Jump to content

GM disappointingly small fuel tanks continue

Like-A-Rock44
 Share

Recommended Posts

Like-A-Rock44 Enthusiast

Like-A-Rock44

Posted
Posted

How much life does Chevy suck out of there customers? Lets look at the 1/2 ton Chevy Crew short box 24 gal tank and F-150 Crew Short box 36 gal tank. 

17 MPG over 150,000 miles you fill up 123 more times if you own a Chevy! Over your life time of driving (2,000,000 miles) it comes out 1,600 more fill ups!  

 

How long will GM continue to put small undersized fuel tanks in their trucks? They are missing out on sales and driving the brand into the dirt! The small fuel tank literally wastes my life! It is a deal breaker when buying a new truck. My next truck will be 3/4 ton crew long box 2500 Silverado 36 gal, F250 48 gal, Ram 50 gallon! 

 

So many advantages of a large fuel tank.  

Who likes filling up at the gas station and wants to do it more because they own a Chevy with a small fuel tank? NO ONE! 

Who wants to use E85 and still have a reasonable driving range? MANY PEOPLE!  

Who pulls a trailer and still needs a normal driving range? MANY PEOPLE! 

Who wants to save money by avoiding fill ups at high priced stations when it is the only option because your out of fuel? EVERYONE!

Who worries about weight and only fills up with enough fuel to make it through the day? NOT MANY! The large tank does not add much weight when it only 1/2 full! 6 lb a gallon BTW not much...

In a pandemic who wants to have a Chevy with less driving range then the competition? NO ONE! 

 

WHO WANTS TO SPEND MORE TIME DOING WHAT THEY WANT AND LESS TIME FUELING UP? EVERYONE! BUY A FORD   

 

I am a long time Chevy owner but it is time they start listing to there real customers!     

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 2
  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

dieselfan1
dieselfan1

Dude you have issues if you let something this bother you.  

Booger T
Booger T

OP's original post stated that the small fuel tank was hated by everyone, not me. Doesn't bother me one bit, I can get 500-600 range out of a tank and that is way longer than I care to sit behind the

ChuckTaylor
ChuckTaylor

The argument "you need to go to the bathroom anyways" is bunk.  The additional range means for lunch you stop where you want to eat on a cross country tow instead of stopping for gas and food (not alw

Posted Images

3737 Enthusiast

3737

Posted
Posted

So previous short box GM trucks had 26 gallon tanks, anyone know why for the new model they shrunk by 2 gallons to 24? Yeah GM should at least offer the option of a larger tank. I'm all for giving customers the choice. 

Jetiemann Enthusiast

Jetiemann

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, dieselfan1 said:

Dude you have issues if you let something this bother you.

 

I wouldnt normally agree but he seems oddly upset about this. I don't like the fact that my range is less than ideal but I wouldn't go this far with it.

  • Like 3
Like-A-Rock44 Enthusiast

Like-A-Rock44

Posted
  • Author
Posted
43 minutes ago, dieselfan1 said:

Dude you have issues if you let something this bother you.

 

Hey Bro don’t try and derail progress and don’t worry about me. We have a name for people like you “Energy Vampire” 

  • Confused 2
Like-A-Rock44 Enthusiast

Like-A-Rock44

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, 3737 said:

So previous short box GM trucks had 26 gallon tanks, anyone know why for the new model they shrunk by 2 gallons to 24? Yeah GM should at least offer the option of a larger tank. I'm all for giving customers the choice. 

Yes a step in the wrong direction! No one is happy about it. 

MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted

Ford shrank their base gas tank too. The big tank is optional. It is 100% lazy engineering, an easy way to cut weight when they literally go down to the gram when considering part weight cost. People who aren't bothered by it must like having long trips interrupted more often.

  • Like 2
Booger T Enthusiast

Booger T

Posted
Posted

OP's original post stated that the small fuel tank was hated by everyone, not me. Doesn't bother me one bit, I can get 500-600 range out of a tank and that is way longer than I care to sit behind the wheel before getting out and walking around a bit. Oh wait I have a diesel now.? Still it never bothered me when I drove a gasser. Kind of like splitting hairs when one worries about how much time one uses in a lifetime refueling ones vehicle.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Like-A-Rock44 Enthusiast

Like-A-Rock44

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Seriously who wants to stop at the gas station when you should not have too?! GM seems to be there own worst enemy. A 24 gallon tank is pathetic. Good enough will Keep GM from making good sales numbers. Lets come out with a cool truck then cripple its driving range so you cant use it! The small GM tank must be for the poser that has extra time on there hands to hang out at the gas station and move around. 

  • Sad 1
3737 Enthusiast

3737

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, MikeNH said:

Ford shrank their base gas tank too. The big tank is optional. It is 100% lazy engineering, an easy way to cut weight when they literally go down to the gram when considering part weight cost. People who aren't bothered by it must like having long trips interrupted more often.

Is it the weight of the extra material needed to make the tank 2 gallons bigger or the weight of the fuel or both? I would think the extra plastic for a larger tank would be practically nothing. The weight of the fuel would be12 lbs I guess. I am assuming weight is such an issue for EPA MPG?? In the real world I wouldn't think anyone is concerned with a few pounds.

  • Like 1
3737 Enthusiast

3737

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Booger T said:

OP's original post stated that the small fuel tank was hated by everyone, not me. Doesn't bother me one bit, I can get 500-600 range out of a tank and that is way longer than I care to sit behind the wheel before getting out and walking around a bit. Oh wait I have a diesel now.? Still it never bothered me when I drove a gasser. Kind of like splitting hairs when one worries about how much time one uses in a lifetime refueling ones vehicle.

A larger tank is better. If you want to stop and walk around, you can at any point, you don't have to be out of fuel to do so. If you tow a large trailer, fuel range shrinks substantially. 

  • Like 1
MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, 3737 said:

Is it the weight of the extra material needed to make the tank 2 gallons bigger or the weight of the fuel or both? I would think the extra plastic for a larger tank would be practically nothing. The weight of the fuel would be12 lbs I guess. I am assuming weight is such an issue for EPA MPG?? In the real world I wouldn't think anyone is concerned with a few pounds.

I've read more than one article and a few books about auto design that say when it comes down to it, engineers make design decisions in grams. And yes, they would be considering the full weight as that comes out of payload capacity.

  • Like 1
Like-A-Rock44 Enthusiast

Like-A-Rock44

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Does anyone know what the fuel tank size is for the 2021 Tahoe/Suburban? I did not see it in there media release. Ford Expedition 23.6 gallons and Ford Expedition Max 27.8 gal. I hope GM bumps up there fuel capacity from the 31 gallon tank currently. 

dieselfan1 Senior Enthusiast

dieselfan1

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Like-A-Rock44 said:

Hey Bro don’t try and derail progress and don’t worry about me. We have a name for people like you “Energy Vampire” 

Really?

You need to get a grip pal.

Edited by dieselfan1
  • Like 2
tmo Enthusiast

tmo

Posted
Posted

Don’t worry, In 10 years you will be driving electric and it’s won’t matter because you will plug in at night when you sleep. No more wasting your life.

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,914
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    AidenVorpagel
    Newest Member
    AidenVorpagel
    Joined

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 1,056 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Sugar Bears 2015 GMC Terrain SLE-2 2.4 AWD

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      286,740 Mile Services   8/6/2026   New AC Compressor. Refrigerant oil and dye, evacuate and charge system.  New exhaust system from cat back.  New Iridium plugs plus replace #3 coil Repair/rewire headlamp wiring (passenger side) and replace all forward bulbs. Polish lenses of both assemblies.  Pull rear rotors, clean and adjust parking assembly. Inspect, clean and grease front calipers. Check pads and shoes.  4 wheel power bleed of brake system. Dot 4 Reset idle speed 50 rpm higher New Serpentine belt.    Will need new pads in the rear in about 5K more miles.    Tax Title and License out the door just short of a grand.    AC clutch had bitten the dust. 1 year warranty on the pick and save replacement. Thing will make a Polar Bear cry Uncle.  He spent quite some time on the wiring. It was in the harness and he does nothing half. I got off cheap. I have considerable more light down the road. Sylvania Silver Star replacements.  Gas seal between the porcelain and shell of plug #3 was blown, cooked the coil. That was the cold miss.  Love the new exhaust. I can sneak into the neighborhood again.  Nice to have a working parking brake again. Belle Tire never got it done. That was disappointing.    This was one of her bigger bills and still way cheaper than a payment even given the oil consumption. This thing cost me under a hundred a month in repairs and normal routine costs. What is my incentive to replace it? 🤔           
    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...