article was trying to infer. it says nothing about individual mileage and neither does the CR report. Pretty much everyone on the fuel mileage threads is beating these numbers by a significant margin.

 

 

What do you think statistics are? These are not cherry picked people. These are Dick and Jane participants using a tool that gets published for the benefit of all. It can't get more real world than that. Statistics by nature filter you objections to such a data pool. Graphs of the results bear this out. You want cherry picked numbers but you can't decide on the parameters to be used and disagree with anyone and everyone for the sake of disagreement. This makes this an irrational exchange. I don't do irrational.

 

Oh, I don't actually care who you are. The world thought itself flat on the base of such experts.

[Nanotech Environmental]

 

What do you think statistics are? These are not cherry picked people. These are Dick and Jane participants using a tool that gets published for the benefit of all. It can't get more real world than that. Statistics by nature filter you objections to such a data pool. Graphs of the results bear this out. You want cherry picked numbers but you can't decide on the parameters to be used and disagree with anyone and everyone for the sake of disagreement. This makes this an irrational exchange. I don't do irrational.

 

Oh, I don't actually care who you are. The world thought itself flat on the base of such experts.

You misunderstood my post.

[elcamino]

 

 

What we found in our tests was that the efficiency of the diesel engines wasn't enough to offset the added bulk of these monstrous trucks. The heavy-duty diesels achieved only 14-15 mpg, which was 1-2 mpg less than their gasoline-powered light-duty counterparts.

The extra power and brawn of the heavy-duty trucks do give them more hauling capability.

But for those just looking for improved fuel efficiency from a diesel engine, it's not worth upgrading to a heavy-duty truck. ..."

You hear many diesel owners bragg over 20 mpg with a Duramax.

[Colossus]

Yes, I've heard a few of the 01-07 brag they have hit 22 MPG at 55MPH in fact.

[sdeeter19555]

Yes, I've heard a few of the 01-07 brag they have hit 22 MPG at 55MPH in fact.

The early versions of the big three diesels could get over 20mpg if driven sensibly. I had multiple Cummins that I tracked every tank...the 99s were having a bad day if they were less than 21-22mpg. Our 95 12 valve would pull 26-28 mpg on the highway. My 3rd gen was the worst, it averaged high teens with 4.10 rears, but took a lot of money to make it consistent and reliable.

 

I had a 95 pre-powerstroke and a 97 powerstroke for work trucks...both of those would get 20mpg pretty easily.

 

That's hand calculated...miles driven over gallons to fill up.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk