RPF Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 1 hour ago, rperez817 said: Update from Car and Driver. They tested 2019 Silverados and Sierras with 2.7L 4, 5.3L V8, and 6.2L V8. Here are the real world highway fuel economy numbers. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a25953794/chevrolet-silverado-four-cylinder-fuel-economy-test/ 2.7L Silverado RST 4x4 Double Cab: 18 mpg 5.3L Silverado RST 4x4 Crew Cab: 21 mpg 6.2L Sierra Denali 4x4 Crew Cab: 18 mpg WOW. How did GM let this engine out the door? It's not like more powerful and efficient (while being heavier & physically stronger) 2.7L F-150's haven't been around for several years for them to forensically examine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 11 minutes ago, RPF said: WOW. How did GM let this engine out the door? It's not like more powerful and efficient (while being heavier & physically stronger) 2.7L F-150's haven't been around for several years for them to forensically examine. I’ll reiterate that I bet it did a lot better in the lab but some combination of tuning and production configurations killed fuel economy. Ford had a big problem with cylinder head cooling and had to run the early ecoboosts really rich to compensate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) I don't care for the general tone of the article. It is inferring that the poor mileage is due to the downsizing and turbo. But Ford's same liter sized 2.7 EB V6 is proof that it can be done and achieve the desired results. It's like they are going out of their way to NOT say "GM eff'd this engine design up". Stick a Ford 2.7 EB in that same truck. I bet it'll match or beat the 5.3 Chebbie engine. The 5.3 is a good engine, I'm not knocking that.... I should clarify. You generally downsize in an engine to achieve either a better fuel economy, or a power band that more closely matches what a "typical" driver would use. So in that sense, Chevy achieved neither. I can only guess they were hunting after a CAFE rating, and power/economy be damned. Edited January 22, 2019 by 92merc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 1 hour ago, rperez817 said: Look them up here. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/epadata/19data.zip zip file??? No thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 14 minutes ago, twintornados said: zip file??? No thanks Sorry about that sir. Attached is the Excel spreadsheet. Carbon footprint numbers are in columns EY to EZ. 2019 FE Guide for DOE release dates before 12-18-2018- no sales - 12-17-2018public.xlsx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 1 hour ago, rperez817 said: Sorry about that sir. Attached is the Excel spreadsheet. Carbon footprint numbers are in columns EY to EZ. 2019 FE Guide for DOE release dates before 12-18-2018- no sales - 12-17-2018public.xlsx Which also requires a download....no thanks, not really interested any longer and will assume the the carbon foot prints are similar due to fuel consumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.