Gm Debuts "xfe" Fuel Economy Edition Of Silverado

bowserb · August 13, 2008

http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/news/gm/f...el-economy.html

Link above

Seems like with all the technology they could pull off better results with better fuel economy

VMax2007 · August 13, 2008

They could if they would simply read this forum and learn all about Rigg's Hydrogen system.

2000DV4.8 · August 13, 2008

dietz4ibanez · August 13, 2008

haha... Whats next for the Chevy truck? 30 mpgs with 2.56 gearing... I cant wait to see people this site with these xfe 3.08 rear ends asking about switching their trucks to 3.42,3.73 or 4.10 gears...

Its about time for the 6 speed tranny in a gasser

bowserb · August 13, 2008

Maybe in the next few yrs we could see that ecoboost stuff (from ford) but of better GM quality in some of the truck engines. Might not be too far away when we could see 23-25mpg hwy and 17-19 city? Just a thought, supposedly EcoBoost can improve gas mileage 20-30%

I guess time will tell

I think that with a lower gear ratio like with a 3.23 would make a great combo. Maybe pull off something like 18/25 mpg.

Just my .02 cents.

rvsahs · August 13, 2008

http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/news/gm/f...el-economy.html

Link above

Seems like with all the technology they could pull off better results with better fuel economy

This is news to me. One wonders how much this option will cost the consumer just to achieve a one mpg improvement!

soludsnake · August 13, 2008

Funny how they are making a truck that is aimed at being fuel efficient, wait... Truck-Fuel Efficient... isn't that an Oxymoron?

I'm all for trucks that get better milage, but at what cost? Suddenly you buy a truck that costs more then the average one, gain 5hp but loose 2,600lbs of towing capacity. All this for 1mpg? If you ask me it doesn't make much sense.

Most people by trucks for the ability to haul and tow things. When you buy a truck you shouldn't be expecting to get good fuel economy, but power and a tow rating. If you don't need the bed and want good fuel economy then your purchasing the wrong product. A truck bed without cargo is like Santa's sleigh without gifts, what's the point in having it if you aint going to use it for what its meant for (assuming Santa bought the sleigh and just used a U-Haul @ Christmas instead).

Im sure this thing will work out and people will buy it, but those people obviously don't care about the towing ability of a truck (to an extent).

Just one mans opinion.

jrrod2004 · August 13, 2008

rather buy a two mode hybrid than that XFE system. They should just shove that two mode hybrid system into the Silverado/Sierra and be done with it. OR just put in the 4.5 DMax already (hopefully with efficient turbos)

99silveradoz71 · August 13, 2008

A truck bed without cargo is like Santa's sleigh without gifts, what's the point in having it if you aint going to use it for what its meant for (assuming Santa bought the sleigh and just used a U-Haul @ Christmas instead).

That's a beautiful analogy right there

rt66er · August 13, 2008

I'm curious as to why the 2009 trucks with 6-speed auto are rated 1 mpg WORSE city than 2008 with 4-speed auto? And no better highway mileage. My 2008 2wd Ext cab 5.3 is rated 15/20. 2009 2wd Ext cab 5.3 (with 6-speed auto) is rated 14/20. What's up with that?

7classicz · August 13, 2008

http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/news/gm/f...el-economy.html

Link above

Seems like with all the technology they could pull off better results with better fuel economy

Since the gear ratio is higher and the tow rating is lower, they might as well reduce the capability (and weight) of the frame, transmission and rear-end.

Wait ... haven't they already done this, and called it a Colorado/Canyon?

D&SYukonDenali · August 13, 2008

Whoever in marketing in GM thought of this one needs to lose their job. Just a bad idea to promote improved fuel economy of only +1 mpg (IMHO)

2005LT · August 13, 2008

I'm curious as to why the 2009 trucks with 6-speed auto are rated 1 mpg WORSE city than 2008 with 4-speed auto? And no better highway mileage. My 2008 2wd Ext cab 5.3 is rated 15/20. 2009 2wd Ext cab 5.3 (with 6-speed auto) is rated 14/20. What's up with that?

Good point. Shouldn't be that way but perhaps the tranny is more heavy duty with more parts to spin? Just tossing that out. That 3.08 gearing is gonna suck for sure. I already loathe having 3.42 gears (don't get these).

onac255 · August 13, 2008

I'm curious as to why the 2009 trucks with 6-speed auto are rated 1 mpg WORSE city than 2008 with 4-speed auto? And no better highway mileage. My 2008 2wd Ext cab 5.3 is rated 15/20. 2009 2wd Ext cab 5.3 (with 6-speed auto) is rated 14/20. What's up with that?

That is a good question. Probably because the first few gears are much shorter in the 6-speed as opposed to the 4-speed. So in city conditions the transmission is shifting much more to keep the engine within peak rpm numbers.

onac255 · August 13, 2008

I'm curious as to why the 2009 trucks with 6-speed auto are rated 1 mpg WORSE city than 2008 with 4-speed auto? And no better highway mileage. My 2008 2wd Ext cab 5.3 is rated 15/20. 2009 2wd Ext cab 5.3 (with 6-speed auto) is rated 14/20. What's up with that?

Good point. Shouldn't be that way but perhaps the tranny is more heavy duty with more parts to spin? Just tossing that out. That 3.08 gearing is gonna suck for sure. I already loathe having 3.42 gears (don't get these).

Same here bud...3.42s suck for anything except highway mileage. Some 3.73s would have been real nice.