Jump to content

Took a couple test drives


Recommended Posts

Posted

So I was going to follow up and post this is in the General Thoughts on 2014 vs. 2015's thread but its been locked... I thank everyone for helping in that thread. I got a chance to compare both the 2014 to the 2015 and the 5.3 to the 6.2 and both of which to my EXT at a local dealer.

 

Test drove a 2015 Denali 6.2L Iridium/Black and a 2014 Denali 5.3L Black/Black with about 25k on the odometer.

 

In comparison to my current truck, I noticed a bigger drop off in the ride quality of the 2014 than the power of the 5.3. In other words the 5.3's power was more impressive than what I anticipated but I think I'll be solely looking at 2015's going forward because of the magnetic ride. One thing that I did notice on the 6.2L is that 8 speed seems like is shifting constantly and they are pretty noticeable shifts (in comparison to some other cars where you don't feel it at all). Is this something that you 6.2 guys got used to pretty quick?

 

I now there are some updates out there but haven't down a whole lot of research on all the 8 speed problems. I did ask the younger sales guy if people were liking the 8 speeds or if they had heard of problems and he didn't think there were any problems but that could be a lack of knowledge or just not selling a whole lot of 6.2's.

 

I'm still keeping my eyes out there for deals with the thinking I might buy something late this summer/early fall.

Posted

In regards to your 6.2 8spd comment, yes, it took me a little bit of getting used to as far as more shifts. I now have 400 miles on my truck and I'm completely used to the trans and love every minute of it.

Posted

I Think if i drove a Magnetic ride truck, I would have to buy it. I have only heard great stuff about it.

Posted

I don't notice the shifting but the 6.2 really needs to be moving to stretch it's legs, in town there's not a huge difference. But merge on the highway with the 6.2 then do the same with the 5.3 and you'll wonder where the power went. Not that the 5.3 feels slow by any means (at least with the 3.42)

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • It's official. Chevy pulled the covers off the next-gen 2027 Silverado 1500, and we got the first official look.   Full breakdown here: https://www.gm-trucks.com/2027-chevrolet-silverado-official-first-look-specs/   The quick hits: LT is dead. The new core trim is just called "Silverado." Two new V8s, a 5.7L and a 6.6L. No horsepower or torque numbers yet. The 2.7 TurboMax finally gets the 10-speed. ZR2 moves to standard 35s with front and rear lockers. Over 60 inches of dash display on ZR2 and High Country, passenger screen included. Seven trims, three lifted from the factory: ZR2, Trail Boss, and a new Custom Trail Boss.   So let's get into it: 5.7 and 6.6 instead of holding out for a 6.7. Right call? Killing the LT name after all these years: bold, or a mistake? Does the new look land for you, or is it too safe? No power numbers at reveal. Smart tease, or frustrating? What are you ordering on day one?   Drop your first impressions below. 
    • LOL west coast they need to see what the midwest actually has.  We have been holding at 2.99 for a few weeks now.  Even by work they have come down to 3.02 for the past week.
    • Diesel or gas?  The 37s will obviously, drastically reduce mpg, but the gasser will take a bigger hit to mpg, and power.  Rough guess, but I'd estimate at least a  2mpg hit on the diesel, and up to 4on the gasser. Maybe more.    I wouldn't sweat a gear change on a duramax at all, and unlikely on the gasser either. You're obviously not concerned with acceleration or towing, and the 10spd will find itself in the right gear without much hunting, if any.    If towing, mpg and acceleration are a concern, you're doing the wrong mods.  Either leave it alone, or do the lift/tires and let the chips fall where they may. 
    • I understand. It is disturbing to think a manufacture asks so much and gives so little in engineering support. This is not a GM issues, this is a greed issue and one the ALL practice.    My intent was not to remove the wind from anyone's sail but rather to point out the areas deficient so that they can be discussed with improvements the goal. But to do that you have to know the truth and what that truth is.    The commercial interest are honed in on a few select issues in which they control all the variables and are not forthcoming in the least with their customers about the details. Failure is the only thing that drives these people to improvement. One way not to fail it to manage public "expectations". The set a bar they can clear and put their thumbs under the suspenders with chest puffed.... Only the internal data tells the story fully. As we don't have access to that for decades then we have to generate it ourselves. UOA's with data that matters.  
    • I had skimmed through that article when you posted the link and honestly I felt rather defeated in a sense and realized that all these years in changing oil that in fact putting in what I was told was a good quality oil was probably not filtered as well as it should be although the filter put on the engine would be what ( as long as it never went into bypass mode ) would be the final filtering of the new oil that the engine components would first see, but then the filtering media itself is not up to par to what is ideal because a full flow filter would be too restrictive to filter fine enough for the engines best outcome in the long run. Only one of our tractors over the years which was a Versatile with a 855 Cummins had a separate bypass filter, some engine manufacturers did spec a partial bypass system within the main oil filter but I don't believe any other trucks or equipment I was servicing used such a filter. No doubt a product like the Amsoil bypass system is of benefit as long as nothing goes sideways with the extra plumbing and filter such as a rupture/leak that could cause the oil to pump out of the engine ( yes that Versatile had a remote canister with hoses routed to it as well ). With the idiot egr system on a diesel and as a result forcing a lot more soot into the oil, that certainly isn't helping the diesel engines cause or as you pointed out the GDI engine issue with creating more soot and aside from having a fancy secondary filtering system, changing the oil more often helping lower the total soot load.     So oil manufacturing and the end product is not something one can control and I wonder if there are specs on what various oil packaging companies produce in particle count or size. As to the filtering, if the OEM is not designing a filter size and spec that is really what it could be, they too are short changing the end user and so what is the answer. Of course as you say the oil side can only do so much if the air side isn't keeping up its end of the picture and air filters are only so efficient and if in a dusty environment such as farm or construction or driving gravel roads there is a lot of dirt to filter out and some of that ends up into the air stream.    Of course the irony in places like where I am where they dump the salt on the highways but also will mix in some calcium or outright pure calcium for problem road area's, or using calcium as dust control on gravel roads, the vehicle that gets used in that environment may rust out before a properly engineered engine and maintenance finally wears out so one has to face that reality in the rust belt. 
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...