2020 Silverado Diesel 3.0 EPA Rated...
 

...33 mpg highway--pretty phenomenal for a truck! Here's Chevy's press release: https://media.gm.com/media/us/en/che...silverado.html

It's unclear whether there were any aerodynamic changes for this model specifically; the release quotes the chief engineer as saying it's "more aerodynamic than before" but doesn't clarify whether that's the diesel compared to the gas version or the truck overall, which of course was all-new for 2019.

So that's the best so far. I know Fiat is claiming the new Ecodiesel will be the best so I wonder if it hits 30 highway with the 4wd. The Ford has a good 2wd rating but takes a big hit with the 4wd. Then again so does this Chevy.

What's sort of surprising the smaller truck (Canyon/Colorado) with the smaller diesel (2.8 vs 3.0), with 100 less hp and torque, is only rated 20/30 2wd and 19/28 4wd. And they wonder why the smaller trucks keep dying off. They cost just as much, but don't do as much, or save much as just getting a full size.

And it's really difficult shoving a full sheet of plywood in those smaller beds

Now imagine if they beefed up a VW Caddy the fuel economy that could get?

Is that 2.8 a v6? I know that inline sixes are inherently more efficient, all else being equal. I suspect that an I6 would have a very hard time fitting in a Colorado.

I just read the article and I saw two things to gripe about.

They said the new Silverado is Larger. Why!? they're already huge and ugly, don't make it worse.

Second, they said it's the first time that Chevy has used an inline-6 in a half ton pickup. That's hogwash, I've seen lots of Chevy pickups up into the 80's even with I-6's.

My uncle had an old 300cuin 6 banger back in the day

The I6 was rare into the 70s and 80s in trucks (pretty common in GM cars) and they may have only been available in what they may not have considered "light duty" trucks (even though according to DOT even a 2020 Duramax 2500 Silverado HD is "light duty"). Still up until the mid 50s it was the only motor available in a Chevy pickup. Agreed a bad claim.

Also the 2.8 diesel is an I4.

That's a big four banger. Not sure why that would get such bad fuel economy, though admittedly I know little about diesel engines.

Generally the fewer cylinders the more efficient due to thermal loss and friction, odd cylinder counts get better FE due to harmonics, a 3 cylinder 2.2 liter diesel would be the most efficient while also being harsh to drive.

Anyway.
At this point the economy isn’t “bad” comparatively on any of these trucks (if you look back 10 years anyway)

That said my 6.2 suburban could turn 28mpg with a 5 speed stick, and it was cheap and didn’t require a turbo (which tends to plug up in cold climates)

I was saying 'bad' relative the to the larger displacement engine in the heavier Silverado. I'm really curious as to why it is the way it is.

Road and Track got 43mpg with this truck keeping it under 60 mph. Being able to get 28mpg and getting a modern EPA rating of 33mpg are two very different things. This truck really puts to shame any full size ever made before and the Ram is supposed to be even better. Wasn't that long ago an epa rating under the current standards would be less than 1/2 what this gets. That's like a Malibu going from 35 mpg to 70 mpg epa rated in 10 years time.

A lot of it may have to do with the 2.8 gets a 6 speed and the 3.0 gets a 10 speed. I also suppose more smaller cylinders may be more efficient at complete diesel burn than fewer larger cylinders even though you have 2 extra sets of rings and a few more bearings. I know emissions was why Dodge went from making the 440 big block V8 and made a 500 ci V10 instead. They just couldn't get a clean burn on the big holes. Then again that was 20 years ago and everyone is coming out with big gas motors again so it think with modern direct injection and variable cam timing just about anything is possible.

Usually it comes down to the following

1. Aero
2. EPA MPG Crossover speed (this has the greatest effect on real world economy not “as tested” economy which at times is almost meaningless when comparing two vehicles with similar economy values)
3. Transmission efficiency and controls
4. DEF efficiency and controls, dirtier engines drive more regen.


It is very worthy to note this Silverado only scores 23mpg city and 33mpg highway.

The epa combined value for me is almost meaningless , the fact PHEVs rarely mentioned city and highway separate was a big red flag for me.

We shall see what the real world reports once these are on the road a few years, I doubt 40mpg at steady slower speeds will be commonplace but who knows?

33 highway seems impossible. How'd they get a large brick to return that fuel economy? How did Road and Track get 43 MPG? That's what a Fusion hybrid gets. I realize diesel is good for about 20% more energy per gallon, but still.

I drove straight and steady at 55 MPH once in my truck and got something like 22 MPG. Granted my truck needs major front end work, the transmission is letting go, and I've got large off road rated tires, and the headache rack sticks above the cab.

Eh, I could see 43 mpg in a one-off test. Things like the deep air dam, wheel strakes in front of the rear wheels, very tall air curtains on the front wheels, roof curvature and trailing edge shape, streamlined mirrors, body shaping around the A-pillar and doors (I think that's more than cosmetic on this truck), tailgate spoiler design, all add up. Then add in the 10-speed transmission, the increased efficiency of the diesel, (probably) optimized cooling air inlet size, etc. compared to your truck--I could see it.

FWIW, I can push my stock 305HP/555TQ ‘04 Cummins 1T along at just over 30-mpg with close to 1K additional weight above published shipping weight (just under 8k) if I keep it under 55mph on level terrain with no adverse winds in mild temperatures.

This is for more than fifty miles and understanding the correction factor for the overhead MPG display.

My truck was built in August of 2003. If big trucks are any comparison, an ‘03 model versus a 2019 model are leagues apart in computer drivetrain control finesse; even where specification appears the same.

So a 2020 Detroit pickemup with high MPG numbers shouldn't be surprising. Contemporary comparisons showed me my MPG wasn’t different against a dozen others in trailer towing, a 40% correction factor means most were seeing 23-mpg or better 62-65/mph while solo.

A 10-speed auto trans, variable-vane turbocharger-equipped I6 diesel is one VERY sophisticated creature.

The flaw in thinking about pickups is in considering them as family transportation. With no IRS depreciation and/or deductible miles, this pickup or others is one BAD choice.

Where high annual business miles apply, the premium and the return on investment are both within scope.

Diesel doesn’t pay off until 200k miles. And then it is the hope that the drivetrain will continue to life’s end without rebuild. Which will not be true for a gasser. That’s a window which takes planning and discipline.

.

The other good thing about this Silverado is the 6.2 gas and 3.0 diesel are both priced the same. About $2500 more than the 5.3 v8 so it should pay for itself much sooner than a $5-6k Cummins upgrade. The good thing on the Cummins you can usually get back almost all that at resale compared to a gas Ram.

I noticed diesel a few cents cheaper than regular the other night. First time I've noticed it cheaper in perhaps 15 years. Diesel used to always be significantly less back then.

When we drove to the coast I noticed both Oregon and Washington had diesel under unleaded, but in Idaho and Montana it is higher. It wasn't the diesel that varied a lot in price, it was the gas. So Oregon and Washington just have high unleaded prices and average diesel prices.

Yeah, Oregon/Washington fuel prices are always more than mountain/south prices. CA is even higher yet.

Lots of stations in MT have regular at 85 octane though, so that might help prices a bit.

I’d love to see ones of these get a full eco treatment - chop the top, lower it, underbody paneling, aero bed cover, skirts, slightly narrower and LRR tires, weight reduction, gearing compensation for reduced load.

I'm not positive how it works but I think that 85 octane is the same exact gas they sell at 87 in Washington and Oregon it just gets labeled the lower rating because of the average elevation

That was the opposite of my understanding, that MT 85 is 85 PON, but it has similar resistance to burning at elevation as 87 PON at sea level. Lower atmospheric pressure > lower air density > lower compression heat > lower risk of detonation.

We all observe that the higher the octane rating, the higher the price of fuel, so my assumption is that 85 PON is cheaper to produce.

I run 85 PON when I'm in MT, but then I fill up with "premium" as I head out, prior to descending back to sea level.

I was wrong, I went and looked it up, it is different. It's just most cars can get away with it at altitude. I know I've always ran it in all the cars I have ever had and never had any problems. I bet you could actually get away with it in most cars at any altitude, so I'm glad I at least get a choice. I read in Colorado still 80% choose 85, and about 10% chose 87 and 10% choose 91. If you just are driving normal in a normal car saving $.10-15/gallon is great especially at these low prices. When it goes to $4/gal then it still seems to be at same $.10/gal extra for 87 but it doesn't seem like that much extra.

Modern cars will mostly be ok running 85 at sea level because they can retard the timing to protect the engine. My Acura might actually become damaged over time if it isn't able to retard the timing enough to prevent knock. The manual states that the engine is designed for 91 octane, and that 87 is the minimum to prevent engine damage.

In OR, we have 87, 89, and 92. BTW, mid grades are always a blend of regular and premium (ever see a fuel truck with 3 tanks?). 89 is 60% regular and 40% premium. Anyhow, I mostly run 87 in my Acura, but lately have been alternating filling up at mid-tank with 87 and 92 to average out somewhere around what it's designed for.

I can "feel" the difference in normal driving between regular and premium in my Acura. This difference is confirmed in more advanced timing on premium, and less advanced timing on regular.

The 6.2L 400HP engine can crack 20-mpg at 60-mph.

The baby diesel let’s say will do 30 under the same conditions.

That’s a difference of 85-gallons in 5k miles.

If gasoline is $2.50 and diesel $3.00, it’s not much of a savings at $125.

15k annual applicable miles, and it’s $3,750 over ten years.

No IRS depreciation, etc, and needing VERY high annual miles it’s just another vehicle badly spec’d for private use.

.

I'd like to see what it could get with an engine more similar to the Cummins ISF3.8 and that 10-speed transmission, considering my previous experience with a Brazilian F-250 4WD regular-cab which was factory-fitted with a Cummins ISB3.9 and a 5-speed manual. With a lead foot it could get around 20MPG, while a more conscious driving would get it around 30MPG.


Last time an inline-6 gasser had been available for a GM truck was before the production of the GMT400 shifted from Argentina to Brazil between late-'99 and 2000. There was also a turbodiesel inline-6 sourced from MWM which soldiered on until the GMT400 was phased out in Brazil in late 2001.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eRyhHh8Tw...o-esquerdo.jpg
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-raMdFz_O7...o-esquerdo.jpg


I'm sure the 10-speed transmission might've held an important role for an old Bolivian to tell me his late-model F-150 Lariat with the 3.5 Ecoboost was somewhat a fuel-saver.


Compression ratio, injection pressure and the fuel spray have more to do with a complete burn than the cylinder bore.

Except the baby diesel can crack 43 mpg at 60 mph, it will certainly beat the 33 mpg EPA rating. Also currently even in Montana where diesel prices are usually well over unleaded (one big reason I sold the Cummins) now gas and Diesel are within 3 cents of each other.
So say 35 mpg vs 20 and 10c more for diesel. That is a $860/yr savings for the same initial price based on average miles driven.
They both make the same 460ft-lbs of torque as well.
To me if buying a new GM pickup the choice would be a no brainer.

1). Expect that diesel pricing will continue to reflect the 1/3-more energetic content of that fuel. THEN make your calculations.

2). Then it comes to use. “Solo, empty”, ISN'T a valid category.

Then IRS applicability.

Against a gasoline big block of 20-yes ago or more, yeah, it’s great. Against today’s gassers, barely.

We built this country without pickups. It’s “need” now is still more “want”. Desire.

The higher risk of accidents (and type) ALWAYS mitigates against pickups. (“Skill” is a laughable counter).

Even against the new ford 7.3 liter?

You can make the want/need argument against ANY car, truck, bus, train, airplane, space shuttle etc, ever made. People buy a pickup and then use it for many tasks including (and probably mainly) solo commuting because it's what they have and it works just fine doing it. They probably do need the pickup for a pickup task at some point but people cant have 4 cars to have just the right tool for each job. To claim they somehow aren't safe (especially a modern 2020 1500 series pickup of all types) is just not supported by statics. Basically all vehicle deaths in the USA when you take out no seatbelt use and drunk or drugged driving are less than 10,000 per year for something 300,000,000 people do almost every single day. You know what's not safe, the mail truck I spend 8+ hours a day in, and yet 350,000 of my colleagues dodge that bullet every day. It's not the vechile that is prone to accident it's the drivers.

Vehicle design is first in evaluating risk.

The salient point is once.

Gunshots & car accidents. Life-changing or ending.

A pickup is “best” next to never.

Claiming “skill”, etc, is side-splitting funny versus the statistics. The skill range difference among humans is tiny. No matter how well-magnified. A moments inattention makes a mockery of ego statements.

A pickup can’t do what’s important: Steer, brake & handle. It rolls where a car will spin.

You guys need some remedial physics.

Buy it where IRS numbers work. But don’t ever expect to “keep up with traffic” if intelligent use is planned. It’s bar none worst highway choice. The penalties go with the reward.

And for those that operate it like a car, it’s an unbelievably bad form of selfishness. Screws up the road for everyone around them. There’s not a situation involving others it doesn’t make worse. Mario Andretti couldn’t change this.

Same is true for any size truck. The larger, the worse for all others.

.

Please clarify how a 20 MPG solo commuter "works fine."

The U.S. is following the Easter Island model for crash safety.

Please change that to "sub 20 mpg" my neighbor contractor does a 40 gallon tank a day minimum. He does drive like a hotrodder.

I didn't claim skill, I claimed it is the driver. I agree it has nothing to do with skill as actually the higher skill may lead to even a worse driver. What makes a good driver is paying attention, attention to detail, knowing the limits and staying far away from them, checking ego and anger while driving.

The physics part I do understand, a rollover is a greater possibility, but so is a greater survival in every other kind of collision. There is no physics that helps a low mass come out well in a collision with a greater mass.

A pickup isn't supposed to be the best at anything, what it is is good at a lot of things.

I don't know where that question is directed but for me personally I get around 11 year round solo commuting. It does work fine, my total cost is maybe $4/day depreciation, insurance, gas, oil, repairs, liscense, everything. Could I get that down to $2/day and save a whole $500/yr? I doubt it. I may get something else, but not for financial reasons, more just out of variety is the spice of life.

It’s only good at one thing. Filling the bed. It’s handicapped in all others.

As to mass, it’s a good point. It’s easy for a low mass car to roll a higher mass pickup in a T-bone accident. Same where the car is hit first by traffic in an adjacent lane and in its turn hits a pickup in the bed, causing it to turn over. I see this annually. Often enough it’s notable. Everyone is upright except the pickup.

Wet weather makes it all more fun. In a pickup. Where it was the wrong vehicle spec.

Back to topic and to repeat. This little Chevy will work for a VERY high average annual miles business owner. Higher than what it’s gasser counterpart would see.

Not an RV’er, etc.

The private owner is only fooling himself. (My favorite was the one about the long unpaved driveway: the years of residence and FAR higher costs of a 4WD pickup versus a car paid for first class paving a long ways back).

The private owner and the RV’er we’ve covered: the design & quality of the trailer is paramount (as is any necessary hitch rigging). NOT the tow vehicle. A few changes in family vehicle spec covers it. Doesn’t include pickups.

.

.

An empty little diesel might hit 40.

30 & 20 as I cited is solo. But not empty. The high cylinder pressure makes a diesel less sensitive to added weight (to a point). I can add almost 1k in weight and not change a baseline MPG figure.

Besides, if the trucklet can’t carry half the payload, it’ll make two trips. Size or weight.

30 & 20 is fair because it’s already beneath potential. Like everyone else, I’ll be interested if we ever have a number set to work with (scaled weight tickets to isolate true payload — and a pic to show aero — plus constant use of cruise control over a described course).

For this and other private ventures, it’s like pulling teeth. I doubt very much we will ever see it. No scale tickets? Invalid MPG. CC use not constant? Invalid MPG. Failure to describe course & conditions plus a pic? Invalid MPG

Conditions MUST be such that the fuel burn really doesn’t change from driver to driver. The absolute number isn’t important.

.