GM disappointingly small fuel tanks continue

[CamGTP]

Why don't engineers and GM themselves think about this though..

 

If the tank is smaller, sure the weight is less but it will also pollute more because if you have to stop for fuel more often you are using more fuel to reach the station, sit at stop lights and merge back into traffic.

 

Some of the stuff the EPA and CAFE do is just stupid because all the stuff they do doesn't exactly make things better. It costs more to produce these vehicles, the environmental impact greater when it comes to mining for materials. Diesel engines require that low sulfur fuel which takes more time/chemicals to make, they use DEF fluid which is another thing going into the air and when a regen happens guess what it uses even more fuel..

 

But yeah, whatever EPA. Keep doing you, keep being a bunch of hypocrites.

Edited April 5, 2020 by CamGTP

[swathdiver]

The engineers size the tank based on the expected efficiency of the engine.  Full size vehicles get a range of 400-500 miles and they size the tank based on the engine's mpgs to get there, more or less.  This has been the logic of just about all the GM mid and full size vehicles I've owned since the 1980s.

 

The way they probably see it, 99% of the buyers will be fine with it and they see no added value to them taking up more space and volume and weight (less payload capacity) hauling around extra fuel so a handful of us can drive straight through from Florida to New York.

[Like-A-Rock44]

8 hours ago, dieselfan1 said:

Really?

You need to get a grip pal.

Really! Stay in your lane Bro! don’t worry about about me. Go find another forum to talk about mental health ! We are trying to figure out why GM is using very small fuel tanks in there trucks!  

[Like-A-Rock44]

8 hours ago, CamGTP said:

Why don't engineers and GM themselves think about this though..

 

If the tank is smaller, sure the weight is less but it will also pollute more because if you have to stop for fuel more often you are using more fuel to reach the station, sit at stop lights and merge back into traffic.

 

Some of the stuff the EPA and CAFE do is just stupid because all the stuff they do doesn't exactly make things better. It costs more to produce these vehicles, the environmental impact greater when it comes to mining for materials. Diesel engines require that low sulfur fuel which takes more time/chemicals to make, they use DEF fluid which is another thing going into the air and when a regen happens guess what it uses even more fuel..

 

But yeah, whatever EPA. Keep doing you, keep being a bunch of hypocrites.

That is a great point getting off the highway idling, stop and go kills MPGs! Then get back up to highway speed just wasting gas and everyone’s time! Thanks GM   

[diyer2]

No big deal to me.

[Jac365]

Meh, a few minutes refueling a tank sure beats hours recharging an electric vehicle. Especially if one is driving cross-country!!

[j-ten-ner]

It's funny how the same people don't give a damn about mileage "...it's a truck, dude..." and then complain about an almost not discernible amount of fuel wasted for stopping for gas.

You guys make it sound like that you're driving 2,000 mls every day w/o stopping.

I'm fu**ing grateful when I have an excuse to stop every 300-400 mls.

Could a bigger tank be useful? Probably. For a tiny amount of people.

 

so long

j-ten-ner

[Thomcat]

23 hours ago, Like-A-Rock44 said:

........

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. ......

They'll keep doing it and not just to save curb weight. Smaller tank allows room for the 2nd DEF fuel tank necessary for the 3.0 diesel engine option.......fits neatly in the empty undercarriage space next to the gas tank.

[Like-A-Rock44]

38 minutes ago, Thomcat said:

They'll keep doing it and not just to save curb weight. Smaller tank allows room for the 2nd DEF fuel tank necessary for the 3.0 diesel engine option.......fits neatly in the empty undercarriage space next to the gas tank.

That makes sense. Super lazy engineering though 

[Like-A-Rock44]

57 minutes ago, j-ten-ner said:

It's funny how the same people don't give a damn about mileage "...it's a truck, dude..." and then complain about an almost not discernible amount of fuel wasted for stopping for gas.

You guys make it sound like that you're driving 2,000 mls every day w/o stopping.

I'm fu**ing grateful when I have an excuse to stop every 300-400 mls.

Could a bigger tank be useful? Probably. For a tiny amount of people.

 

so long

j-ten-ner

This makes no sense at all! A Large fuel tank benefits everyone. If you like to stop at gas stations just fill your tank up half way or top it off every chance you get. I see dieselfan1 liked your post he is in small tank denial too! 

[dieselfan1]

2 minutes ago, Like-A-Rock44 said:

This makes no sense at all! A Large fuel tank benefits everyone. If you like to stop at gas stations just fill your tank up half way or top it off every chance you get. I see dieselfan1 liked your post he is in small tank denial too! 

I just read through all your posts like a rock. 

Every one of them has you complaining. Go buy a Ford or dodge so you will be happy.

You must live a miserable life.

[3737]

So there are definitely advantages of a larger fuel tank, especially if you are really using your truck. There are not any advantages of a smaller tank, except for a small amount of weight savings, as far as I can tell. I can understand that not everyone needs the benefits that a larger fuel tank provides but I guess my question is why does GM not offer the option? Ford and Ram offer different sized fuel tanks.

[Like-A-Rock44]

3 hours ago, dieselfan1 said:

I just read through all your posts like a rock. 

Every one of them has you complaining. Go buy a Ford or dodge so you will be happy.

You must live a miserable life.

Let me break it down real simple for you Pal. The GM tank is 24 gallons the Ford tank is 50% larger at 36 gallons! Think about that. I am not complaining about a small difference. It would be like if Chevy did not offer a Crew cab and your saying that a Regular cab is just fine. Well its not fine and you know it.  Don’t hate the large tank Bro its not going to hurt you!   

Edited April 5, 2020 by Like-A-Rock44

[swathdiver]

8 hours ago, Like-A-Rock44 said:

Let me break it down real simple for you Pal. The GM tank is 24 gallons the Ford tank is 50% larger at 36 gallons! Think about that. I am not complaining about a small difference. It would be like if Chevy did not offer a Crew cab and your saying that a Regular cab is just fine. Well its not fine and you know it.  Don’t hate the large tank Bro its not going to hurt you!   

So how far do you want to go before refueling?  800 miles?  1,500 miles?

[Otherguy]

Fords standard tank on the F150 is only 23 gallons. The 36 gallon tank is an option with the max towing package I believe. Either way, if you want a bigger fuel tank find a truck brand that suits what you need. Complaining about it on a user based community isn’t going to do anything to change what GM does. On my old 2018 Sierra 1500 Denali 5.3L I got 450- miles on a tank. Which I though was good enough. With my 2020 Sierra 1500 AT4 I am happy with a 24 gallon tank. I don’t tow anyways and if I did I would of gotten a 2500.