MT Tests '16 Sierra Denali. Puts Pushrods To Test. Results Astound.

[Drew Dowdell]

I snipe when others snipe. 

Unless you have not noticed. 

 

And you never seem to notice the others who snipe. Why is that.

 

Your snipe wasn't at anyone in particular, and it was largely not factual. If you stick with facts, you can't go wrong here. I didn't edit your post or warn you... I simply corrected your false statement.

 

Although I have zero interest in the new 3.0L Ford Diesel launching next year, when combined with 10 gears, I see no reason why it won't dominate the FE crown. Weight reduction is a big part of that. The Ram is a pig.

 

Indeed, it probably will, I expect it should hit the 30mpg highway mark pretty easily.

[Suaviloquent]

I think the big takeaway from GMC pulling ahead at the top level and just the strife within the industry, is that the truck segments are becoming more competitive than ever, and product cycles are getting tighter and tighter, or it seems to me I guess.

 

This is a great win for GMC, but there was a big demerit - most editors felt it offered nothing luxurious to satiate its claim to luxury and precision.

 

I've already mentioned I've been hooked by the PR spin of precision and slicing through crowds - but it is a merely profitable and superficial upgrade in terms of the plastering of extra chrome in the exterior and slightly less chintzy plastics inside. Which Ford pulls off in one model instead of two. The only real upgrade is the mangreride, which is nice, and if you're spending the big bucks, why not?

 

But the same big bucks could go to a truck that gives you a huge, Lincoln like moonroof, and since they're the same seats as the Lincolns - Mercedes level of seat comfort. Extrapolation of Ed Loh's comments on the seats in the Lincoln MKX. Butt cushions matter at this point; to some I guess.

 

What I'm saying is, there are clear wins for this truck when it's pushed to the maximum, but they are wins at the margins - great for enthusiasts and chest thumping - heck I thumped them, and also say it can get silly after a while, but they are still veritable for the people who do find the very rare occasions to utilize them. But the more mundane things you use to live with it everyday, those clearly fall short of expectations set on GMC - but I'll still get the truck if I had the coin.

 

I think I towed the fine line decently, again, my perception bias aside, and full disclosure of segment favourite, I still think the F150 is a helluva truck for the other things it does offer. You can payload quite a bit more if you need to when equipped right. And that interior basically has aluminum plastered everywhere in the top trims.

 

The air-vents with their 3-D shape, made out of aluminum, not just 2-D inset flap like design everywhere else is equivocal to EL K's million bucks knurled aluminum dial shifter.

[Drew Dowdell]

For me, it comes down to looks, performance a close second.  Prior to the GM '16s coming out, my favorite looking truck was the Ram.   I've been a fan of the Hemi engine for many years, it's kinda my "ol' reliable".  In any FCA vehicle I drive, if it's got a Hemi, I'm happy.

 

In the performance department, it simply has to be sufficient for my needs. I don't care so much about 2 tenths here or there, I'm not drag racing my truck. The most I'll ever be towing is my Toronado on a car carrier and even a V6 Durango can do that, so the extreme level of towing isn't on my list of needs.  Where performance matters most is in my driving style. I'm a conservative, long distance driver. I want a smooth engine, efficient performance, and sufficient power to haul the trailer over the mountains.  My truck/SUV (rented, currently) is a mobile office and work vehicle for me, so a column or rotary shifter is a nice thing to have and I love the huge deep center console in the GMs.

 

So for me at the moment, the 2016 GMC Sierra SLT Crew Cab Short Bed 4x4 with the 5.3 and tow package is the top of my list, the Silverado of the same config (only in Z71 trim, I don't like the Chevy chrome) is second. I've already been given permission from the other half to buy it, I'm just waiting till some other things are in place first and that will take a few months.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

I snipe when others snipe. 

Unless you have not noticed. 

 

And you never seem to notice the others who snipe. Why is that.

 

Your snipe wasn't at anyone in particular, and it was largely not factual. If you stick with facts, you can't go wrong here. I didn't edit your post or warn you... I simply corrected your false statement.

 

Although I have zero interest in the new 3.0L Ford Diesel launching next year, when combined with 10 gears, I see no reason why it won't dominate the FE crown. Weight reduction is a big part of that. The Ram is a pig.

 

Indeed, it probably will, I expect it should hit the 30mpg highway mark pretty easily.

 

 

 

I did not make a false statement. I simply mentioned weight reduction.

And my snipe was at a GM product, although not nearly in proportion to the plethora of Ford snipes.

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

I snipe when others snipe. 

Unless you have not noticed. 

 

And you never seem to notice the others who snipe. Why is that.

 

Your snipe wasn't at anyone in particular, and it was largely not factual. If you stick with facts, you can't go wrong here. I didn't edit your post or warn you... I simply corrected your false statement.

 

Although I have zero interest in the new 3.0L Ford Diesel launching next year, when combined with 10 gears, I see no reason why it won't dominate the FE crown. Weight reduction is a big part of that. The Ram is a pig.

 

Indeed, it probably will, I expect it should hit the 30mpg highway mark pretty easily.

 

 

 

I did not make a false statement. I simply mentioned weight reduction.

And my snipe was at a GM product, although not nearly in proportion to the plethora of Ford snipes.

 

 

There is only "a plethora" of Ford snipes because you insist on perceiving any comment on a Ford product that isn't heaping praise on Ford to be a snipe.   The fact remains that Ford made promises it couldn't keep.  It promised that Ecoboost would be much more powerful and much more fuel efficient than a V8.... and so far it's only true if you ignore V8s not made by Ford.  Even the heavy Ram Laramie Limited Hemi manages 21mpg highway, which is only 1mpg behind the comparable  3.5 Ecoboost.

 

Ford made promises on this, and when the product was delivered, a bunch of us who aren't on Ford's payroll asked "Where's the beef?!". That isn't a snipe... it's asking for the results which were promised.

 

As for your snipe:

1. GM didn't spend multiple billions to retool their plants to build the Alpha cars out of a different material.

2. The weight loss is remarkable when you consider the Alpha cars are still mostly steel.

3. No one claimed the Alpha cars were a feat of engineering.  Omega, certainly moves things forward, but Alpha is just using stronger steel and less of it.

[ocnblu]

Well son I've been sniping about electric cars since 1942 on this site and I get called out and made fun of every time I do.  To the point of being warned and barred from posting at a site I pay to visit unless I "acknowledged" the warning.  So cool your jets and better luck next time with the Ford truck thing.

[El Kabong]

1942 you say? Reminds me of a famous quote by Abraham Lincoln: "there is no greater wealth of knowledge and reason on the earth than the Internet."

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

Sniping is fine by me, as long as it is allowed in both directions, in moderation of course.  Auto sites would be pretty dull if we all just agreed on everything. 

 

And the Ram EcoDiesel is the heavy pig I mentioned, because that is what it is.  A heavy pig.  Look up the weight and see what I mean.

 

As for the lack of premium fuel potentially taking away some peak torque, that is fine, as long as the average torque is still impressive, which it would be.  Few will notice ~465 dropping to ~435 ftlbs.  And if they do or if it matters, then just pump the premium.  But that much torque through 10 gears and less weight is a recipe for class leading in my opinion.

[El Kabong]

It is one thing to snipe. However...

As for the Ram EcoDiesel: massive it is. But even in winter mine is getting 10L/100km or so with the part-time 4WD engaged and the snow flying.

Not exactly piggish, is what I'm saying. And it can tow about 9,000 pounds.

Edited December 28, 2015 by El Kabong

[smk4565]

The Ford Ecoboost makes more power and gets better mpg than the Triton V8s.   Ford probably saw that as most of the advancement, that they could make a turbo 3.5 V6 that made more power than a 5.4 liter V8.  But that 5.4 liter V8 was weak.  All these car companies try to sell a turbo 4 as better than a V6 or a turbo V6 as better than a V8.  But it isn't like the V8 stands still, others come out with a better V8, then your turbo V6 is not adequate.   And if Ford thought the 3.5 ecoboost would always beat the V8 they were mistaken.  Because the competition was going to get better.  

 

If Ford really wants to dominate pickup sales they should make a 5 engine line up, all turbo.

 

2.7 Ecoboost V6 base model against Ram Pentastar and Silverado 4.3

3.5 Ecoboost V6 positioned against the GM 5.3 and Rami Hemi

4.0 Ecoboost V8 positioned against the GM 6.2 V8 (this would be for the Raptor as well)

3.0 turbo diesel V6 to compete with Ram ecodiesel

2.7 liter ecoboost V6 plug-in hybrid which would be 400 hp and torque, over 30 mpg, a segment exclusive

Edited December 28, 2015 by smk4565

[FordCosworth]

 

460ftlbs is available as mentioned and more will be available, even if they only offer it in a GMC-like premium trim level.  It is an entirely new engine that will only share displacement.  And more displacement is not needed. That is one of the perks of GTDI.

Fuel type should not be a concern in those premium trim models, especially at today's cheap prices.  And it's not just torque peak that will impress, but massive average torque, better known as area under the curve.

 

It just dawned on me. The Lincoln MKZ is the preview of what is to come.  It makes 400 lb-ft... so the quick and dirty calculation is torque divided by displacement means 133 lb-ft per liter. In a 3.5 liter, that means 466 lb-ft.  Now, I know that isn't a scientific way of doing things, and increasing displacement has diminishing returns. So we'll say that it will match the 6.2 liter's 460 lb-ft.

 

But there's that darn asterisk..... the MKZ only gets 400 lb-ft if it is running 93 octane. If it loses torque on 87 octane at the same percentage that the Mustang does, you're looking at 435 lb-ft from a new gen 3.5 Ecoboost. Or basically, nearly right back where it started from with only a 15 lb-ft increase over the outgoing model. 

 

 

Torque in the Mustang EB remains unchanged when using 87 octane. 

 

" Paul Seredynski of Ford powertrain communications, objected to part of this document. While he couldn't confirm the specific losses listed for the Mustang EcoBoost, "torque remains unchanged" with lower octane gasoline, Seredynski said. He speculated this training manual page was "possibly from before the engine was certified" and therefore showed incorrect figures. Serendynski did confirm that the automaker recommends using 93 octane, and like all modern engines, the software adapts if it's lower. "Peak power would be reduced" by using a lesser grade, he confirmed. "

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/01/05/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-loses-big-power-on-87-octane/

 

 

And there are more sources out there stating the same. 

Edited December 28, 2015 by FordCosworth

[Drew Dowdell]

Either Paul doesn't know how horsepower is calculated (doubtful) or he is lying about something... either directly or through omission.

 

Horsepower = (Torque * RPM) / 5252

Torque = (Horsepower * 5252) / RPM

 

If horsepower has changed, then the torque curve has changed.

Period. There is no getting around that.  

 

The peak may still be 320 lb-ft, but then that would mean the engine backs off the torque peak earlier in the RPM band. <Speculation) So instead of 320 lb-ft from 2000 rpm - 5500 rpm, the engine only produces that torque from 2000 RPM to 4000rpm </Speculation> There are far too many variable for me to make an educated guess as to the actual numbers, but I believe my basic premise is correct. 

 

Someone needs to put one on a dyno and test the difference.

 

Edit: and while Paul may object to the numbers, the proof of the phenomenon happening is right there on Ford's and Lincoln's websites. Just look at the difference between the Lincoln Navigator and the Ford Expedition.  One is rated with Premium and the other rated with Regular. 

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

Drew,

you forgot that power is defined as a rate based on torque and rpm.  What makes you think the rpm variable in the equation does not change?

 

My Fusion scrubs about 5 hp when I don't pump premium, but the torque is rated the same.  As an example.  I honestly can barely tell, unless I am really paying attention and in a full-on drag race. Which I pretty much never do.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Wings4Life

[Drew Dowdell]

Drew,

you forgot that power is defined as a rate based on torque and rpm.  What makes you think the rpm variable is constant?

 

My Fusion scrubs about 5 hp when I don't pump premium, but the torque is rated the same.  As an example.

 

I forgot nothing. I posted the equations. If your Fusion scrubs 5 horsepower while keeping the same max torque, then the torque curve starts to drop off a bit sooner in the RPM band than normal.... as I explained in my post. 

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

Drew,

you forgot that power is defined as a rate based on torque and rpm.  What makes you think the rpm variable is constant?

 

My Fusion scrubs about 5 hp when I don't pump premium, but the torque is rated the same.  As an example.

 

I forgot nothing. I posted the equations. If your Fusion scrubs 5 horsepower while keeping the same max torque, then the torque curve starts to drop off a bit sooner in the RPM band than normal.... as I explained in my post. 

 

 

Torque typically does start dropping off earlier anyway, just as the hp is starting to peak.

Below is a pic of the Focus ST, which has 10 more hp than my Fusion  but same exact torque with the same exact motor, but different cam timing.  

 

 

So perhaps I was not clear earlier, but peak torque is not affected, although yes there is the smallest effect on torque dropping off a tiny bit sooner, about the time you care more about hp anyway.

[Drew Dowdell]

I never care about horsepower. Horsepower is just a measurement of torque at a specific RPM and obfuscates the details .... so skip the middle man and give me the torque. 

[ccap41]

 

 

Again, I'm not knocking the effort. I'm knocking the hype that doesn't match the results. I've been trying to find weights of the previous generation platinum to show how much weight it has lost, but I keep coming up with numbers that are lower than the current model.

Shoot, I'm on my phone so there isn't a way to make a link hot but just guessing I would think the last gen Limited has similar or slightly less equipment than the new gen Platinums. 6029lbs is what the weight is. I'm not sure what Platinum weight you're looking at for comparison.

http://m.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-ford-f-150-limited-ecoboost-v-6-test-review-less-is-more-page-2

(Don't look at their mpg either.. Lol)

 

 

I'm chalking it up to lazy reporting in the articles I've found.  Reporting a 2012 SuperCab Platinum 4x4 at 5585 and I'm thinking "that can't be right"

 

Yeah, that doesn't sound right. I "think" one of the big comparison tests had the Platinum at like 56XXlbs but if I recall it had a few weighty things that the previous generation didn't have like the panorama roof, and power running boards, heated AND cooled seats(probably not a weighty item), and I could be very wrong but I thought I remembered hearing massaging seats..? I could have very well just pulled that out of my hind side though. 

[ccap41]

For me, it comes down to looks, performance a close second.  Prior to the GM '16s coming out, my favorite looking truck was the Ram.   I've been a fan of the Hemi engine for many years, it's kinda my "ol' reliable".  In any FCA vehicle I drive, if it's got a Hemi, I'm happy.

 

In the performance department, it simply has to be sufficient for my needs. I don't care so much about 2 tenths here or there, I'm not drag racing my truck. The most I'll ever be towing is my Toronado on a car carrier and even a V6 Durango can do that, so the extreme level of towing isn't on my list of needs.  Where performance matters most is in my driving style. I'm a conservative, long distance driver. I want a smooth engine, efficient performance, and sufficient power to haul the trailer over the mountains.  My truck/SUV (rented, currently) is a mobile office and work vehicle for me, so a column or rotary shifter is a nice thing to have and I love the huge deep center console in the GMs.

 

So for me at the moment, the 2016 GMC Sierra SLT Crew Cab Short Bed 4x4 with the 5.3 and tow package is the top of my list, the Silverado of the same config (only in Z71 trim, I don't like the Chevy chrome) is second. I've already been given permission from the other half to buy it, I'm just waiting till some other things are in place first and that will take a few months.

I agree, looks and performance. All of the half tons will do more work than I will ever put them through. I would be using it as a commuter anyway with occasionally people in the back and stuff in the bed but I'd never touch the max payload or towing capability. 

 

For me, I like the looks of the new F150 and the '16 Silverado/Sierra with the monochromatic grill. I'm well over chrome and them using less on the Silverado looks great to me. Similar reason I would get the FX4 package on an F150 so I'd get the matte black(dark charcoal, I believe) grill. 

 

Ideally, I'd also want the 5.3 or 2.7 for power. I don't need anything nuts. But I would hands down want a V8 in a truck because I'd like to put a mild exhaust system on it and I do NOT want to put exhaust on a v6, period. But I also don't know how the 5.3 sounds when in 4cyl mode because I had a good buddy of mine drive a newer Silverado with the cylinder deactivation and he said it was CONSTANTLY dropping to 4cyl for fuel economy and he's actually a die hard Chevy fan but he said he would never buy a new one as long as they cut to 4cyl as often as they do. ..Then I told him that there are tuners that can probably eliminate that, but you wouldn't want to under warranty..

[Drew Dowdell]

There's actually a thing you can plug into the OBD port and shut off AFM without reprogramming the ECU.

Range Technology Active Fuel Management Disable Device

I don't know what he's fussing about though, its there to save him money. It switches back to V8 mode with a flick of the foot. The only way I ever even know that it is 4-cylinder mode is if I have the DIC set to monitor fuel economy and I'm watching the gauge. It's absolutely imperceptible to me in the Suburban/Tahoe at least. Edit: It's not like it turns into a Civic with a fart can in 4-cylinder mode.... it only happens at a steady cruise when you're not on the gas.

[surreal1272]

Of course, weight reduction through aluminum in a Cadillac or Camaro, that combined sell at a faction of the volumes, is somehow 'engineering excellence.'

 

Just want to be clear.

 

Good that you can be clear, since the Cadillac and Camaro actually have the numbers to back them up.  The ATS is the lightest in its class by a large margin.... as is the CTS.  The CT6 weighs as little as cars two classes below it... it's 740i sized and 335i weight.

 

All the F-150 did was beat the existing lightweight by 81 lbs.  I'm a simple guy... just show me the numbers.

 

 

Yeah, I tried sitting in the back seat of the ATS, and gave up. Several times. It is pathetic.

Guess what, the CTS does not change matters much, as my size 11 boot does not fit the tiny well behind the drivers seat. 

 

So if that is the resolve needed to obtain 'lightest weight trophies' then you can keep them.

Of course, I am not the only one saying this, based on their sales.

Of course, weight reduction through aluminum in a Cadillac or Camaro, that combined sell at a faction of the volumes, is somehow 'engineering excellence.'

 

Just want to be clear.

 

Good that you can be clear, since the Cadillac and Camaro actually have the numbers to back them up.  The ATS is the lightest in its class by a large margin.... as is the CTS.  The CT6 weighs as little as cars two classes below it... it's 740i sized and 335i weight.

 

All the F-150 did was beat the existing lightweight by 81 lbs.  I'm a simple guy... just show me the numbers.

And they all have substantial performance gains to show for it, especially the Camaro.

 

Base SS and base GT V8 are within 35lbs of each other, and one is smaller than the other?  So not exactly revolutionary reductions.

Yet one is substantially better than the other, due in no small part to its weight loss over the previous gen. it replaces while the other pretty much lateralled from the previous gen to the current (speaking of the GT only here before you get snipe happy again).

[surreal1272]

.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Drew Dowdell
stop it

[ccap41]

That's awesome that it's just that simple. 

 

Funny enough he's young, 23, but has a very old school mind set with certain things, trucks being one of them. He gets it from his dad who works at a race engine shop building race motors for just about anything that people want to race, typically the late model dirt stuff and drag racing. He drove one and hated how often it flipped back and forth between 4 and 8 cylinders. I've never driven one so I don't really have a say in it. I think it mostly bothered him around town when not truly cruising. He said he wouldn't really care if he was going 50+ holding a steady mph but he didn't like that it did it in town and just way more often than he expected. 

 

Edit: This was supposed to be quoting Drew but I got an error message when trying to send it. Not sure if my work computer or site error. Just a possible head's up. 

Edited December 28, 2015 by ccap41

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Drew Dowdell
knock it off, both of you.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

I never care about horsepower. Horsepower is just a measurement of torque at a specific RPM and obfuscates the details .... so skip the middle man and give me the torque. 

 

Torque is what turbo's deliver.

In spades.

 

And not just a peak, but total average.  That's what matters.

[surreal1272]

.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Drew Dowdell
knock it off, both of you.

[Drew Dowdell]

 

I never care about horsepower. Horsepower is just a measurement of torque at a specific RPM and obfuscates the details .... so skip the middle man and give me the torque. 

 

Torque is what turbo's deliver.

In spades.

 

And not just a peak, but total average.  That's what matters.

 

 

And less total average when running regular instead of premium..... which is my point. The area under the curve is reduced. 

 

I still say someone needs to put these on the Dyno with both fuels to measure the changes. 

 

The 3.5 Ecoboost drops 40 lb-ft when switching from Premium (Lincoln Navigator) to Regular (Ford Expedition).

[ccap41]

 

 

I never care about horsepower. Horsepower is just a measurement of torque at a specific RPM and obfuscates the details .... so skip the middle man and give me the torque. 

 

Torque is what turbo's deliver.

In spades.

 

And not just a peak, but total average.  That's what matters.

 

 

And less total average when running regular instead of premium..... which is my point. The area under the curve is reduced. 

 

I still say someone needs to put these on the Dyno with both fuels to measure the changes. 

 

The 3.5 Ecoboost drops 40 lb-ft when switching from Premium (Lincoln Navigator) to Regular (Ford Expedition).

 

There has to be some tuner shop/site that has put a before and after dyno up.. I'll try and look if I get time. 

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

 

I never care about horsepower. Horsepower is just a measurement of torque at a specific RPM and obfuscates the details .... so skip the middle man and give me the torque. 

 

Torque is what turbo's deliver.

In spades.

 

And not just a peak, but total average.  That's what matters.

 

 

And less total average when running regular instead of premium..... which is my point. The area under the curve is reduced. 

 

I still say someone needs to put these on the Dyno with both fuels to measure the changes. 

 

The 3.5 Ecoboost drops 40 lb-ft when switching from Premium (Lincoln Navigator) to Regular (Ford Expedition).

 

 

 

Still more torque average using a decade old engine than the latest GM Di big V8 is my point, when pumping regular.

And that peak is found at only 2250 rpms.  Far sooner than the V8.

 

And honestly, just pump the premium.  It only costs few $$ more.

 

Oh, and strangely enough, the mileage is rated on 87 octane, so no, you are not giving up any.

[Drew Dowdell]

The someone, somewhere, or some website, is fibbing.

[ccap41]

 

 

 

I never care about horsepower. Horsepower is just a measurement of torque at a specific RPM and obfuscates the details .... so skip the middle man and give me the torque. 

 

Torque is what turbo's deliver.

In spades.

 

And not just a peak, but total average.  That's what matters.

 

 

And less total average when running regular instead of premium..... which is my point. The area under the curve is reduced. 

 

I still say someone needs to put these on the Dyno with both fuels to measure the changes. 

 

The 3.5 Ecoboost drops 40 lb-ft when switching from Premium (Lincoln Navigator) to Regular (Ford Expedition).

 

 

 

Still more torque average using a decade old engine than the latest GM Di big V8 is my point, when pumping regular.

And that peak is found at only 2250 rpms.  Far sooner than the V8.

 

And honestly, just pump the premium.  It only costs few $$ more.

 

Oh, and strangely enough, the mileage is rated on 87 octane, so no, you are not giving up any.

 

The 3.5 EcoBoost was out in 2005?  What was it in back then? 

 

Okay Okay Okay, I have to stop you at "just pump the premium". 

 

Do the math and it's considerably more $$. 36 gallon tank, right? Let's say we average 19mpg with regular and 20mpg with premium, mixed driving through the whole year and the national average of about 12-15,000 miles. Let's split it to be fair. 13,500 miles. 

 

Well, regular is 1.99(national average) and premium is 2.51/ gal. 

 

13,500miles/19mpg = 710.5 gallons * 1.99 = $1413.89

13,500miles/20mpg = 675 gallong * 2.51 = $1694.25

 

~$280 dollars a year. That isn't a lot, but it is noticeable. Especially over the course of a 5-7 year loan.. $1400-1960 EXTRA to run PREMIUM.

 

Per EPA fuel economy testing EVERY VEHICLE is tested on 93 octane. "The EPA has a specialized company manufacture small batches of consistent fuel, which is 93 octane (cars running 50-state certifications get a slightly different, 91-octane “California” blend)."

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-truth-about-epa-city-highway-mpg-estimates-measuring-fuel-economy-page-2

Edited December 28, 2015 by ccap41

[Drew Dowdell]

Yeah, I already ran the spreadsheet earlier in the thread showing that the GM 6.2 has a lower cost per mile to fuel than the 3.5 Ecoboost, no matter which fuel you put in the Ford. 

[surreal1272]

Gas is always going to be cheap right? 

[Drew Dowdell]

Gas is always going to be cheap right? 

 

It doesn't really matter, the spread between regular and premium usually is consistent.   Around me it's typically 20 to 25 cents a gallon between the two no matter what the regular price is, any change in the dollar position only changes the cost per mile by extremely minor amounts as long as the spread between premium and regular is the same.

 

The GM 6.2 is cheaper to run per mile on regular than the Ford 3.5 EB on premium which are both much cheaper to run than the Ford 3.5 EB on regular. 

 

To be clear, we're only talking about a penny per mile difference here... but over 50,000 miles, that's an extra $500 to run the Ecoboost on premium and $1000 to run it on regular, and these calculations are using highway miles.  If you get fuel economy like Car and Driver did in that comparison test (both the Chevy and Ford got 16mpg), the cost per mile difference increases to about 2 cents per mile, or $1000 over 50,000 miles. 

[G. David Felt]

Yet EV at 6 cents per Kilowatt is still cheaper yet.

[surreal1272]

 

Gas is always going to be cheap right? 

 

It doesn't really matter, the spread between regular and premium usually is consistent.   Around me it's typically 20 to 25 cents a gallon between the two no matter what the regular price is, any change in the dollar position only changes the cost per mile by extremely minor amounts as long as the spread between premium and regular is the same.

 

The GM 6.2 is cheaper to run per mile on regular than the Ford 3.5 EB on premium which are both much cheaper to run than the Ford 3.5 EB on regular. 

 

To be clear, we're only talking about a penny per mile difference here... but over 50,000 miles, that's an extra $500 to run the Ecoboost on premium and $1000 to run it on regular, and these calculations are using highway miles.  If you get fuel economy like Car and Driver did in that comparison test (both the Chevy and Ford got 16mpg), the cost per mile difference increases to about 2 cents per mile, or $1000 over 50,000 miles. 

 

But that is not the same everywhere Drew. Here in the Phoenix area, there can be a 40 to 50 cent difference between 87 and 91 octane. In the mountains here, there's an even bigger gap. Although my post was meant as tongue in cheek, there is something to be said when you are looking at gas prices today that it is easier to stomach the difference in price now, but for year ago you could not say that (most people couldn't anyway) and again they will go back up and that difference in price, where octanes are concerned, will be a much bigger deal for some folks.

[smk4565]

Wouldn't every engine make more power on premium gas? The Corvette requires premium and that is a GM 6.2 liter. If you are that worried about fuel economy get a diesel, it gets higher mpg and diesel costs less than premium.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

Diesel costs a fortune to buy.

[Suaviloquent]

Well, it depends on where you live.

 

Diesel prices have tanked in the GTA in the past few months. It's only 2-3 cents more expensive now, it used to be 20-30 cents above before.

 

And of course is subject to the volatility that is occurring in the industry as we speak. Some folks save right away. Others never make up the difference - ever. Some fall in between. It's a personal issue. I could not digest the price of a diesel a year ago, it just made no sense here, in the GTA if you wanted to save money overall.

 

Now it's a wait and see or take the risk right now situation, here for the specific purpose of saving money on fuel costs.

[surreal1272]

Diesel costs a fortune to buy.

Diesel is cheaper than premium octane gas here so that is not an accurate statement at all.

[Suaviloquent]

I feel like Diesel fuel prices should actually be compared to mid grade level fuel. 89 octane here, or 91 where 93 is available. Or even an average of the two, just to be fair to diesel.

 

Why? Because in RAM, and the impending Ford diesel, the performance of the engines will fall in between that of the high-output, range topping engines and the base V6s.

[smk4565]

In Pittsburgh diesel is cheaper than premium, lately it has been around the price of 89 octane.

[El Kabong]

In Alberta diesel was running cheaper than 87 octane all summer.

Diesel costs a fortune to buy.

As I just posted... no. No it doesn't.

[Drew Dowdell]

Wouldn't every engine make more power on premium gas? The Corvette requires premium and that is a GM 6.2 liter. If you are that worried about fuel economy get a diesel, it gets higher mpg and diesel costs less than premium.

 

No, not if the ECU isn't mapped for higher octane.