I’m with you there. My 2017 5.3 would get 24mpg tips pure highway with the counter set to 100 miles. But real measurements (400 miles which included mixed driving) would barely keep it at 18mpg. All city was still more like 14mpg. My 2019 Canyon is getting 19.8mpg so far in the same loop, but only has 1,300 miles on it. Still breaking in. A turbo would be amazing, the 2.3 Ranger was more impressive in that regard.
No, you just weren’t as high as I figured you were. Torque wise, the 2.7 reached its max output 3000 RPM ago. The 2.7 did it’s rated load in the same time as the 6.2. For the 99% pavement princess grocery getters around here, it’s more than enough.
If it was a 2.7, it’s possible. 3.5 is just a no. Stock for stock, and without mechanical issues, 5.3 is a complete and utter turd to any 3.5 ecoboost. Having owned both I can say that with fact. Off the line, the 5.3L was slower than my naturally aspirated 1.6 Fiesta thanks to piss poor torque management. That thing had less than 120HP and a terrible 6spd auto.
I mean, if we’re going by anecdotes, don’t buy a Chevy. They still haven’t fixed my stabilitrak sensor issue on my Silverado. Malibu has been in 14 times in 2 years. Still has an issue with the back door seal, but don’t really care enough at this point and turn the music up louder.
I would expect a forum of adults with independent minds that aren’t tethered to a brand for any emotional reason. But most of the communities have their yee yees that chant their brand regardless of the facts presented, hoping that there’s some CEO listening that will give them Good Boi points. If we’re going by dealer visits, then my 2017 LT is the most worthless vehicle I’ve ever owned, and that’s coming from someone who owned a Fiesta in the past for a commuter. But I love the truck, it’s capable, performs well, and has good style. It and the 6.2 I drove were both gutless in the mountains compared to the eco boosts, but I live in a mostly flat area, so I don’t miss the boost much. I’ll have this truck probably another 6 months, maybe a year. I’m looking at all the brands since there’s so many things the other brands do better. But there are some things the GM does better, and those might be enough to keep me in the family.
I think I'll be in the market for a crew cab turbo by the end of this year, or spring next year. My dealer has 6 on the lot, so I might try to test drive in the coming months when my work projects are done and it's not so busy every weekend.
You mentioned above regarding the bones not being chewed, I’ve attempted to get answers on the bones, you have not replied. You came to the 2.7 thread and posted your 4.3L mileage being better, stating none of these facts regarding your build. So I came to find your build and I see your question regarding these bones. If you can’t see the dishonesty in that, I can’t help you. Again, when you make a claim in a knowingly stock for stock thread. If we’re talking about changing transmission , lowering the truck, changing oil weight, and turning off the A/C on a 2.7, it’d be a great comparison. Maybe someone could try that. Going without A/C and things like that is hyper-miling. Nothing wrong with it, when done legally, as you’re doing. It is hypermiling though. Just semantics I guess. You do you. It’s a neat build.
Not bashing the speed limit. His thread history is missing the point. To post a claim to people, who may or may not have the history of the build, with a mileage number of a modified vehicle in a stock thread is dishonest. To post mileage attained only through hypermiling techniques so far out of normal driving in a stock thread, is dishonest. I don’t care what he does for his own personal gains. I care that he made a statement that the 2.7’s mileage is worse than his, didn’t give the facts, and then acts like that is reason enough to hate the 2.7. His blatant use of head in sand regarding the capabilities motor is astounding to me. I’m not even huge on the motor, because I tow a lot. It’s ok to be old school. I have nostalgia for clicky 100MB hard drives and tone driven BBS. But I don’t pretend that the old stuff I love is superior in almost any way to the modern stuff.
That is mighty narcissistic of you. Haven’t heard a response to the act of balance. FACT: Do you see big trucks throttled to 40mph? FACT: Do you see low speed operators still accept the weight of fairings and damns on their payload. FACT: Do you see all trucks with 2.39? Or do you see more midrange 2.70-2.90? FACT: Do all farmers stick with a T6 because it has most of the line pull, or is sometimes the T7/8 without the hubs chosen because it can line pull the same weight much faster? You won the hypermiling award, I don’t think anyone disputes that. However, we refer to real world use for a reason. If you’ve got nothing to do, your tactics all make sense. Some need to use their truck as a truck. I don’t raise or lower mine because it puts in work. It goes in the woods, it goes to the grocery store. It tows frequently. You have claimed that people only concentrated on speed. Yet when rebutted you remain quiet in the other points. The problem was your ridiculous claim of mileage in the other thread. A claim WITHOUT disclosing that your truck is heavily modified to one purpose, fuel efficiency. Dishonest at best. Now if you want to give fuel numbers for a stock 19 V6 like I had, but with your driving methods, those numbers could be taken for debate.
Also incorrect. Transport teaches you a thing or two. Number 1 is balance of these hypermiling techniques. Ask any professional driver that’s been on the road a decade or two. Just a hint, GM’s JiT loads aren’t compatible with 45mph.
Most OnlineNewest Member
Who's Online 30 Members, 0 Anonymous, 700 Guests (See full list)
- Nanotech Environmental
- Brandon Prasad
- HK GUY
- Beau F.
- [email protected]
- Livingstone Matagi
- @[email protected]