Ordered a new 2014

[RyanbabZ71]

I have never heard of someone losing their deposit. Get it in writing and your good to go. I have done it on the last 3 vehicles I ordered.

 

 

Ryan

 

 

[MikeNH]

People would trade in their car against a yet to be delivered one? Weird but I guess if you're a multi-car household it might work. The northeast fared better than most regions during that time as I can't think of any dealers that went belly up. There were some that closed as part of the consolidation GM and Chrysler went through but that was hardly sudden.

[AgDoctor]

I'm interested in a new one. Still debating moving to a 2500. Also I'm hoping for painted trim.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[RyanbabZ71]

I need a bigger garage so I can get the crew cab std bed

 

 

Ryan

 

 

[MotoMedic]

WonHunglo,

Thanks, but I completely understand the process. I ordered/purchased before.

I was just asking how much off have forum members personally experienced so far?

[music]

Search 2014 trucks to see the list & sales price:

 

http://www.classicchevrolet.com/VehicleSearchResults?search=new&bodyType=TRUCK

 

Interesting... all 2wd?

[music]

I'm interested in a new one. Still debating moving to a 2500. Also I'm hoping for painted trim. Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

I'm kinda in the same boat, although I'm not sold on the new trucks at this point. My interest in the HD trucks has been purely for towing, but can't imagine getting 12 mpg to/from work all year in a HD, just for better towing a few times in summer/fall. The new 1500's look to have significantly improved payload ratings (plenty for me). Check out pg. 85 of the guide Ryan posted @ http://www.gmfleet.com/content/dam/gmfleet/global/master/nscwebsite/en/Home/Shared_Resources/PDFs/2014%20Fleet%20Car%20and%20Truck%20Guide%205.14.13.pdf . I don't believe that the new trucks will really haul that much more weight than the current models, but GM upped the GVWR a few hundred pounds, while lightening them up a few hundred.

 

I'm curious how an aluminum hood will hold up?

[nibael]

straight up invoice pricing no problem at my store plus any available incentives. we have ordered 15 at this point, 3 in transit. all are for sale, no deposits.

[AgDoctor]

I'm still trying to figure out what I want to do. I like how the 2500s have a built in body lift effect. I need the towing capacity and the extra height would be nice with the added bed length. The 1500 with a 6.2 and 3.73 may be an option. Hoping the new 6.2 will run on 87. Trucks at these price points, obviously 10¢ more per gallon doesn't bother me. Here locally its 85 or diesel for the most part. Some stations carry 89 and 91 but most don't.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[MikeNH]

Past press releases say the 6.2 will run on 87. The current one can too, you're just not going to get the full potential out of it.

[2018GMC]

Yes it can run on 87 but it will pull timing, etc and reduce performance. The new 6.2 is even higher compression than the outgoing so running 87 vs 91 should be a noticeable difference.

 

I live at 7000ft so I may be a be able to run 87 and not notice much of a difference since the air is thinner at this alt.

 

I can't wait to test drive a new 6.2!

 

The big decision is a 5'8 bed so the truck fits in my garage or a 6'6 bed to better haul my dirt bikes but then the 50k truck sits in my driveway :-(

[Jennabear]

Should not run 87 on 6.2 even at elevation. Premium at the sea level ifs the same at high elevation, with any new vehicle.

 

We have seen as much as a 40hp loss on 87. You are spending more by using 87 on stock tuning.

 

Sent from a jelly bean.

 

[GMCDriver1]

Actually you can safely run 87 in place of 91 for non turbo and non-supercharged and non "tuned" engines at altitudes of over 4000 ft. This has been proven time and time again. We also run 85 instead of 87 where the manufacturer calls for 87/88 at sea level up here in Denver.

[Jennabear]

Can you run it, yes. But the engine will not be optimized.

 

Sent from a jelly bean.

 

 

[.justin.]

Regarding octane at elevation.

 

With electronic spark control (eg, all engines circa 1990 to present), elevation changes become irrelevant. As air density decreases, ignition timing is advanced to make up for it and the octane requirement stays the same.

 

The reason that lower octane is available at higher elevation dates back to less technologically advanced engines that reference vacuum (at most) for spark advance. Vacuum cannot allow for a determination of air density. Thus, an engine of that type at sea level may have 32 degrees of advance at full throttle and may work perfectly on 87 octane. Take that vehicle up to 5000' and now the air is less dense by 20%. The air/fuel molecules are more spread out in the combustion chamber and the amount of time it takes for the flame front to propagate has increased correspondingly. The distributor, however, does not know this and final timing advance at full throttle is again, 32 degrees. The engine becomes less efficient, since the new air density requirements have resulted in a timing need of 36 degrees (as an example). Since mechanical spark advance has no way to absolutely control the timing in this case for all elevations, the solution is to introduce fuel that burns quicker (lower octane) at higher elevation. With that, the engine is able to be run relatively optimally at all load points again.

 

Now, step forward to today. There are a variety of sensors that are all taken into account in determining the engine's operating conditions, including a manifold absolute pressure (MAP) sensor and a Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor. Both of these sensors can be used to determine the air mass per cylinder and reference the ignition timing needed for that specific load point. Take a 2011 5.3L engine for example. At sea level, that engine may see a mass air flow value that equates to .7 grams of air per cylinder at 4000rpm. The ECM references the various timing tables and comes up with a final timing value of 20 degrees advanced. Take that vehicle up to 5000' and now that 7 grams of air becomes .56 grams of air per cylinder at 4000rpm. Now, instead of a 20 degree advance (as you would still have on an older mechanical ignition vehicle), the ECM references a point of 26* of advance without you having to do anything to cause that correction. Yes, the air is less dense now, but the ignition advance is adjusted accordingly to maintain a need for the same octane level. A drop to 85 octane WILL cause pinging on any newer GM truck, whether you hear it or not. Running 87 octane at sea level WILL cause pinging on a newer GM truck as well, it happens 99% of the time and results in reduced efficiency and power output.

 

Ultimately, everybody will run the fuel that they want to, for whatever reason. But for the health of your pistons and for your most fuel efficient and responsive operation, please do heed the owners manual here. It states a minimum of 87 octane and does not reference running lower octane at higher elevation. I would personally suggest 89 octane or above on all 2007+ model trucks, as empirical evidence has shown that to yield the best mileage.