General Motors: Ignore the Fuel Economy Figures on Turbo-Four Silverado and Sierra

Unfortunately for GM people do look at the label.  

And when ever people say "we beat the label" well maybe Ford or Ram beats their label too.

2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Unfortunately for GM people do look at the label.  

And when ever people say "we beat the label" well maybe Ford or Ram beats their label too.

Unfortunately, GM is competitive with the other brands as opposed to class-leading in the fuel efficiency department.  There are two ways to fix this: either cut weight (at least 700-1000 lbs.) or improve engine MPG.  Maybe that turbo 4cyl needs to be tuned better; alternatively maybe the 4.3 V6 was not as bad as rumored.

Talk is cheap-show me the results.....

just another probable point that the EPA cycle doesn't do a good job of showing real world gas use.

and another that any company can claim the cycles aren't representative.

It's just weird they would actually come out and say this.

It will be interesting to see how this engine option is accepted by the market.   Still seems like a radical idea to have a 4cyl in a full size truck..

I have a 2016 F-150 2WD SuperCab with the 2.7L V6 engine. 325 hp and 350 torque. Extremely impressive engine. It really accelerates, and in mixed driving, I am getting 22 mpg just about every tankful. On straight highway driving, it get 26 mpg. The Ford 2.3L 4cyl turbo, set to go into the 2019 Ranger, is supposed to do even better than that, mpg-wise. So Chevy's 20 City/23 Highway/21 Combined for its 2.7L 4cyl turbo is just not gonna cut it -- certainly with me and likely with many other buyers. 

See if this gets beat up in the Forums much like the EcoBoost from Ford does for not giving the stated gas mileage. People are going to enjoy the boost and the gas mileage will suffer. Common sense, you cannot have both fuel efficiency and power fun. Nothing has given that not even electric.

Takes power to move weight.

I've never really understood the issue with that.. Even non-boosted cars, if you're putting your foot into it you get bad fuel economy. 

As has been stated herr already... the sweet, familiar 4.3 marches on.

Its really weird for them to come out and pretty much say EFF what the EPA says.. because for a looooong time I've been saying the exact same thing because of how I drive.

Fuel economy is a direct result of the vehicle's overall efficiency AND.. and this is HUGE.. the driver's driving style.. Take a driver like me and put me in a Chevy Volt or Prius .. expecting great fuel economy and U will be very disappointed. I DRIVE!!! and that's not some bull$h! BMW interface either. I used laugh my ass off when people would say the Corvette was a very efficient vehicle to drive daily.. I was like "shiiiiiiiid.. not if U out here doing 0-60 in 3.6secs.. or constantly in the 90-110 range" On REAL.. I have driven my Yukon and seen 21mpg over a full tank interval... , but that was driving it like an old woman in mixed driving.. and for the NEXT trip I drove like I DRIVE.. and that fuel economy was like 15-16 mpg. (Mind U I tuned out the V4 mode when I bought it so its always in V8)

On 11/21/2018 at 3:11 PM, ccap41 said:

I've never really understood the issue with that.. Even non-boosted cars, if you're putting your foot into it you get bad fuel economy. 

Because it's hard to drive without putting your foot in it.  Stick a pebble in the turbo impeller and see how satisfying a 2.7 liter 4-cylinder Silverado is to drive. The boost is necessary even in average driving, and that is when you start to suck fuel.