Jump to content
  • Sign up for FREE! Become a GM-Trucks.com Member Today!

    In 20 seconds you can become part of the worlds largest and oldest community discussing General Motors, Chevrolet and GMC branded pickups, crossovers, and SUVs. From buying research to owner support, join 1.5 MILLION GM Truck Enthusiasts every month who use GM-Trucks.com as a daily part of their ownership experience. 

Recommended Posts

On ‎5‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 5:07 PM, aseibel said:

Grumpy, do you do a lot of remote starts to warm it up? I can't believe you average 8% off of hand calc mileage. That means your DIC is routinely between 1-2 mpg high.

 

I have been hand checking most of my tanks since reading about the inaccuracies of our truck models 2 years ago. I have found that mine is almost always within .5 mpg, (about 2.5%) or better. I'd say usually its better than that. I don't chart the DIC readings, only my actual calculated numbers.

 

There must be some reason why yours is giving such wacky numbers.

I have a rule Andy. If the motor is turning, so are the wheels. In the winter I start it, let the gauges do through diagnostics. Give my oil pressure a look, then start moving. I wish it were closer. My odometer and speedometer a GPS within 1%. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It would be more impressive it this were hand calculated averages instead 'happy' ECU numbers. Right? 

Some of you are getting killer mileage!  I just did the Seattle/Portland round trip, mostly highway using cruise, +5 over speed limit (65 to 75).  19.7 by hand calc, 19.6 by truck calc.

Back to the comment on DIC mpg accuracy. Just filled up 375 mile tank of mixed driving in my trail boss. DIC was 18.4, hand calc (2 click tfl method) was 18.3. so pretty much every tank so far has

Posted Images

13 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

I have a rule Andy. If the motor is turning, so are the wheels. In the winter I start it, let the gauges do through diagnostics. Give my oil pressure a look, then start moving. I wish it were closer. My odometer and speedometer a GPS within 1%. 

well, darn. that shoots my theory that the DIC is good at calculating moving mileage, but ignores fuel burned while idling/remote start. wierd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, aseibel said:

well, darn. that shoots my theory that the DIC is good at calculating moving mileage, but ignores fuel burned while idling/remote start. wierd.

Right? It's a minor flaw in an otherwise stellar truck. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

CONFESSION - I do not have a Trail Boss or the big tires. No lift either. But my DIC shows gas mileage pretty much right on with my calculations. I've recorded every drop of gas for 5,353 miles and my average calculated mileage has been 18.6. The average of the numbers from the DIC on each tank full is 18.8.  

 

Below are screen shots of my best trip and my best 50 miles. My truck has the 3.42 gears, 18" wheels, stock tires. I use 10% ethanol 92 octane premium Chevron (winter blend, probably, on this trip). Temp was in the mid- to hi-40s, not much wind or precipitation. Up-and-down terrain but elevation changes from sea level to about 1,000 feet. It was about half interstate (60 to 65 mph) and half state highways through the Coast Range mountains (45 to 60) and a few little towns to go slow through (20 to 35).

 

6.2 and 10-speed FTW!

 

5c6b1045e2c3d_tripmileage.thumb.jpg.2801d969f6b6e0da550e4709a5e14bd7.jpg5c6b104a8e423_best50mi.thumb.jpg.d0d2b684b573865bbb5f863a1764dd18.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another 400 mile trail boss tank in the books. Half highway about 68 to 70 mph, and half commute to work in stop and go highway. Also included 10 minutes of idle hooking up travel trailer to get it out of back yard and back it up steep driveway.

 

DIC said 19.1, hand calc was 19.6 mpg with 2 click method 87 octane 10 % ethanaol. Best 25 mile was 25.3 mpg.

 

Still very impressed

 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you are getting killer mileage!  I just did the Seattle/Portland round trip, mostly highway using cruise, +5 over speed limit (65 to 75).  19.7 by hand calc, 19.6 by truck calc.

IMG_0219.jpeg

IMG_0221.jpeg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2015 the 4.3 EPA numbers for the RC 4X4 4.3's were 17 city, 22 highway.

Saw my first 2019 WT RC 4X4 today. 15 city, 20 highway. 10% LOSS??

 

 :sigh: 

 

This truck looks like it was cut from cardboard and glued together with RTV. The box interior is hideous and crude. Wheel wells have enough holes in them to assure it will rust out quicker then a RAM in a salt mine.

This bare bone cost over 38K! 

 

:fume:

 

IMG_0104.thumb.JPG.1ae35bcd293cb6083129e278a9604bd8.JPG

 

IMG_0106.thumb.JPG.9d74dbffa361e397906db2dedd118799.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

In 2015 the 4.3 EPA numbers for the RC 4X4 4.3's were 17 city, 22 highway.

Saw my first 2019 WT RC 4X4 today. 15 city, 20 highway. 10% LOSS??

 

 :sigh: 

 

This truck looks like it was cut from cardboard and glued together with RTV. The box interior is hideous and crude. Wheel wells have enough holes in them to assure it will rust out quicker then a RAM in a salt mine.

This bare bone cost over 38K! 

 

:fume:

 

IMG_0104.thumb.JPG.1ae35bcd293cb6083129e278a9604bd8.JPG

 

IMG_0106.thumb.JPG.9d74dbffa361e397906db2dedd118799.JPG

The EPA estimates are pretty much meaningless. No point in comparing two completely different trucks. The new T1 platform is a massive improvement over the K2 trucks. Better handling, the front suspension has more suspension travel to better absorb bumps, tighter turn radius despite the increase in wheelbase, the low slung seat position of the last 5 generations of GM trucks was finally fixed, the crew cabs have more room, the cab floor is now flat, the LED headlights mean I can finally see whats ahead of me at night, etc. I loved my 2014 but I'll gladly take potential hit on my imaginary fuel economy estimates to get a truck that's as good as these T1's are. Anybody that drives a T1 truck after owning a K2 or GMT900 will realize that there were a ton of major improvements, even if you don't care for the styling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, HondaHawkGT said:

The EPA estimates are pretty much meaningless. No point in comparing two completely different trucks. The new T1 platform is a massive improvement over the K2 trucks. Better handling, the front suspension has more suspension travel to better absorb bumps, tighter turn radius despite the increase in wheelbase, the low slung seat position of the last 5 generations of GM trucks was finally fixed, the crew cabs have more room, the cab floor is now flat, the LED headlights mean I can finally see whats ahead of me at night, etc. I loved my 2014 but I'll gladly take potential hit on my imaginary fuel economy estimates to get a truck that's as good as these T1's are. Anybody that drives a T1 truck after owning a K2 or GMT900 will realize that there were a ton of major improvements, even if you don't care for the styling.

What an odd thing to say. The entire point of the EPA test cycle is to provide an apples to apples compare between vehicles of different design.

 

The rest is relative. Whatever flaws my K2 has had I've corrected. Handling and ride for instance and did it for allot less than the 30% upcharge of the new pickup. Ditto lights. Changed the low bulb and aimed them correctly. I see just fine in any weather. 

 

What 'other' flaws others see I've either not experienced or I just don't care. Like turning radius. Just don't care. I'm 6'2" and love my seating position. That one is a case by case, or should I say body by body determination. More room. Hum. Yea, don't care. I have more than I need. I'm over 200 lbs. There is nothing wrong with her brakes. Next complaint? 

 

Imaginary fuel economy? Okay...if you say so. But it isn't the test results sir. Imaginary is the Government believing people obey laws. The 'real world' test cycle of the EPA does not exist because that cycle obeys laws. There is no test cycle for anything when people try to hold the EPA numbers hostage for people that drive 20 over in an 80 mph Texas speed zone. That is imaginary. As Ron White would say, "Ya can't fix stupid". 

 

The only real improvement, IMHO, is the profit margin GM is enjoying. Way less truck, way more money. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

At about 2500 total miles on LTZ Z71 5.3 33" GY trailrunner ATs and a bakflip MX4, still averaging 17-18 suburbia and 18-19 hwy. In the southeast, unless your doing 10-15 over posted, you're getting passed. I can't drive 55 like some of you guys. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the EPA test change in 2017? I would say a 2015 to 2019 isn't an apples to apples comparison. If I remember correctly, some vehicles that were unchanged from 2016 to 2017 had lower numbers on the 2017 EPA tests due to the new methods. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, UGADawgs said:

At about 2500 total miles on LTZ Z71 5.3 33" GY trailrunner ATs and a bakflip MX4, still averaging 17-18 suburbia and 18-19 hwy. In the southeast, unless your doing 10-15 over posted, you're getting passed. I can't drive 55 like some of you guys. 

Lol, that’s the truth. I was just driving through rural Central Texas this weekend, where the average two lane state highway is 70-75mph speed limit. Going 80mph down a country state hwy will kill the ole MPG averages pretty quickly. My numbers are identical to yours, and we have the exact same truck. (I just don’t have a Bak Flip on mine. Getting a Bak Revolver in a couple weeks ?)

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, econometrics said:

Lol, that’s the truth. I was just driving through rural Central Texas this weekend, where the average two lane state highway is 70-75mph speed limit. Going 80mph down a country state hwy will kill the ole MPG averages pretty quickly. My numbers are identical to yours, and we have the exact same truck. (I just don’t have a Bak Flip on mine. Getting a Bak Revolver in a couple weeks ?)

 

19 Denali 5.3 4wd 3.23 gear, 33" GY Trail Runner. BakFlip G2. Pretty much identical numbers as you guys.

Link to post
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.