Jump to content

FULL REVIEW: How The Hell Do You Go From Driving a BMW 335i to a 2018 Chevy Suburban


Recommended Posts

LOL. Yup! Former 'ahole' BMW driver, first time Chevy and "dumbestic" owner, and loving my new truck. :)


Finally got a nice blog and lengthy review written on my website of my 2018 Suburban Premier 4x4, so hope you guys enjoy it and prospective buyers find it useful.

http://www.stevepake.com/life/2019/2/2/bmw-335i-to-chevy-suburban

 

Also of interest in here are some side-by-side luggage capacity photos of the Suburban vs the Ford Expedition Max (no contest, the Burb has way more space despite the specs), and some other driving impressions of the new Expedition from having rented it for a weekend a few months before finally pulling the trigger on the Burban.

 

My website is mostly about my experiences as a survivor of a young adult cancer, but it's fun to write about other things too.
 

Suburban+Review+JPG.jpg

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, S P said:

LOL. Yup! Former 'ahole' BMW driver, first time Chevy and "dumbestic" owner, and loving my new truck. :)


Finally got a nice blog and lengthy review written on my website of my 2018 Suburban Premier 4x4, so hope you guys enjoy it and prospective buyers find it useful.

http://www.stevepake.com/life/2019/2/2/bmw-335i-to-chevy-suburban

 

Also of interest in here are some side-by-side luggage capacity photos of the Suburban vs the Ford Expedition Max (no contest, the Burb has way more space despite the specs), and some other driving impressions of the new Expedition from having rented it for a weekend a few months before finally pulling the trigger on the Burban.

Great review.

 

It's interesting that the 6.2L V8 has worse fuel economy in the 'Burb than the 5.3L V8 because from the tests that were done on the Sierra and Silverado, it actually gets better economy overall (though maybe that's only once you take towing and hauling into account).  I'm with you that, even if the fuel economy were 2 mpg better overall with the 6.2L V8, that doesn't justify the higher purchase cost and higher running costs of premium.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Cpl_Punishment said:

Great review.

 

It's interesting that the 6.2L V8 has worse fuel economy in the 'Burb than the 5.3L V8 because from the tests that were done on the Sierra and Silverado, it actually gets better economy overall (though maybe that's only once you take towing and hauling into account).  I'm with you that, even if the fuel economy were 2 mpg better overall with the 6.2L V8, that doesn't justify the higher purchase cost and higher running costs of premium.

Plus you can't get the 3.42 rear end with the 6.2. To me anyway a 5.3/3.42 combo feels about 90% as fast as a 6.2. Also, the 10-speed does not have a transmission dipstick. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2019 at 3:26 PM, Cpl_Punishment said:

Great review.

 

It's interesting that the 6.2L V8 has worse fuel economy in the 'Burb than the 5.3L V8 because from the tests that were done on the Sierra and Silverado, it actually gets better economy overall (though maybe that's only once you take towing and hauling into account).  I'm with you that, even if the fuel economy were 2 mpg better overall with the 6.2L V8, that doesn't justify the higher purchase cost and higher running costs of premium.

I just noticed that for 2019, now the Suburban 4WD 5.3L is rated at 14/21 mpg (down from 15/22) and 16 mpg overall, and the 4WD 6.2L is rated at 14/20 mpg and still 16 mpg overall. No idea what that's about, if there were methodology changes at EPA, or just minor configuration changes to the vehicles causing small fluctuations in numbers like these. Either way, the running costs are still $3000 higher for the 6.2L over 5 years. 

 

I've read from people on here with the 6.2L that they can't tell the difference when they put regular fuel in, either performance or mileage, but I'd never feel right putting anything less than premium in it, and those $90 fill-ups. Ouch! Sorry not for me! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Mandalorian said:

Plus you can't get the 3.42 rear end with the 6.2. To me anyway a 5.3/3.42 combo feels about 90% as fast as a 6.2. Also, the 10-speed does not have a transmission dipstick. 

I never actually test drove a 6.2 Denali XL, but from all that I've read in reviews, the 5.3 and 6.2 do feel similar to drive due to the shift mapping in the 6.2 keeping the revs as low as possible for fuel economy. But if you mat it, there's definitely a lot more there - the numbers speak for themselves.

 

That said, my 5.3L/3.42 Burb was more than impressive on country two lane roads on our first road trip, where I actually did a double pass fully loaded with 5 people and our dog and cargo. It roars to life and there's plenty of power. If it were a few tenths faster it would be just about perfect from my butt dyno perspective, but it's fine as is. My old 1999 Nissan Maxima 5-speed would barely out run this truck! Lol!  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, S P said:

I just noticed that for 2019, now the Suburban 4WD 5.3L is rated at 14/21 mpg (down from 15/22)

Looked up 2018/2019 Mercedes GLS450 4Matic and Volvo XC90 AWD T6, and they're both down 1 mpg overall for 2019 also despite being identical. So looks like there might have been some minor methodology tweak at EPA. Will try to figure out the changes and update my blog. 

EDIT: And whatever is going on at EPA could also explain why the new Silverado's EPA numbers are "down" compared to 2018 models. They might not be down at all, and just falling prey to an unpublicized change at EPA? I kinda doubt that, but something is fishy either way.

See these two articles: 

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/12/2019-silverado-sierra-return-worse-fuel-economy-with-4-3l-and-5-3l-engines/

 

TTAC has already picked up on this too with the Colorado and Canyon. Hmmm:
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/08/2019-chevrolet-colorado-diesel-takes-a-mysterious-fuel-economy-hit/

Edited by S P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, S P said:

I just noticed that for 2019, now the Suburban 4WD 5.3L is rated at 14/21 mpg (down from 15/22) and 16 mpg overall, and the 4WD 6.2L is rated at 14/20 mpg and still 16 mpg overall. No idea what that's about, if there were methodology changes at EPA, or just minor configuration changes to the vehicles causing small fluctuations in numbers like these. Either way, the running costs are still $3000 higher for the 6.2L over 5 years. 

 

I've read from people on here with the 6.2L that they can't tell the difference when they put regular fuel in, either performance or mileage, but I'd never feel right putting anything less than premium in it, and those $90 fill-ups. Ouch! Sorry not for me! 

Those people have no business buying a 6.2L!  While it's certainly not for everyone and in most cases not even needed why even consider buying one (spending the extra money) if you can't stomach the premium fuel requirement? Get the 5.3L and use regular and/or the Flex fuel option. It's only $90 to fill up now (assuming a 31 gallon tank capacity) @ $2.90 a gallon for premium vs $74 for regular @ $2.50 a gallon. Sorry, it always sort of boggles my mind how someone can drop $70K or more on a vehicle and then cringe at the pump. People should use the recommended fuel, especially in a high compression (11.5:1 for the L-86 not sure on the 2019 L-87) engine to get the optimum performance and fuel economy. Don't get me wrong, I currently have the 6.2 but I was happy with the 5.3 in my 2008 Avalanche. Live within your means!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, S P said:

I've read from people on here with the 6.2L that they can't tell the difference when they put regular fuel in, either performance or mileage, but I'd never feel right putting anything less than premium in it, and those $90 fill-ups. Ouch! Sorry not for me! 

 

42 minutes ago, SS502 said:

Those people have no business buying a 6.2L!  While it's certainly not for everyone and in most cases not even needed why even consider buying one (spending the extra money) if you can't stomach the premium fuel requirement? Get the 5.3L and use regular and/or the Flex fuel option. It's only $90 to fill up now (assuming a 31 gallon tank capacity) @ $2.90 a gallon for premium vs $74 for regular @ $2.50 a gallon. Sorry, it always sort of boggles my mind how someone can drop $70K or more on a vehicle and then cringe at the pump. People should use the recommended fuel, especially in a high compression (11.5:1 for the L-86 not sure on the 2019 L-87) engine to get the optimum performance and fuel economy. Don't get me wrong, I currently have the 6.2 but I was happy with the 5.3 in my 2008 Avalanche. Live within your means!

I've also read from a couple people on here that the 6.2 sometimes knocks even with 91 octane, let alone 87.

Edited by Cpl_Punishment
Typo - 93 instead of 87
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cpl_Punishment said:

 

I've also read from a couple people on here that the 6.2 sometimes knocks even with 91 octane, let alone 93.

I can only assume the knocking is possibly caused by oil blow by gasses (octane robbing compounds) being ingested into the combustion cycle through the PCV system. I've never heard any knocking, even under heavy loads in mine...I only run 93 in mine. Of course, the cabin is pretty quiet and the Borla exhaust might hide it if it is doing it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, S P said:

Looked up 2018/2019 Mercedes GLS450 4Matic and Volvo XC90 AWD T6, and they're both down 1 mpg overall for 2019 also despite being identical. So looks like there might have been some minor methodology tweak at EPA. Will try to figure out the changes and update my blog. 

There's a new GLS due for 2020, so it'll be interesting to see how that stacks up. It's about time too, that interior looks and feels OLD, especially compared to the updated interiors in a lot of the newer Benzes. The updated C-Class, S-Class, G-Class, E-Class, all have fantastically good interiors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, SS502 said:

I can only assume the knocking is possibly caused by oil blow by gasses (octane robbing compounds) being ingested into the combustion cycle through the PCV system. I've never heard any knocking, even under heavy loads in mine...I only run 93 in mine. Of course, the cabin is pretty quiet and the Borla exhaust might hide it if it is doing it.

Sorry, typo in my last post. I was trying to say that if the 6.2 will knock with 91, it'll only be worse with 87.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, SS502 said:

Those people have no business buying a 6.2L!  While it's certainly not for everyone and in most cases not even needed why even consider buying one (spending the extra money) if you can't stomach the premium fuel requirement? Get the 5.3L and use regular and/or the Flex fuel option. It's only $90 to fill up now (assuming a 31 gallon tank capacity) @ $2.90 a gallon for premium vs $74 for regular @ $2.50 a gallon. Sorry, it always sort of boggles my mind how someone can drop $70K or more on a vehicle and then cringe at the pump. People should use the recommended fuel, especially in a high compression (11.5:1 for the L-86 not sure on the 2019 L-87) engine to get the optimum performance and fuel economy. Don't get me wrong, I currently have the 6.2 but I was happy with the 5.3 in my 2008 Avalanche. Live within your means!

Wow only $0.40/gal difference for premium down in Florida? It's usually closer to $1/gal difference for premium grade fuel here in my neck of the woods. My usual station is currently $2.33 for regular and $3.08 for premium. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mandalorian said:

There's a new GLS due for 2020, so it'll be interesting to see how that stacks up. It's about time too, that interior looks and feels OLD, especially compared to the updated interiors in a lot of the newer Benzes. The updated C-Class, S-Class, G-Class, E-Class, all have fantastically good interiors. 

I was actually considering getting a used GLS450 a year or two ago to see how we liked it while also waiting for the BMW X7. The X7 is what my wife really wanted and would have driven, but $80-90k to "start" for a brand spanking new model that will probably have a ton of issues and still wouldn't be nearly big enough for us, and no discounts off of MSRP for now, uhhhhh, no thanks.

 

That vehicle isn't even on the road yet. I think first deliveries are starting in April. We waited to see what the cargo space looked like, and it was even worse than the GLS. My BMW sales person kept swearing up and down that the X7 was going to be "Suburban sized" and to wait. Uhh, no.

 

Actually looking forward to FCA getting into this game with the Jeep Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer, coming in 2021? I always wondered why Chrysler didn't have a vehicle in this space. Well, with FCA leading things, now they do.

 

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15098149/the-2021-jeep-wagoneer-and-grand-wagoneer-are-cars-worth-waiting-for-feature/ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, S P said:

Wow only $0.40/gal difference for premium down in Florida? It's usually closer to $1/gal difference for premium grade fuel here in my neck of the woods. My usual station is currently $2.33 for regular and $3.08 for premium. 

Sorry, that was misleading on my part. I fill up at Sam's Club where today regular is $2.11 and Premium is $2.45 for a $.34 difference. At the Tom Thumb its a $.71 difference, same at Cefco and Shell. So you are more right than I am :thumbs:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.