What's new
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

2014 GM truck MPG's released.

y5mgisi

y5mgisi

1 ton status
Joined
Aug 11, 2002
Posts
17,148
Reaction score
280
Location
Portland Oregon
Not as impressive as i was hoping for but pretty decent. Good jump in power too!

http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2013/04/gm_2014_chevy_silverado_gmc_si_1.html

Cliffs,

5.3-liter EcoTec3 V8 engine to achieve up to 23 miles per gallon highway. The two-wheel drive versions will achieve 19 combined mpg – 16 city and 23 highway – and the four-by-four versions are rated at 18 mpg combined –16 city and 22 highway.
Click to expand...

The 5.3-liter EcoTec3 V8 is SAE certified at 355 horsepower and 383 lb-ft of torque, with more than 300 lb-ft of torque available from 2,000 to 5,600 rpm for responsive performance under a broad range of real-world conditions.
Click to expand...

GM only released specifications for the 5.3-liter engine. Officials said performance for the 4.3-liter V6 and 6.2-liter V8 will be available in the coming months.
Click to expand...
 
With my old 09 2wd extended cab L76 6.0 6 speed auto 3.42 gears I got 17mpg. Not impressed at all...
 
I"m impressed...those tow rating numbers were one ton stuff 10 years ago.
 
I heard the Suburban and Tahoe are shrinking a bit in size for 2014. Did the trucks at all? I was hoping to trade my wifes LTZ/Z71 Suburban in on a new one next year to take advantage of the new size and mpg but havent seen much data yet.
 
Im just shocked that with direct injection they only picked up 1mpg. Sure seem to have picked up some HP though! Thats 40hp more than my 2012! Really curious to see the 4.3 and 6.2 numbers.
 
well I'm impressed, having nothing newer than a 99...my 6.0 2500 gets 11.5 on a good tank, 14 highway with a tailwind and 65mph. Its rated for 9K towing, and I've pushed it with probably 11K.

That said, two guys at work have 12-13 models, check engine lights on both, one had a cylinder pumping oil that they threw a new piston/rings at it (no hone or anything, just put a new piston in it) seems to be doing good now though.
The engine cylinder deactivation is messing up on the 13 as well...?????Gov't Motors?
 
I forget when the cylinder deactivation was introduced, but it does seem to be the number one issue with these trucks. And mine has it... In the distant future i plan on getting one of the tunes that disables the feature. Most folks with intake tube, cat back, and a good tune without DOD report actually gaining MPG over stock. I think im going to take that approach. Even if i dont gain MPG, i feel like it will just be all around better.

Maybe they fixed the issues in the 2014's? Maybe?

I dont doubt that mine will be in the shop here and there. But anymore, What car/truck isnt going to? Seems like we hear about virtually every kind of car/truck having been in the shop a time or two in its first 100k miles. I wont feel bad or let down when it does end up in the shop, cause i will know that if i had bought a ford/toyota/nissan, i can pretty well bet the farm that it would have ended up in there also. The difference being, i can STILL work on my new GM truck. If it poops a motor, i can swap it myself in my driveway. Im not 100% sure i could do that with one of the others.
 
The '05 Avalanche here gets about 16 in the city and 22ish on the highway at 70-75 mph, sounds weird that their claiming these numbers as new when, I already see them in a 9 year old 5.3 setup.

Of course we don't drive like we're drag racing either.
 
All those little tweaks work a lot better on a lightweight aerodynamic car, but on a truck that has mildly better aerodynamics than a brick and weighs a couple tons, I think they're close to hitting the wall of what gasoline can do. We've definitely hit the point of diminishing returns- more and more complexity and cost for a relatively minimal gain.
 
bigred88 said:
All those little tweaks work a lot better on a lightweight aerodynamic car, but on a truck that has mildly better aerodynamics than a brick and weighs a couple tons, I think they're close to hitting the wall of what gasoline can do. We've definitely hit the point of diminishing returns- more and more complexity and cost for a relatively minimal gain.
Click to expand...

True, but at the same time my old 93 350 got 16 or 17 on average and about 20 on the highway. Nowhere near the power, but it was TBI and simple. You can't tell me they can't do better than that 20 years later...
 
I'd say having a ton more power and still a little better mileage is doing quite a bit better. The new trucks are also overloaded with luxury features and safety features (good or bad, not having that argument, just saying they're there), so considering they manage to have all that stuff and still be able to tow more, have more power, and get roughly 10% better mileage, I think they're doing alright. They could probably do better, but the trucks would only end up even more expensive than they already are.
 
I think it's kinda funny how jaded we are by tye new stuff. Imagine in 1985 someone telling you that you could buy a new half ton truck that would have a 325ci motor, that has 355hp 383lbft, could tow 10k pounds, had a 100k mile warranty, idled butter smooth, got 23mpg, and didn't require tune ups for 100k miles. That wpuld be an unbelievable truck.
 
Z71paramedic said:
True, but at the same time my old 93 350 got 16 or 17 on average and about 20 on the highway. Nowhere near the power, but it was TBI and simple. You can't tell me they can't do better than that 20 years later...
Click to expand...

I hear ya. But they have to be clean too....Damn near zero HC, CO and NOX under all conditions
 
I hear you on that. I'm just talking about how much it drinks, not how well it digests it:D
 
i got a 2011 sierra very pleased with it,no cylinder disactivation on mine.took a 5.3 just because off the 6 speed transmission. there was about 25 hp between a 5.3 and 4.8,but the 5.3 was at a bit lower rpm. what i don,t understand is why don,t they make a 200hp engine which is enough power for most people, and then get better gas millage! when they got the 6.2 out in 1982 it was just for fuel saving,fuel was cheap then and 130hp was nothing too phone your mother about! they sold pretty good,and got great fuel milage. seems too me 200hp and good gas or fuel milage should be possible 30 years later:dunno:!
 
4.3 V-6 is in the lineup for 14 as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom