4 door Truck time.

carguy123 wrote: We use the back floorboard more than we do the bed.

Family forum alert . . .

I paid $7500 for my 2002 Silverado 2500HD crew cab long bed. Had 79k on the clock. With the 8.1 / Allison combo and the wheelbase that is measured in miles, it will tow the world. The crew cab is comfy for 4 adults or 2 adults and 3 kids.

HiTempguy wrote: In my father's 2004 GMC crew cab (4x4 5.3L 4 speed auto), flat highway cruising in cruise control at 65mph is about 12L/100kms (19.6USmpg). He has 4.10's. With a tune, not 4.10's, and the 6 speed, I don't doubt it. Anyone that thinks they are getting more than 22usmpg on the highway at any speed is lying (or bad at math, or using imperial gallons).

Yes, I'm lying. It's not like this isn't my 3rd fullsize that gets low-mid 20's. Multiple tanks on multiple trips with multiple vehicles achieved this.

So, have you ever actually OWNED one of the trucks in mention? If so, how was it optioned out? Was it 2wd?

If not, the STFU because you're talking out of your ass. I don't appreciate being called a liar. Especially when it's something I've repeated multiple times on multiple vehicles.

You know, this still infuriates me, no matter how many times some forum troll calls me a liar about this....

You berkeleytards that tell me I'm lying do realize that you can build a 100 different trucks from GM/Ford/Dodge and no 2 be the same, right? They do this for a reason. They do it so you can get the truck that SUITS YOUR NEEDS BEST. Unlike Toyota or Nissan or (shudders) Honda, where they offer you one truck,take it or leave it. The ol' one-size-fits-all mentality.

My father has a 2003 Silvy 1500 extcab, shortbed with the 5.3, 4L60E and a 3.73 rear end and 2wd. He get's a consistent 19-20mpg running at 80mph. that jumps to 21-22 if he can keep it under 70.

My 06 CC has the 4.8, 3.23 rear end wit hthe 4L60E trans and 2wd. It's not nearly as quick, but at 80mph I'm turning 2000 rpms on the nose. He's turning 2400rpms at the same speed. So, I get 22 mpg at 80, pull it down to 70-75 and that climbs to 23-24.

One of the guys I worked with here has a Reg cab long bed '04 Sierra with the 5.3L, 4x4 with the 3.73 gears and the taller 265/70-17 tires (as compared to my 245/70/17, and Dad's 255/70/16). He is lucky to get 18mph at 70mph.

Point is, with a domestic truck, you will get a wide range of results because there are so many options. 4.3, 4.8, 5.3, 6.0, 4L60, NV3500, 4L80, 6L60, 3.23,3.42,3.73,4.10 gears, 2wd, 4wd, awd, 245/70/17, 265/70/17, 265/55/20, reg cab, extended cab, crew cab, long bed, short bed, ext short bed, 1500, 1500hd, 2500, 2500hd etc.

If you can't realize that there are a lot of options and that not only is it possible, but likely tha tone of those options will be the mpg king, you're berkeleying retarded. But to call someone a liar because YOU'RE retarded, well that's just flat out wrong.

Idk about all that but our Ridgeline doesn't have the bone-jarring ride of your inferior truck.

Tom Suddard wrote: Idk about all that but our Ridgeline doesn't have the bone-jarring ride of your inferior truck.

Ours is 2wd, it rides nice and smooth.... and it has seats made for a fat-ass american!

Tell you what Tommy, next time we're in Gainesville visitng the wife's aunt, I'll take you for a ride in a real truck!

I couldn't find the XFE Silverado on fueleconomy.gov

Silverado 2wd 5.3 v8

2004 - 14/18

2007 - 14/19

2013 - 15/21

F150 2wd 5.4 v8

2004 - 14/18

2007 - 13/17

2013 - 16/22 (this is the turbo 6 - no 2wd 5.0 in 2013?)

25mpg (mid-20's) puts a 2004 Silverado at 39% over its EPA highway estimate.

The 99-07 GM trucks are very comfortable in crew cab configuration. We routinely take 4 adults to races and on ohter trips.

I think the Avalanche is a good fit for what you are looking for and would give you an 8 foot bed when you need it (though you can't have that and seating for more than 3 at the same time).

Avalanche or Silverado/Sierra is my recommendation.

twolittlebroncos wrote: I couldn't find the XFE Silverado on fueleconomy.gov Silverado 2wd 5.3 v8 2004 - 14/18 2007 - 14/19 2013 - 15/21 F150 2wd 5.4 v8 2004 - 14/18 2007 - 13/17 2013 - 16/22 (this is the turbo 6 - no 2wd 5.0 in 2013?) 25mpg (mid-20's) puts a 2004 Silverado at 39% over its EPA highway estimate.

We still have the original sticker from 06 and the "corrected" EPA ratings. the 4.8/2wd was rated at 16/21. So that means at 24mpg (which we've seen multiple times on multiple trips) we're ~13% over the EPA.

The wife's Accent was orginally rated at 24/33. I filled it up the last two tanks. The first one was 40.1, the second one was 38.9. She's consistently in the 38-40mpg range on every tank. So at 39mpg (her average) she's ~16% over EPA. My old elantra ran ~13% over epa for 160k miles. My 93 Fullsize 4.3V6 5-spd ECSB was rated at 16/22 and it saw a few tanks at 25, making it 12% over EPA.

I'm seeing a consitent trend.

Bob what is your exact trucks towing capacity? Isn't it only 4600lbs (Internet indicated for 4.8L with 3.23 rear gears)?

Bobzilla wrote: I'm seeing a consitent trend.

Yep, you guys are champion hypermilers. Congrats.

Personally, the only way I've even been able to approach EPA highway mileage in any of the many pickups I've owned is to keep it under 60 on the freeway. Above that, aerodynamics take over and the drivetrain doesn't matter as much as the simple energy required to push a box through the air. I am certainly not calling you a liar, but I am suggesting that you and your family are outliers, and that it would be hard for most drivers to duplicate that kind of mileage consistently.

For a larger sample size, I suggest checking Fuelly: http://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/silverado%201500

Bobzilla wrote: The wife's Accent was orginally rated at 24/33. I filled it up the last two tanks. The first one was 40.1, the second one was 38.9. She's consistently in the 38-40mpg range on every tank. So at 39mpg (her average) she's ~16% over EPA.

My 2005 Accent which I installed Cruise on and drove 36,000 miles all but about 1000 of them on the interstate doing 5hr drives from Appleton to Champaign, IL got a lifetime average of 31mpg at 72mph. Best tank ever was only 35mpg. Not sure what year your wifes is but mine was rated at 24/33 also.

The reason people call you out Bob is no one else knows ANYONE that does as good as you claim. It's like Javelin with his 26+MPG P71. No one else can replicate it. I'm sure your getting what you say your getting but I also 100% would not count on buying a comparably equiped vehicle to the ones you have an expecting anything close to the MPG you claim. Some one May replicate but if the OP purchases a 2006 Crew Cab silverado 1500 with the 4.8 and 3.23 gears I would not expect him to get "Mid 20's" I would expect something closer to the EPA estimate of 20-21 highway.

nocones wrote: Bob what is your exact trucks towing capacity? Isn't it only 4600lbs (Internet indicated for 4.8L with 3.23 rear gears)?

According to the owners manual in the truck, 6500lbs when you have the trans cooler and hitch installed. She's towed 5k easily for 800 miles without issue and last fall towed a 2100lb STC Civic, 1800lb trailer, 150lbs of extra tires, 3 loaded coolers, 3 adults, luggage and ~100lbs of tools like a champ from Indy to Lincoln and back. IIRC, we averaged 14mpg round trip (fricking STC car owner drove the piss out of it while I slept for 3 hours).

nocones wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: The wife's Accent was orginally rated at 24/33. I filled it up the last two tanks. The first one was 40.1, the second one was 38.9. She's consistently in the 38-40mpg range on every tank. So at 39mpg (her average) she's ~16% over EPA.

My 2005 Accent which I installed Cruise on and drove 36,000 miles all but about 1000 of them on the interstate doing 5hr drives from Appleton to Champaign, IL got a lifetime average of 31mpg at 72mph. Best tank ever was only 35mpg. Not sure what year your wifes is but mine was rated at 24/33 also. The reason people call you out Bob is no one else knows ANYONE that does as good as you claim. It's like Javelin with his 26+MPG P71. No one else can replicate it. I'm sure your getting what you say your getting but I also 100% would not count on buying a comparably equiped vehicle to the ones you have an expecting anything close to the MPG you claim. Some one May replicate but if the OP purchases a 2006 Crew Cab silverado 1500 with the 4.8 and 3.23 gears I would not expect him to get "Mid 20's" I would expect something closer to the EPA estimate of 20-21 highway.

In 2003, all the accents got the bigger, powerful 1.6L DOHC alpha. 00-02 had the older 1.5L SOHC alpha. Ours is a 2000. the Single slammers were slower than hell, but they would get great mileage for a patient driver. With me driving it (driving = beating the piss out of it) I was getting 33-34mpg. But I was also running to 5500rpms on every shift, onramps were foot to floor every gear until hitting the speed Iwas trying to achieve etc.... I am not a patient driver.

The wife on the other hand shifts at 2500, is pokey as hell and I doubt she's ever found the redline in any vehicle she's driven. She's the perfect candidate for a TDI if the you could get one without hte Factory installed face warmer.

Hey Bob, chill bro. I know the internet is serious business, but really?

As was said, MAYBE you are an outlier. But there are millions of people out there with these trucks (I also just so happen to live in an area where having a truck is virtually mandatory, plus I get to drive many different trucks in my travels) so yea, I think my own personal experiences are valid. Doesn't matter what I've done besides drive below 90km/h, as pointed at, at some point in time there is X energy required to push a 4x8 sheet of plywood through the air. And that aero becomes orders of magnitude greater the faster you go.

The marth doesn't add up is all I'm saying.

2WD vs. 4WD does make a big difference in mileage, engines matter, and gear ratios (and tire diameters) matter. Bobzilla has those three things on his side, so I tend to believe his mileage claims.

I tend to use fuelly.com as a reality check on what owners tend to get for real-world mileage. Their are outliers there, as well, but there's usually enough data to get a good impression.

Just buy an old 80's f350 crew cab with a 460 in it.....there is no debate, you'll get 8-9mpg whether you're in town, on the freeway, or towing something......can't we all just get along?

Bob what is your exact trucks towing capacity? Isn't it only 4600lbs (Internet indicated for 4.8L with 3.23 rear gears)?

In the real world it's the same as every other half-ton gmt900 with that tranny and brakes. Gearing and engine size have E36 M3 to do with it other than the driver's impatience. Just my .02

Towing becomes a safety hazard if you can't get out of the way or stop in a certain distance. The new standardized towing ratings account for these things and there is a reason for that.

HiTempguy wrote: Hey Bob, chill bro. I know the internet is serious business, but really? As was said, MAYBE you are an outlier. But there are millions of people out there with these trucks (I also just so happen to live in an area where having a truck is virtually mandatory, plus I get to drive many different trucks in my travels) so yea, I think my own personal experiences are valid. Doesn't matter what I've done besides drive below 90km/h, as pointed at, at some point in time there is X energy required to push a 4x8 sheet of plywood through the air. And that aero becomes orders of magnitude greater the faster you go. The marth doesn't add up is all I'm saying.

So I see you're still trolling. Nice. Can't leave it alone can you douchebag?

You know, the same post you tell me to chill, you go and call me a liar. Again. Really? Did you just get out of troll prison?

HiTempguy wrote: Towing becomes a safety hazard if you can't get out of the way or stop in a certain distance. The new standardized towing ratings account for these things and there is a reason for that.

And towing with a 4.8L is not a safety hazard. I've never had an issue getting to merging speed on any onramp, or stopping.

Exactly. We're still talking about 300hp here. It'll be faster at WOT with 7k lbs behind it than a 5.7L 90s model, or a 454 80s model.

Vigo wrote: Exactly. We're still talking about 300hp here. It'll be faster at WOT with 7k lbs behind it than a 5.7L 90s model, or a 454 80s model.

But this is GRM, it's a GM and I'm obviously a liar, because he's now said it twice. For that reason, it must be an explosion waiting to happen and I will likely set the interior on fire because of my pants.

The fire in your pants cannot be contained, you say?

bwahahahahah

Aww crap who riled up bob. Just let him have his " real truck" full of pixie dust and awesomeness.