2021 GMC Sierra 1500 Duramax

Diesel in NJ right now runs about .30 cheaper/ gal than by you. And as I stated, I expect to settle in at more like 24 MPG. Some controlled testing has shown this engine getting 30 & 32 on highway trips. ? Both those factors will significantly drop your numbers.

And seeing you use artificially low / partial tank/ pre-broken in MPG, what is your similar ‘adjustment’ to reduced range on the Lightning, due to weather or load or especially; running power equipment from this new ‘jobsite’ truck?? That ‘perfect unloaded world’ 300 may drop by more than half in actual use as portrayed by Ford marketing.

Ford’s recent quality issues, plus the lack of a 6.5’ bed, ruled them out. Plus, I’m simply not interested in an electric vehicle. ?

Oh, and electric in NJ is 13.42 cents/kW.

24 MPG over 10K miles = 416 gal.
At 3.09 = $1285 in fuel. I just saved myself $500!

But it sure would be interesting to see a typical Lightning work day: fully charged, drive a half hour, load the frunk with 400 lbs of concrete mix, drive a half hour to the job site, run saws & other power equipment for 8 hours, drive 45 mins home. It’s got a lot less to do with the miles than it does with the kW draw.

Turbo diesels don’t see nearly the same variation in usage demand, plus any electric draw (I do have a 110 V outlet in the bed) is immaterial; my battery is fully charged on the ride home.

5 hours ago, balthazar said:

24 MPG over 10K miles = 416 gal.
At 3.09 = $1285 in fuel. I just saved myself $500!

But it sure would be interesting to see a typical Lightning work day: fully charged, drive a half hour, load the frunk with 400 lbs of concrete mix, drive a half hour to the job site, run saws & other power equipment for 8 hours, drive 45 mins home. It’s got a lot less to do with the miles than it does with the kW draw.

Turbo diesels don’t see nearly the same variation in usage demand, plus any electric draw (I do have a 110 V outlet in the bed) is immaterial; my battery is fully charged on the ride home.

Thank you, always great to have civil conversations about the auto technology.

Agree will be interesting to see how these EV's stack up and compare. 

Loving the truck, it really is a beauty. Wishing you all the best as you put her to work for your work.

7 hours ago, balthazar said:

24 MPG over 10K miles = 416 gal.
At 3.09 = $1285 in fuel. I just saved myself $500!

But it sure would be interesting to see a typical Lightning work day: fully charged, drive a half hour, load the frunk with 400 lbs of concrete mix, drive a half hour to the job site, run saws & other power equipment for 8 hours, drive 45 mins home. It’s got a lot less to do with the miles than it does with the kW draw.

Turbo diesels don’t see nearly the same variation in usage demand, plus any electric draw (I do have a 110 V outlet in the bed) is immaterial; my battery is fully charged on the ride home.

Not saying you're wrong in any way, because you're not, but, you also need the generator and fuel in that scenario. 

It'll be really interesting to see how the Lightning plays out in the real world and what kind of draw the jobsite tools pull. 

It'll break down to see the specific numbers. Frankly, being in the industry, I think the marketing push to show the truck as a 'power outlet' is over-wrought; people aren't doing so now and getting their jobs all done. But for those that suddenly are going to switch back to all corded tools against the tide of cordless... they would then be relying on their truck's motor for BOTH transportation and a day's worth of power draws. I doubt that'll ever be widely practical, and I don't see anyone 'downgrading' their tools just to plug into their pickup.

Range degradation is going to be a new, key factor for BE trucks, one that isn't nearly as significant as in BE cars/SUVs... that never carry the payload a truck does.

Just now, balthazar said:

It'll break down to see the specific numbers. Frankly, being in the industry, I think the marketing push to show the truck as a 'power outlet' is over-wrought; people aren't doing so now and getting their jobs all done. But for those that suddenly are going to switch back to all corded tools against the tide of cordless... they would then be relying on their truck's motor for BOTH transportation and a day's worth of power draws. I doubt that'll ever be widely practical, and I don't see anyone 'downgrading' their tools just to plug into their pickup.

Range degradation is going to be a new, key factor for BE trucks, one that isn't nearly as significant as in BE cars/SUVs... that never carry the payload a truck does.

I would agree that I DO NOT see people going away from Cordless to corded tools. What I think the Marketing folks should have shown is a series of charging docks with batteries plugged in showing the people working with their cordless tools while awaiting the backup battery to charge to full.

48 minutes ago, David said:

I would agree that I DO NOT see people going away from Cordless to corded tools. What I think the Marketing folks should have shown is a series of charging docks with batteries plugged in showing the people working with their cordless tools while awaiting the backup battery to charge to full.

My snow blower, leaf blower, leaf blower/mulcher, string trimmer, hand saw and chain saw are all corded...my drill is cordless w/ a charging dock.  I can definitely see how cordless would be better for some of those...

8 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

My snow blower, leaf blower, leaf blower/mulcher, string trimmer, hand saw and chain saw are all corded...my drill is cordless w/ a charging dock.  I can definitely see how cordless would be better for some of those...

Corded yard tools?!?! I could never see myself considering those options. Cordless all the way. 

13 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Corded yard tools?!?! I could never see myself considering those options. Cordless all the way. 

Yeah, Black & Decker..they work pretty well.  I have a 100 ft cord, and that's enough to reach back of my backyard.   Just have to not get tangled up in the cord, esp. the string trimmer.. 

Need to take a photo of your baby under more light, to let the color shine.  I would recommend in the morning or evening.

5 hours ago, ykX said:

Need to take a photo of your baby under more light, to let the color shine.  I would recommend in the morning or evening.

9am in a lite cloud cover gives a really even lighting with solid color without the cool light spectrum.

Agree, would love to see it in a more even light.

After CARiD shipped me a bed mat for a Ford Super Duty, finally got my GM bed mat in. 
Took a 95-mile round trip today; bought a spare hood & rear bumper for my brother’s ‘71 GTO and dropped it off. Working thru the prior-to-me 110 miles out of the 400-mile MPG window… look at both the MPG and the miles driven/fuel gauge : 

MPG check-in : odometer at 510 miles, which means the 400 mile window is all my right foot. Average MPG is 22.7.

Tickled on that, and I figured it'll settle right around 22-23. I can also tell it would really love to get on the highway and just cruise.

Brake break-in complete at 200 mi, engine break-in complete at 500. Time to really get acclimated to each other, lay some rubber, try some maneuvers, check out 'sport' mode, etc. Still haven't fueled up first time yet, I think it's around 3/8th of a tank.

Hmmm... at an average of 22.7... 24 gals would take me 544 miles... but I'm at 510 miles with 3/8ths left. That calculates to more like 815 miles. Reality is somewhere in between. Perhaps the needle really dives below a 1/4 tank.

Dealer told me it takes a number of tank fills to get the MPG readout to be really accurate (like 10). I log every fueling (have since 1991), so I will be able to compare computed MPG vs. dash MPG.

- - - - 
Another interesting tidbit in looking at the deep specs. I always compare to the B-59 (for no logical reasons).
Sierra has 10 inches more front headroom & 5.5" more front shoulder room.
Surprisingly, the B-59 has the same front legroom, but has 5" more front hip room.

Also, the B-59 is about .5" wider (body width sans any mirrors).

@balthazar Thanks for keeping up updated on your new awesome truck. The MPG to interior comfort spec is really awesome. GM I feel really hit a homerun for your Diesel truck!

9 hours ago, balthazar said:

24 gals would take me 544 miles

24 gals would initially take me to heaven.  Right after, those same 24 gals would lead me take me straight to hell.  A lot further than 544 miles I think...  

24 gals would also lead me to bankruptcy. In a shorter distance I might add...

1 hour ago, oldshurst442 said:

24 gals would initially take me to heaven.  Right after, those same 24 gals would lead me take me straight to hell.  A lot further than 544 miles I think...  

24 gals would also lead me to bankruptcy. In a shorter distance I might add...

I think there is 1 gal in your life that would send you to hell faster than the fun 24 gals would take you to heaven!  

Not much to report. I'm driving it 90% of the time vs. the '04, just not going many miles. In a bit of a lull at the moment-  just a tick over 1400 miles & about halfway thru my 3rd tank of fuel. Actually... that's about right; say 800 miles/mn = 9600/yr. OK, I'm on target.

I feel like the trans is learning my driving style, as it seems to be slightly 'snappier' (I have a lead foot). I did try a dead stop/full throttle start... but I had it in normal mode and (I just remembered!) traction control on. No squealy, will try again, 'cause it feels quick enough to lay rubber from a stop.

3 times to date it has done this weird thing where you press the starter button and it just cranks- I only let this happen 2-3 secs before shutting it off. Normally it starts after less than a sec of cranking. Don't know what that's about... but I can FEEL the layers upon layers of electronica between me and the mechanical bits. I believe you have to look at the starter button more like a door bell; press/release; don't hold it down. I have a lot of 'starter button time' in the '40, so have to unlearn. 

3 hours ago, balthazar said:

  I believe you have to look at the starter button more like a door bell; press/release; don't hold it down.  

Yes, that's been my experience w/ my Jeep.  First keyless start vehicle I've had, and can't imagine going back to twisting a key. 

:shrug: Push-button start goes back to the dawn of automotive time. Millennials think it's 'high tech'. ?

I kinda like keys only because you can control it more precisely. Sometimes you need to 'bump it'.

56 minutes ago, balthazar said:

:shrug: Push-button start goes back to the dawn of automotive time. Millennials think it's 'high tech'. ? 

It's been very uncommon until the last 10-15 years, though..I'd never encountered it before something in a rental car a decade ago probably..  and I've been driving since '86.

"Yeah, but, you are aware that there's an invention called television, and on this invention they show shows, right?"

I’d read about push button start from olden days, and manual chokes and other such features, but never drove anything with such features.  IIRC, first modern car with a push button start I drove was a rental 2011 Cadillac STS.   Up until then, everything I’d driven had a key.  I remember driving cars that had two keys—one for the ignition and one for doors and rear.  Ford was still doing that in the late 80s.  
 

My '40 : has push-button start, no ignition key/cylinder.
There's a 'master' toggle switch on the steering column bracket (to the dash) that energizes the truck.
There is a key in the same column bracket... but it only allows you to lock the steering column (rotate wheel until you find the 'notch', turn key & remove). All this works as intended.

 

Fascinating, didn’t realize anything had a locking steering column 80+ years ago. 

Have passed 2500 miles- no problems or issues to report. 
Suspension settled down, MPG is edging upward. 

Still : ?

As I bid farewell to my '04 Silverado, I reflect on some of the vast interface changes between it & the '21 Sierra.
• I thought I'd dislike, or at least find useless; the A-Pillar grab handles. Nope- I love them.
• On the other hand I haven't made much if any use of the rear bumper corner steps.
• The backup camera / image is pretty good/clear, has the 'angling lines' on screen, but I still back up using side mirrors. The camera I use basically the last bit of backing into a spot.
• Inside storage is a significant improvement. 
• The keyless entry thing (which the wife's '16 Malibu has); you sure get used to in a hurry. ?
• Went for a local ride today, wife's comment was 'I love how much room there is in this!'

About 3450 miles, 400-mile average is hovering around 22.7 on the dash.  

4994 miles, no issues. Dash MPG up to 24.3 (400 mile window), best was 24.6. 

75(14) miles check-in.

No issues. It was experiencing a handful of what folk call 'crank/no start' events (cranks on first try but doesn't start, then always starts on 2nd attempt), but it got a software update at its first oil change and hasn't done it since. It was no big deal.

No recalls, no TSBs, no warning lights, no noises.

Still hitting rated MPG- low 23s on average (rated 22/26). Best MPG to date was 26.4. Have not done a highway-majority tank yet.

I filled up 3/24, prior fill-up was 2/28, so I am only 'charging' my truck once a month.

I'm at 10 months & 1 week of ownership, only at 7500 miles. Work was slow in Dec-Jan, but I'm back doing 6 days a week now; so I think I'll be 'lucky' to hit 9000 miles by May 20.

?

Sounds like great news.