Grumpy Bear

Difference in the glass looks more appearant when two photos are posted together. Above and here are as close as I can get it. Went for a sundown ride. The visor strip is wonderful. The 80 % base tint under it made oncoming lights tons easier on the eyes later in the evening. Especially from those who love those "I'm the only one who needs to see" ultra bright and aimed to blind crowd. The rear tint is highly effective at knocking down the "I need my lights on high beam with my light bar on" followers. Reflection off the bed cover in the rear view is diminished but the internal reflection from the back light is worse.

Five hours later at the Johnson’s Tinting Shoppe in Sycamore Illinois and this happens. Ryan Kelly (owner) provided all I hoped for and more. Actually the look is a nice aside. I was after heat rejection and glare reduction so ponied up hard for ceramic tinting films and was rewarded greatly. It’s 85 F here today at 1 PM and not a cloud to be seen. Perfect conditions for roasting pork on the spit in the cab of a red truck with a dark interior. Not todays friends. Air on the lowest fan speed drawing from outside and the cool knob set back more than half way puts you in the meat locker in short order and from the get-go. Before you ask? On such a day this WAS full cool knob, recycle and 1/3 fan after the cool down. In an hour or so you might get blower speed to minimum pulsing fresh air now and again. My UV activated photo grey eyeglasses that normally tinted up in the cab under the factory tint are now visibly unaffected. Glare? That will have to wait to be seen at night or in the rain. An 80% ceramic film is full on the windshield along with 6” of 5% visor film. After the fact 4” would have been plenty for me. I’m long from hip to lip so I’m getting a bit of the bifocal effect. I expect I will get used to it and will welcome it later today as the sun is setting. My 5’ 5” wife will love it as is. Back glass is also treated to ceramic Infrared/UV blocking film. I know most tint glass for “The Look” and this look can be had for a fraction of the high ceramic $$$$ if you like. Me? Well, I like my comfort. I also like protection. UV is an interior killer. I can toss my foil shade now. Hated messin’ with that thing anyway. What you can’t see, in this picture anyway, is the clear paint bra. Can’t hardly see it from a foot away. 18” on the hood and leading fender edges. Chip guard on the trailing door edges along with the door handle cups plus entry lower sill guards where everyone including the dog loves to kick the paint silly. Ryan full wrapped a Tesla the other day with this stuff. Both films I’m told will be a bit hazy for a week or so. I was instructed not to roll down the windows for three days and wait on putting the suction cup EZ-Pass holder back up. No automatic car washes for at least a week. I'll report on that later. ​Ah, the day I have been waiting for arrived and I am not disappointed. Click on the photo to get a full screen view. Much better view.

I’m done with the grill blocking experiment. Needed to strip the grill cover to clean Pepper for the paint protection film and window tint. I will not reinstall it for one additional data point. I dropped the first (low) data point from the base line instead, which favors the baseline. I’ve also decided to change the charting report that’s been tracking point by point median average for a cumulative mileage running average. This provides a mileage “weighted” average which once again, favors the base line. 3 of 5 runs with the blocked grill have been under high wind which never happened during the base line test, which favors the baseline. I’ve held the speed to 50 mph, which favors the baseline. Each test now has consumed nearly equal amounts of fuel over nearly the same miles and same four circuits I run. 41.942 gallons used on 1240 miles for the open grill base line. 41.675 gallons used 1251 miles for the closed grill option. 29.56 mpg open. 30.02 mpg closed over a distance exactly that between Chicago Illinois and Grand Junction Colorado. Stacked the deck to heavily favor the base line and still showing a positive result. The opposite of what marketing would do if selling something. I’ll be bumping up the speed now to 55 MPH. Have an oil change coming up and a block heater I want to install. Garage is full of Buicks so the truck will sit outside.

I’m OLD. Old enough to have seen a few things come into this world like scanners at the checkout of your grocery store for example. I checked and stocked in the days of hand ordering in a ledger and checking on a 10-10 NCR tabulator register. Pretty high tech back then. Eventually the powers that be wanted the store to convert to automated ordering and scan registers which work hand in glove with that process. The checkout process removes an item from inventory which the computer adds to the order in nearest full cases. We got trucks twice a week. I stocked an aisle that contained baby food, Jell-O, oils and greases, pasta, dry beans and marshmallows. Lots of variations. Lots of room. The object of the game for a stock boy is a full aisle on the smallest back room inventory possible. What we called “no-go” was stored on pallets in the back and each aisle had a “quota” of exactly one pallet stacked not higher than you could reach standing flat footed on the floor. Actually not higher than our five foot five night manager could reach. I miss those days. Ordering by hand I was able to keep my isle “tight” and faced on a quarter to a half a pallet of inventory except during the holidays where I might reach a full pallet but no more. By tight I mean when the manager went down the aisle he could poke any item with a finger and not find a void behind that product. A full inventory on the self and little no go. I was very good at this. Along comes the computer and I am FORCED to oblige the powers that be and within a month am carrying three pallets of no-go and the aisle is half empty. That could get a fella fired except….every aisle in the store was in even worse shape. Ya see there are some things a computer can’t do. Like know that two weeks prior to Thanksgiving day your Crisco order needs to be doubled and on St. Patrick’s day you better have six extra cases of Lime Jell-O at the South side store where all the Irish live and none at the North end store. It doesn’t know that Aunt Millie and her sister who has bought two cases of Fluff-O for the last ten years at Christmas has been moved to the county nursing home and won’t be baking this season. In other words…it can’t “anticipate”. Oh you can write programs to FIX the expected but the unexpected…..not so much. Statistics is somewhat like that. It can measure and evaluate any data set you’re interested in but the numbers have to be representative of the world of data your considering. For example. Our fuel mileage survey. If the drain bung were to fail on the tank or we were to spring a leak in the fuel line and we ignore that fact and log the extra fuel usage with the standard miles; the result tells you nothing. This also means you cannot “cherry pick” that data you wish to include if it indeed represents the “real world” even if it does not favor your wishes, expectations or your marketing groups planned roll out date. Now there’s a concept. Honest effort and reporting. In the end it improves the process if you let it do its job. It’s why I’m including the “windy day data” from the second sequence that wasn’t an issue in the first. It’s part of the “real world” of operation. By the same token I’ve exclude some runs that include city miles as the study is open road. Still I make note of it. Not to make excuses but to identify items of note that impact the study results so that a ‘better mouse trap’ can be made next go. No one is so smart they can anticipate every variation nor the impact those variation may have.

Takes a long time to run down a tank when the tank is 26 gallons and the mileage hovering 30 mpg. And I’m running two scenarios at the same time that have different needs and yet do not interfere with each other’s measurement but do interfere with the data collection thus the result a bit. GM does not encourage running the tank below a quarter tank. That puts the maximum fill at 19.5 gallons. I have the data base set at 20 gallons. Scan Gauge adjustments to tank size are in whole gallons. Close enough. That’s a 600 mile range. More than I can do in a single outing these days even if I had the time which I don’t on any one day. 15 to 20 gallons on a fill gives the finest adjustment to the usage portion of the Scan Gauges MPG calculator. Adjustments are made primary by 1/10 gallon corrections between what the gauge says was used and the pump measured use. A tenth of a gallon on a four gallon fill is a 2.5% adjustment. A tenth of a gallon on a 20 gallon fill is a 0.5% adjustment. After four fills averaged we were under a 1% error. .89% to be exact. I made a 1/10 adjustment today on a 16 gallon fill or a .625% correction. I would like to get this done in my lifetime. Running the tank down that far meant the mileage data suffered an additional negative hit in that the 470 miles it took also happened over three outings meaning two additional cold starts. Yesterday’s entry was based on gauge values not the fill values. That was corrected today when I filled up. A penalty was paid to the tune of about 7/10 mpg on nearly half the total test distance miles. It hurt the unweighted average but not so much the median average. We have two runs and just under 400 miles left for this test. What I am suggesting is that the final result I already know will not reflect the full effect of the modification. The actual result will be somewhat better even if the data shows otherwise. I’m good with that an know exactly the cause and effect. I’m not selling anything so who cares as long as I’m honest about the process my conscience is just dandy. Which brings me to a story. Separate post for that

The last two days have been trying. I hurt my back and driving has been uncomfortable meaning my concentration is suffering. Add to that, two of the windiest days of this set of trials and the deck is stacked heavy in favor of failure. Despite that the results of the last two days are actually encouraging. Todays 29.61 mpg for the outing is much better than the trips first half into the wind 27 mpg return and gives a running median still better than the cumulative average of the first six tanks. Better news is the tank fill deltas are nearly canceling each other at the current calibrations. .037 gallons apart on 35 gallons of total charge. 1/10%! The MPG meter error is a bit more as the mileage isn’t perfectly matched but as close as the adjustments allow. ½ % maximum. It is a small error. Small enough to make the Scan Gauge results at a glance VERY reliable. I bought a small roll of a wider black Duck-Tape to replace the cello to give me some latitude in adjustments. And yes, because it was black. I have some grades on some of the test circuits steep enough to have passing lanes (5-7-1/2%) that make Pepper huff and puff some and yet the temperatures remain unfazed even with the air temperatures in the mid 80’s. I have room to close off more.

E&G classics says: This grille is a call to arms against the facelessness of today's commuter boxes. T-Rex says: Don’t talk about how tough your truck is, show them with an X-Metal Grille. Race Mesh says: Take your vehicle from ordinary to extraordinary with the help of this product. Paramount says: Add some drama to your front end with a perimeter grille from Paramount Restyling And my personal favorite: RI says: When you’re driving down the road, the front of your vehicle is the first thing people see. With this distinctive Mesh Grille, you’ll make a statement people will remember. Go on now. Tell me they are selling grills. LOL. For between $150 for the cheapest overlay to $2,900 of the full Monty I want my grill to do more than empty my wallet and stroke my ego. ​A dime well spent.

Shhhh....I have ten cents worth of Scotch Tape talking to me. Yard will have to wait. ​

Window tint appointment confirmed. Next Tuesday. Below graph is the grill block work in progress. Tank fill now has three points and tracking 0.29% high but individual points both sides of the set point. Low signal noise. This is good. Todays fill at the pump showed 12.788 gallons. The Scan Gauge 12.80. Still I'll finish the six point set just to be sure.

Giving the last post more thought, I think splitting the distance on the same run on the grill block test was ill advised. Some of the fuel used is in bringing everything to temperature. That said the gain would then look more impressive than in actuality it was. It also means I’ve uncovered yet another possible fuel saver. Preheat. So…. Today I repeated the grill block test backing speed down to 50 mph again as that is the speed I have a marker for. One result does not a trend make but it did return a value that is in excess of the marker plus one standard deviation. Thus even on one result I know that it has a positive effect I just can’t quantify it…yet. And it can only get better with speed increases. The grill opening is sized, one must imagine, to accommodate the largest motor fitted to this platform and meant to cool the largest payload permitted on the hottest day on the steepest grades. Meaning that this little V6 on its worst day couldn’t possibly use the available opening. Even so I’ve been monitoring the water temperature and the transmission fluid temperature. Water shows no change to any meaningful marker. It doesn’t warm up any faster. It doesn’t peak any higher and the stable running temperature is a rock steady 206 F. Air temperature test range so far has been 84 F max, 64 F min. That said I haven’t cut into the usable portion of the opening yet. No need to get greedy though. FYI it takes 7 miles to warm the water to thermostat open and about 5 more to reach a stable temp. Transmission takes 35 to 40 miles to heat all that fluid. Which, by the way, seems to be about 5 F cooler with the grill blocking in place. (top half of the grill only). Should be able to collect a second data point tomorrow. Ryan, the guy who will be tinting the windows, and I evidently miscommunicated. I’m half deaf and he speaks quietly. I’ll get that fixed tomorrow as well and get a firm date for the work. Kind of glad it happened. I’ll be looking at adding the infrared/UV block to the front glass at some minimal increase in tint instead of the visor.

Bar Keepers Friend and a white Scotch-Brite is wonderful on Stainless Steel like the step bars. Just say’n. I mentioned last night that that calibration run was made in two segments but I didn’t finish the story because I didn’t know then what to do with the information it generated. I do now as I see an opportunity. It was very windy yesterday during the run and raining. NNW wind 25 mph with 40 mph gusts. My test circuit is laid out to put such factors to work against each other. Runs a box run both ways. Anyway after the first half of the run I got this idea to tape off the top section of the grill opening above the badge. This took long enough, 15 minutes or so, for the Scan Gauge to go to sleep resetting the “this trip” average which had been 25 mpg and small change. Running the route a second time under the same conditions the “this trip” average was a bit over 27 mpg for a tank average I posted in the last post. That’s an 8% shift between the two trips. That said I’m going to rerun the 50 mph test with this modification so I don’t have to ABA a second set of data points AND I can still gather my fill data points without interruption. It won’t be as significant if it shows up at all but it will be a few thousand miles less work. I had been looking at a few grill inserts anyway as a styling exercise. If I can make it pay for itself…why not…right? Hopefully I’ll be seeing the window tint guy today to find out where I am on his schedule.

210 miles split in two run segments but only one fill. Raised speed to 55 mph. 26.23 calculated mpg. Scan Gauge showed 26.2. Does not have hundredth resolution for this function. That’s .13% maximum difference but the possible correction is coarser than that. Variation may also be higher than this. As I suspected. I need more data. Fill was 8.005 gallons. Calculated usage was 8.04 gallons. -0.44% difference. Will continue to track the error without adjustments. Need a standard deviation to make any further progress on this adjustment. This may be as good as it gets without burning down nearly full tanks to create greater correctable error. That’s two in a row under a half percent on the fill and not more than a tenth of a mile per gallon difference between the scan gauge and the hand calculation. It’s a long way from the nearly 10% factory error. Having my six cycles in at 50 mph with a standard deviation of just .84 mpg driving a total 1489.9 miles and using 50.8 gallons this point in nailed in at 29.33; +/- .84 mpg. Time to bump up the speed. Today’s test will not be entered into the 55 mph data but will be entered into the fill variation data as I was also playing with some other ideas that may affect the averages. Two days in the rain and it was a pig. Spent the majority of the day cleaning the outside.

Logged a 331 mile trip today. That concludes six fills over 1,500 total miles that have reduced the Scan Gauge to hand calculation delta fuel charged vs calculated fuel used from 6.5% to 0.3%. The meter adjusted each fill on that fill. That is a really small sample set. So these are rough adjustments. It’s been both sides of the fence with the last two or three calibration adjustments made at ½ of the error value and still moving +/- the actually charge amount. First three or four initial adjustments were full value corrections. Hammer moves. Then tugs of half steps and now….taps will be made. On to step two. Next step is to verify the amount the fill varies from the calculate usage. To do that I will record six samples, calculate the median for six fills actual charged volume vs those samples calculated fuel use median volume. Make a correction based on the standard deviation. Then rinse and repeat for six cycles or until the correction is coarser than the error. Why bother? One mpg sample, even several averaged is a broad axe with a huge amount of standard deviation making it a roughing tool. Statistics are used when you’re looking to pick the fly crap out of the pepper shaker. A scalpel. If I know the system well enough I can see what effects what without being head faked by signal noise. You might be surprised what you can learn with statistic data mining.

First off, Thanks Daryl. Determining the cost effectiveness of using an octane booster I over complicated. My bad. It isn’t about MPG it’s about CPM…cost per mile…and it seems that even the cheaper to use higher octane pump fuels used solely for the purpose of fuel efficiency are also a non-starter. At $2.19 a gallon for 87 Octane and 29 mpg the cost is .076 cents per mile. For 89 Octane trading at $2.49 per gallon (locally), to break even, it would have to increase mileage 13.7% to 33 mpg. I have no indication that is likely. That was obvious in just a few runs that netted no statistically significant data. 4 mpg was a pretty lofty goal for the input variable. Fact is in three test circuits the result was in fact zero plus or minus. Even though there was an observable decline in the amount and duration of knock sensor related retard. While the Scan Gauge has the ability to do performance testing, like 40-60 mph transit passing times, quarter miles and so on I haven’t an interest. That said octane improvement for the sake of power is a completely different animal with an entirely different cost analysis and/or considerations. Like keeping the pin in that grenade. I have made mental note as I am not fully sold on the idea of letting a knock sensor and AI determine the safety of my power train. That needs more thought. I have zero experience with current GM ECM reliability. Maybe it just fine. It’s been working in my Harley for over a decade without complaint. They use even a cruder system to detect knock. Spark quality. Other news. The tint isn’t done yet. No idea what the holdup is but it isn’t on my end. I’m getting antsy. I ran a length of belting up the cab corner to see if this was a blind hole or what. It’s or what. Belting went three feet up the side of the cab. I ran out of belting. What, GM, is that about? It isn’t factory coated either. The seam seal will proceed along with a good dose of wax deterrent rust proofing. Looks like a designed failure to me. I’ve laid out a two way 110 mile rectangular closed course to test ideas on that is SPA friendly and environmentally canceling and as goof proof as I can make it.

DeeZee gate assist added today. Pretty straight forward install. Not quite as smooth in operation as they show in the video but good enough to do what it says it will do....assist. I will keep my hand on it thought when in use.

Why yes I am RT. Thanks for noticing. Now if my wife would. Oil, gas and chemical; Operating Engineer/Stationary Power Plant Engineer. Basically a perfector of processes, equipment, procedures and methods. An impossible task. I thought of it as “the relentless pursuit of improvement”. I can make it better, just never perfect but to the boss it looked like magic. Perfect! Truth is, almost anyone can do it, just most don’t have an interest nor the inclination. What they have an interest in is the finished product and getting you to do it for them. LOL. For me, I enjoy it. Perfecting a thing. There is something about solving a puzzle that brings joy to the process. The harder the puzzle the more joy there is in the result. Clint Eastwood’s movie Grand Torino; everyone wants the car. No one wants to do what it takes to preserve the car. A thirty year old car, or boat or asphalt tile kitchen floor for that matter that looks new isn’t the result of not using it but the result of caring for it in use and knowing which things are built well enough to care for to begin with. That Ford truck commercial. “98% of all Ford Trucks ever made are still on the road today.” What, only 2% of them made it home? It’s about the percentage of people willing to learn what it takes and taking the time to do it. It’s also about the percentage of “things” made today that with care will last. Sad but….adds difficulty….

There are no mixing instrucitons on the bottle or on the Lucas website. Just says treats up to 25 gallons. That said Volvo speed lab tested this product and gave some information and direction. Added to 25 gallons of fuel the mix ratio is 200:1 and the effect about 2 points. Perfect. For $12 a tank I can turn 87 into 89 or 48 cents a gallon making local $2.20 gas $2.68 a gallon which is between local pricing of the 89 and 93 grades. Add two bottles and I get 92 octane for $3.16 a gallon 92 while I can buy 93 pump for $2.78. Basic this is a non-starter. That said I tried it anyway as the money has been burned. The goal was fuel efficiency by dialing in more timing by limiting the knock sensor retard. Over the 400 mile test loop the result was....zip...nada...ziltch...nothing. Volvo noted steps of 100:1 and 50:1 with increases at each step becoming less as the mix richens making 50:1 the limit. Just additional information. That doesn't mean I give up on the octane idea. I will test in increments of octane on pump gas. That will take some time to decipher.

Fuel average for the last thousand miles and change has been running 29.22 mpg with a 1 mpg over and under. All miles highway with a 50 mph self-imposed limit and staying off the Interstates and local freeways as much as possible. These are baselines to reference for other speeds. MPH is within 1/2 MPH against the GPS now. The corrections are in whole percent. I ran 100 KPH. Made the correction in metric then reselected MPH. Finer correction adjustments possible that way. Fuel economy is the hardest match to make as fill varies some from fill to fill. That said the fill gallons reset and correction also displays in percentage so I’m making corrects based on that value and making much faster progress. Current calculation mileage and Scan Gauge computed mileage are now within a few tenths and still reading a bit high. I’ve also lied to the computer telling it we have a 25 gallon tank. The only thing that effects is the estimated time and miles to empty. The trucks gauge is off a bit too reading less fuel that it has by a gallon or so at half a tank. Miles driven (odometer trip) within 1 mile at a 200 test distance against the GPS. So a ½ percent and shy. So it would read 4 miles shy in a thousand. That will change with tire wear. Both the Scan Gauge and the trucks odometer are but a few tenths of a mile apart as far as I can tell at the same 200 mile range. Scan Gauge does not read finer than whole miles. Tire rotation done a bit over my 5,000 mile target. Tread wear even over the set and across each face. Baseline 35 psi seems on the money so far. Time will tell. Finished the paint seal finally. Got the box clayed and sealed. 1.) Finish shaving the body. (Done) 2.) Finish the paint sealing (Done) 3.) Seam seal the fender seams and cab corners. 4.) Finish and touch up the undercoating. 5.) Tire rotation and balance checks, oil change. (Done) While this was being done we weighed a tire/rim unit with balance weights and TPM. Less wheel cover 68 lbs. Making rim weight about 32 pounds. 6.) Window tinting 7.) Paint clear chip masking 8.) Gate Assist (added) 9.) Scan Gauge Install (Added and done) 10) Instrument calibrations (Added and in process).

Tail Gate assist came today. Install likely tomorrow. Maybe a photo when done and this filthy truck gets a bath. The boost is a scheduled experiment. Back in the day the cost didn’t make sense so I’ve never tried it but with a dollar spread in gas top to bottom it ‘may’ make sense now at about half a buck a gallon to use the boost. They use to put blend instructions on the containers. X ounces per gallon per point of octane. Not anymore. It’s a crap shoot. That said I have the instrumentation to ferret it out. Coming soon. Effectiveness and cost analysis.

Knock sensor induced spark retard output was programed as an X-gauge replacing the non-functioning AFR. Why on earth, I asked myself, would that be part of the GM coding? It won’t trip a code and it isn’t logged (stored) data as far as I can ascertain. What it is, is a generated delta signal without a home that Linier Logic harnessed. The ECU map says X degrees is the target. The Knock sensor says Y is preventing knock. The difference is the voltage delta expressed in degrees of offset. At least that’s the logic that makes sense. Regardless, what it says is the map is too aggressive for the octane or the “conditions” are outside the tested mapping signal outputs. Know what that is, right? Opportunity knocking (pun intended). http://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/topic/180309-43-litre-v6-ecotec3-and-gasoline-octane/ Googling same netting this post #7 on this forum. How cool is that? Too bad that 91 around here now carries a $1 a gallon penalty.

“… to improve safety, reliability, longevity, economy, utility, and if anything is left over…then maybe some old school tastefully done curb appeal”. I’m quoting a line in the first post of the thread as a reminder and a mirror. “Buying things you don’t need…with money you don’t have…to impress people you don’t like”. It was my mother’s take on materialism. Smart girl. There are also just unwise buys. Like $10 plastic factory body plugs. I should have found the “Dorman Products” part. A set of eight for under $4. There are items that pay for themselves such as the Scan Gauge and the Line-X products. Provided you keep the truck long enough to make it pay. Scan gauge, for example, pays for itself in one year if I drive only 9,000 miles a year and gas is $2 a gallon base on a conservative 4 MPG improvement which I can do falling off a long and driving 60 mph. The Line-X products are harder to quantify. I’ve about $1,500 total for liner, rustproof and undercoating including the wheel wells. Say it adds five years to its life and on average untreated I get about 15 years from a vehicle. Current cost $30,000 and a life ratio of 4 to 3 that’s $10,000 I didn’t spend for the $1,500 I did. Saves then $8,500 per truck. You know prices won’t stay put for 60 years. Fact is, that’s the point. I’m 63 and wont’ be buying another so it’s done when it’s done. Maybe we will finish together. I’m going to add comfort to the list. Longevity – Reliability – Safety – Economy – Utility – Comfort - Looks

20 to 24 mpg is what people are reporting at fueleonomy.gov for the 2015 Silverado 1500 4.3 Ecotec3 for highway driving. A bit shy of the EPA 24 on average. It's a common complaint. Not meeting the EPA numbers. On this 450 + mile calibration cycle the trucks meter showed 33.5 mpg. The un-calibrated out of the box Linier Logic Scan Gauge II showed 32.1 mpg (photo) and the calculated mileage was 30.15 mpg. Yes, I drove nearly the entire distance at 50 mph slowing for town and construction zone lower limits. One trip to 60 mph for about a mile to get a second data point for the mph corrections. The trucks meter is 11% happy and the Scan Gauge 3%. I entered the correction at fill up to reflect the actual fuel used VS the calculated use. I'll do the same for velocity and distance checked against both mile markers and GPS. I know they are real close as it has been radar checked. Lacking a decimal the two gauges seem about 1% apart reading the same sometimes and 1 mpg different others. Over the distance there was under 3 miles difference with the Scan gauge showing the lower value. 1% is the minimum correction that can be entered. Closer numbers indicate Pepper is 25.6% over EPA. Earlier post number was based on the meters shown difference and the assumption is was closer than it was. That a given it's still 37% higher than the government reporting average and 6% better than my previous best hand calculated numbers. I am not unhappy with this. I'll continue to tweak calibrations until it's as close as I can get it and repeatable over several cycles giving me a tuning basis. I'll continue tweaking my driving as well. I did attempt the AFR X-gauge install and while it took the coding it failed to produce a working output. 5800 miles on it now and needs a cleaning. Been raining every day for some time now. I am not a true Hypermiler. There are many things I will not do. Like draft within 200 feet. I like my trucks finish. Windows up, air conditioning and vent fans off on a muggy 85 degree day. I like my comfort. Buying half worn out tires second hand or tread shaving to reduce rolling friction. I like my safety. Dead sticking. I don't lag lead drive the speed set point and am on cruise control when I feel it is most efficient which is most of the time. What I will do is bargain hunt. There is a low TPS/MAP fuel cut off that can be tricked on down hills of sufficient grade and when entering small towns or approaching stop signs. There's a sweet spot combination of TPS and MAP that keeps the AFM engaged longer and/or more often. I correct tire pressures when there is more than a 10 difference in the days peak temperature. I don't over inflate. It rides rough enough although Iowa does have better roads than Illinois on average.

This scan tool works by giving eyes into the ECU which in turn reprograms your noggin and right hoof. Hopefully. The second test was during some pretty poor weather. Raining pitchforks and hammer handles with a nice tropical breeze tossed in for good measure. 31mpg and change for a 175 mile loop. Air temperature was 15 degrees cooler which in turn lowered the running pressure in the tires a few pounds. The instructions have a long term calibration which requires inputting the actual fuel loaded vs the fuel used. I will keep on this until I have a better set of numbers and report back from time to time. It is a longer term endeavor. At this point what I know for sure is: Tool use has improved the result. Comparisons between the scan tool and trucks read out say the tool is much, much closer to the real number. Now we fine tune. Tool readings are closer than all dash displayed information. That said the fuel information screen is the most out of whack. Tach is very close. Water temp is also good. Speedometer is dead nuts to the scan tool and my Tom-Tom GPS measurements and a local traffic radar. I’m going to add the X-gauge AFR meter to the display in the next day or two to replace the MAP gauge.

Geezer Mode is Hypermiling I’m told. Hum. New term very old practice. Was part of Dad’s basic driving instructions 45+ years ago. I was going to buy a Range Technology + unit to put old girl in V4 mode a larger portion of the time. I’m pretty good at extracting big numbers…I thought. Six decades later and I still get “schooled” from time to time. I looked at allot of data display systems and a good number of them are add on to chips or other forms of ECM management alteration software. Not what I wanted. Not now anyway. Scan Gauge II is what I bought. Did the install and calibrations and off to market we went. I mentioned getting schooled right? What felt like light throttle and is compared to many was costing me about 3.5 mpg. Yea, First use has upped the mileage from 28.5 to almost 32. Recall the EPA number is 24 highway. TPS signal drop of just 3% which is almost impossible to detect by tactile sense. That's a dead on 33% increase just as the packaging says. 12% better than my best effort to date. Off to do some more testing. Back later with some photos. http://media.gmc.com/media/us/en/gmc/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2013/May/0516-gmc-pickup-aero.html While I’m out give the above link a read. Right from the GM wind tunnel. Ordered a DeeZee gate assist today as well.

Caveat Emptor. Slept on this painted trim idea. Gave it a look in photo mockups. Realized that these areas, grill, door handles, bumpers et cetera that are now in easy to maintain black plastic are some of the most high wear areas on a vehicle. Bugs, stones, rings, fingernails all on the assault. There are additional 3M clear protector items to cover them which is already in the works for the hood, front fender edges, lower door area and door handle cups at a cost of a couple hundred dollars. ​Buying the parts pre-painted from GM cost more than what having them painted would cost. Having them painted isn't cheap and has the truck out of commission for some time. Overlays for some of the work is possible. Mirrors and handles attached with tape. Not liking that idea either. So to do the project would cost me dearly. To protect the project almost doubles the cost. To protect the work defeats the intended result. I like the current look as does the wife. She actually prefers it to the 2016's look which in the end is much as Matt suggested. If I paint them there is no going back. If I overlay them ???? If I buy replacement items I store the old or sell those? ​Personally one item did agree with my eye. The part between the grill and bumper is begging for it. I'll look into it.