Is America ready for 4-cylinder full-size pickup trucks? Because they're here (GM)

[thingstodo]

Originally Posted by Ecky

I see a lot of "almost as efficient" fuel economy statements, but it's worth noting that the absolute amount of fuel saved going from 70mpg to 90mpg is less than the amount saved improving from 25mpg to 27mpg, or from 15.0mpg to 15.7mpg. "Just" 1-2mpg is a lot of fuel when you're in the teens or twenties.

I find that the gas saved driving 60 mph instead of 70 mph is quite large too!

I find using liters per 100 km is more understandable for comparing fuel economy. It's kinda weird to think about gallons used for 60 miles range, though.

My wife discovered that Costco's premium fuel is about 15 cents per liter (55 cents per US gallon) lower than the competition. So I'm going to try a few tanks of premium. If the gas costs 10% more and I get >10% better fuel economy ... the numbers work!

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by thingstodo

My wife discovered that Costco's premium fuel is about 15 cents per liter (55 cents per US gallon) lower than the competition. So I'm going to try a few tanks of premium. If the gas costs 10% more and I get >10% better fuel economy ... the numbers work!

It won't get 10% better fuel economy. Maybe closer to 1% or less.

That said, experiment away.

I'll be alternating premium and regular (since it's cheaper than mid-grade, which is a 60% regular, 40% premium mixture) in my TSX simply because I can tell the difference in driving performance. I'll fill partial tanks so that the fuel stays around mid-grade octane.

[thingstodo]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

It won't get 10% better fuel economy. Maybe closer to 1% or less.

On 6 tanks of fuel in the Hyundai (before I replaced it) I dropped from 11-ish to 10-ish. The first tank made little difference. mid-way through the second tank I noticed it. By the third tank it was fairly consistent.

But I didn't do the A-B-A testing. Mostly because I am lazy.

If I see a consistent change on the F150, I'll do the testing. More people likely interested in a 2018 F150 test than in a 2007 Hyundai SUV test

[Ecky]

In my Insight, the difference disappeared into background noise. It's possible to see differences as small as 1-2% because the instrumentation is so accurate, and I saw basically zero, less than could be accounted for by differing weather conditions or traffic patterns.

[redpoint5]

The only place for fuel savings to come from would be from advanced ignition timing. Unless the car is made to run on higher octane, it won't advance the ignition just because a higher octane is used.

My TSX might advance the ignition another 5 degrees running on 91 octane compared to 87. I tracked fuel economy for several months and didn't significant differences in fuel economy and decided to run regular.

[thingstodo]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The only place for fuel savings to come from would be from advanced ignition timing. Unless the car is made to run on higher octane, it won't advance the ignition just because a higher octane is used.

My TSX might advance the ignition another 5 degrees running on 91 octane compared to 87. I tracked fuel economy for several months and didn't significant differences in fuel economy and decided to run regular.

The F150 is rated to run E85, so I thought that it might have the ability to advance or retard timing in response to a change in fuel. I hope so. We'll see

As for the Hyundai, it was NOT rated for E85. I had been trying to eek out better fuel economy for years, and saw about 1 liter/100 km reduction on the 3rd tank. I have no idea where the difference came from. All I changed was the fuel. Same synthetic motor oil, same road on the way to and from work, to and from the lake, same slightly over-pressured and kinda worn out tires, same nut behind the wheel. Of course the weather was different, but it was not a step change. 6 tanks was just under a month for me

Of course, it could be obvious and I just wasn't looking for it. Which is why the A-B-A testing disproves *SO* many theories.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by thingstodo

The F150 is rated to run E85, so I thought that it might have the ability to advance or retard timing in response to a change in fuel. I hope so. We'll see

Even non-flexfuel cars nowadays feature the ability to vary the ignition timing. IIRC what's really the most critical component enabling flexfuel ability is the O² sensor. I remember when Yamaha introduced the YS 250 to Brazil, and the lack of an O² sensor was the reason to blame for the lack of flexfuel ability.

[Isaac Zackary]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Suburban folks already asked GM for the 2.8 and got the its too small answer.

Odd. Yet GM put the 2.8L 4cyl diesel as an option in their big vans, even the 3500 15 passenger van with a 10,000lb tow rating. I wonder what fuel mileage the Chevy Express gets with that engine. Seems like the Colorado gets 30mph on the highway.

Originally Posted by euromodder

In Europe, we almost exclusively use cargo vans / panel vans for work.
For personal use, virtually no-one uses a pick-up truck.

I'd prefer a van instead of a pickup. Especially if it comes with a 4 cylinder diesel option. I've had tools stolen out of the back of my pickup when I had one.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zackary

Odd. Yet GM put the 2.8L 4cyl diesel as an option in their big vans, even the 3500 15 passenger van with a 10,000lb tow rating.

Since it's mostly seen as a tool, it's presumably easier to persuade customers to pick that engine. Trucks and SUVs which OTOH are often treated as something more aspirational sound as an excuse to charge more for an engine that is larger and more expensive to make.

[roosterk0031]

Don't think any ecoboost are FFV, the 3.5v6 is and that's the only one I'd buy. Pretty sure based on the black smoke I've seen out of EB tailpipe I wouldn't own one.