4 banger worse gas Mileage then the V8?

[f8l vnm]

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a25953794/chevrolet-silverado-four-cylinder-fuel-economy-test/

[Grumpy Bear]

HFE they call it. 75 mph economy test. Interesting. What was more interesting is the EPA highway cycle speed of 48 mph. 

[BigBadSierra]

Small motor working harder to do the same job.

 

Plus I think the new body shape has way more to do with this as it seems to be an issue in the other engines as well.

 

But that's just my opinion.

[rkj__]

I was waiting for somebody to start a thread on this. 

 

It's not good news for the little 4 banger.  I'm not sure what else to say.

[KARNUT]

Interesting test. My Camry @ 70 gets 35 MPG. At 75 I can get as low as 30 MPG, that’s in a car. For the people that would buy it, I think would do much better. Give it to Grumpy in a 2 door is see 30 mpg easy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sierra Dan]

A 4 cylinder works great in a camry, accord or altima.

Not so much with a truck that weighs substantially more.

My wife's 2.5 4cyl Altima averages 32.5mpg

On the fuel mileage note.... the 2019 T1's are disappointing with the new "Dynamic Skip Fire" tech.

Some are reporting lower economy on these vs. the K2 trucks they had before 

Even with the roughly 400lb reduced weight!

Fairly embarrassing if you ask me.

[KARNUT]

A 4 cylinder works great in a camry, accord or altima.
Not so much with a truck that weighs substantially more.
My wife's 2.5 4cyl Altima averages 32.5mpg
On the fuel mileage note.... the 2019 T1's are disappointing with the new "Dynamic Skip Fire" tech.
Some are reporting lower economy on these vs. the K2 trucks they had before [emoji20]
Even with the roughly 400lb reduced weight!
Fairly embarrassing if you ask me.

I think you missed the point. A brick moving through the wind is going to create more resistance at higher speeds. My Camry being more aero losses up to 5 MPG between 70-75. A truck is going to be worse regardless of engine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[O_J_Simpson]

Living in a state that has speed limits up to 85 MPH EPA estimates are useless. If you are not driving at least 90-95 MPH , you will get ran off the road. Everyone does at least 10 over. They need to test them like they are used, at true highway speeds.

[Sierra Dan]

26 minutes ago, KARNUT said:

I think you missed the point. A brick moving through the wind is going to create more resistance at higher speeds. My Camry being more aero losses up to 5 MPG between 70-75. A truck is going to be worse regardless of engine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well of course a lower profile vehicle has less drag and better aerodynamic properties. That goes without saying.

The fact that Trail Boss and AT4 sit higher from the factory and act as bricks certainly do not help their case in better fuel economy even with the advanced tech and weight reduction.

But they sure look good! LOL

[KARNUT]

Well of course a lower profile vehicle has less drag and better aerodynamic properties. That goes without saying.
The fact that Trail Boss and AT4 sit higher from the factory and act as bricks certainly do not help their case in better fuel economy even with the advanced tech and weight reduction.
But they sure look good! LOL

If my choice was a V-6 with cylinder deactivation or a turbo 4 in a 2 door truck, I go with the 4. Of course the reason would be the modification advantage of the turbo engine and my dislike of cylinder deactivation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[2kwik4u]

18 minutes ago, KARNUT said:

If my choice was a V-6 with cylinder deactivation or a turbo 4 in a 2 door truck, I go with the 4. Of course the reason would be the modification advantage of the turbo engine and my dislike of cylinder deactivation.

Came here to say this......I can't wait for the tuners to get ahold of the little 4cyl and see what is actually possible. If it's anything like the rest of the GM Ecotec 4cyl line, then the potential for a simple tune to add significant horsepower, torque and mileage is great.

[Sierra Dan]

1 minute ago, 2kwik4u said:

Came here to say this......I can't wait for the tuners to get ahold of the little 4cyl and see what is actually possible. If it's anything like the rest of the GM Ecotec 4cyl line, then the potential for a simple tune to add significant horsepower, torque and mileage is great.

Wouldn't this be true also of the 5.3 or 6.2 especially? Any engine can benefit from a tune.

 

Extra MPG is the aimed attraction when offering a 4 cyl engine option over a V8 straight as it comes from the factory.

The fact that this new Silverado 4 cyl produces less MPG from the factory than the offered V8 is simply an embarrassing disaster.

GM obviously did NOT do their homework and rushed it to production as a result of trying to keep up with or surpass the Ford Ecoboost offering that has been out for years.

Maybe some actual real world use by owners will yield better results.

 

[gone_fishing]

Has anyone heard if GM plans to put this turbo 4 into any other models? Seems a little strange that they would develop this motor strictly for 1/2 ton pickups. I wonder how many they have to sell to break even on development costs. Might take awhile if this motor doesn't sell well.

[Sierra Dan]

Maybe the engine will find its way into SUV's and X'overs as well.

[2kwik4u]

42 minutes ago, Sierra Dan said:

Wouldn't this be true also of the 5.3 or 6.2 especially? Any engine can benefit from a tune.

 

Extra MPG is the aimed attraction when offering a 4 cyl engine option over a V8 straight as it comes from the factory.

The fact that this new Silverado 4 cyl produces less MPG from the factory than the offered V8 is simply an embarrassing disaster.

GM obviously did NOT do their homework and rushed it to production as a result of trying to keep up with or surpass the Ford Ecoboost offering that has been out for years.

Maybe some actual real world use by owners will yield better results.

 

 

It would be true for the other engines, and in fact, already is. Typically a turbocharged engine will see larger/faster gains from tunes than their normally aspirated counterparts though.

 

I don't think this is a rushed development, or a disaster. The circumstances under which Car and Driver tested the truck are significantly different than that which the EPA figures are derived from. If anything it shows that manufacturers are just doing what is necessary to pass the tests instead of creating real-world increases. IMO, this is a problem with the EPA testing methodolgy, NOT the manufacturers developing the wrong technology. GM doesn't answer to car and driver, but they do answer to the EPA.