2024 Chevy HD DRW and SRW Fuel Economy Test

[FishOnOne]

The Chevy did good for a 3500 DRW truck. At 17.7mpg Chevy made a good improvement.

Link

The Chevy 2500 made 20mpg

Link

[Bionic_Man]

Cummins12V98 wrote:
^^^ That is impressive but I have no idea how to so and don't want or care to understand how to do so. ^^^

Fill to top. Next time fill to top. Now divide my gallons into miles = GOLDEN

Download the Fuelly app. Really couldn’t be any easier.

[Grit_dog]

15mpg avg out of a new Ecoboost Expedition is pretty normal.
Even my leadfoot was averaging 15mpg in my old 5.3/10speed Chevy.

[Cummins12V98]

^^^ That is impressive but I have no idea how to so and don't want or care to understand how to do so. ^^^

Fill to top. Next time fill to top. Now divide my gallons into miles = GOLDEN

[Bionic_Man]

This is good enough for me.

[4x4ord]

Grit dog wrote:

4x4ord wrote:
If you want to be more accurate with your mpg calculations just calculate less often. Instead of calculating based on 300 miles go 1200 or 1500 or 15000 miles. So fill up however you choose, reset your trip odometer, drive, keep track of all the fuel you put in, not bothering to fill up in any particular manner until the last fill up, at which time you fill up the way you did the first time. Calculate, and your going to be very close. One thing I like to do to get an accurate mpg figure is start my test with a clean DPF and end the same way.

Or to make it even simpler, although what you’re saying is good basic qualitative or quantitative analysis rules, check however you like, compare to the mpgs reading that virtually all trucks in the last 20+ years have. Get an idea of how close the digital readout is compared to your actual calcs and just use that if you must know what mpgs you’re getting at any or all times.
OR, start playing car games like slug bug or the license plate game, if you need a distraction from worrying about or calculating mpgs. And if that doesn’t work, try having a few road beers or sneak a toke if you’re retired and don’t have to pee in a cup to get a paycheck any more. It’ll chill you out.

I very rarely fill my truck up from a metered pump so getting my digital mpg read out properly calibrated is something I like to do. I think in the last year and a half I’ve only fueled up at a meted pump about three times. Sounds like riding with Grit could be fun! I don’t even know how to play the license plate game and can only imagine what slug a bug is. The road beers seems to elevate my co pilot’s stress level and sneaking a toke has never even crossed my mind.

[Cummins12V98]

"I" like to fill my fuel tanks to the top if possible. Not so easy and have never accomplished this with the Jeep Grand Cherokee.

"I" like to change ALL my transmission fluid, not been able to accomplish this on my AISIN.

"I" have things that "I" do for my own reasons.

"I" was known for the picky Superintendent. My Dental Clients always asked if I was available to remodel or build their next Clinic. I built/remodeled over 100 in the Greater Seattle area. Seen a Gentle Dental Clinic? I most likely built it and many more.

Some may think I am crazy but that's fine with me. I had 65,000 career hours and retired at 54 years old based on my picky nature.

I do agree having the DEF usage involved makes these highly un accurate fuel economy tests more useless.

[Grit_dog]

4x4ord wrote:
If you want to be more accurate with your mpg calculations just calculate less often. Instead of calculating based on 300 miles go 1200 or 1500 or 15000 miles. So fill up however you choose, reset your trip odometer, drive, keep track of all the fuel you put in, not bothering to fill up in any particular manner until the last fill up, at which time you fill up the way you did the first time. Calculate, and your going to be very close. One thing I like to do to get an accurate mpg figure is start my test with a clean DPF and end the same way.

Or to make it even simpler, although what you’re saying is good basic qualitative or quantitative analysis rules, check however you like, compare to the mpgs reading that virtually all trucks in the last 20+ years have. Get an idea of how close the digital readout is compared to your actual calcs and just use that if you must know what mpgs you’re getting at any or all times.
OR, start playing car games like slug bug or the license plate game, if you need a distraction from worrying about or calculating mpgs. And if that doesn’t work, try having a few road beers or sneak a toke if you’re retired and don’t have to pee in a cup to get a paycheck any more. It’ll chill you out.

[FishOnOne]

4x4ord wrote:
One thing I like to do to get an accurate mpg figure is start my test with a clean DPF and end the same way.

Bingo...

[4x4ord]

If you want to be more accurate with your mpg calculations just calculate less often. Instead of calculating based on 300 miles go 1200 or 1500 or 15000 miles. So fill up however you choose, reset your trip odometer, drive, keep track of all the fuel you put in, not bothering to fill up in any particular manner until the last fill up, at which time you fill up the way you did the first time. Calculate, and your going to be very close. One thing I like to do to get an accurate mpg figure is start my test with a clean DPF and end the same way.

[cummins2014]

Grit dog wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:
This BS of fill til it clicks and wait then same is a joke. It takes a bit but you can fill to the top if you want.

I think this method is legit as long as you do it the same way every time.

Haven't you noticed different flows if someone else is filling on your island while you are also?

So you mean to tell me that another pump on the same island pumping fuel at two different locations is why these two Duramax trucks yielded impressive fuel economy results?

WOW, put words into my mouth!!! I never said a word about the results just the method of fueling. Remember reading and comprehension go together. :B

I gave you an example with a question of why it can't be accurate but you chose not to address my statement/question.

But yet your trying to disqualify these fuel economy tests from two different sources. So based on the fueling error you're claiming how much did it affect the reported fuel economy results?

IMO the error is in the noise.

Lot's of noise. Bottom line, fill to the top each time and it is exact.

Lol. You’re a carpenter, right? What you’re proposing is that, say, cutting 2x4 walers for concrete forms, it’s important to cut them to a light or strong 1/16” like if you were casing a window or cutting crown molding. A little too OCD for the importance of the results.
Not to mention that who cares if something gets 17.2 or 17.6 mpg there are greater environmental factors contributing to the mileage than + or - a half gallon or even a gallon of fuel in a 35-50galllon tank.

Have to agree , it's a bit OCD , when I used to run a bigger tire I even allowed for that 1/10 or whatever of a mile lost when calculating miles per gal. Then I woke up . :B

[Grit_dog]

Cummins12V98 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:
This BS of fill til it clicks and wait then same is a joke. It takes a bit but you can fill to the top if you want.

I think this method is legit as long as you do it the same way every time.

Haven't you noticed different flows if someone else is filling on your island while you are also?

So you mean to tell me that another pump on the same island pumping fuel at two different locations is why these two Duramax trucks yielded impressive fuel economy results?

WOW, put words into my mouth!!! I never said a word about the results just the method of fueling. Remember reading and comprehension go together. :B

I gave you an example with a question of why it can't be accurate but you chose not to address my statement/question.

But yet your trying to disqualify these fuel economy tests from two different sources. So based on the fueling error you're claiming how much did it affect the reported fuel economy results?

IMO the error is in the noise.

Lot's of noise. Bottom line, fill to the top each time and it is exact.

Lol. You’re a carpenter, right? What you’re proposing is that, say, cutting 2x4 walers for concrete forms, it’s important to cut them to a light or strong 1/16” like if you were casing a window or cutting crown molding. A little too OCD for the importance of the results.
Not to mention that who cares if something gets 17.2 or 17.6 mpg there are greater environmental factors contributing to the mileage than + or - a half gallon or even a gallon of fuel in a 35-50galllon tank.

[cummins2014]

Grit dog wrote:
I’m still waiting to hear how to keep my shoes dry and not stinky like diesel when “topping off” a vehicle with a capless fuel filler. I guess maybe you could block the fuel island for an extra 5 min tinkling in the last gallon or 2 and only get a small drip spilled on the concrete?

Moreso, I’m just glad there’s enough meaningful things in my life to do, to not obsess about the theoretical accuracy of my, or anyone else’s, fuel mileage to the 1/10th of 1 mpg….

Although to be fair some folks can’t comprehend the order of magnitude, or lack thereof, of things they obsess over. Or maybe more accurately, publish those obsessions…

I messed a little with my old 7.3 , I could usually get at least 2-3 gals in after the click . I don’t mess with this Ram at all , it clicks I’m done . I could care less what more I could get in there . My mileage is what it is , and seems pretty consistent.

Yes I prefer not to smell diesel on my shoes the rest of the trip . :B

[FishOnOne]

Paul Bell wrote:
Chevy was always famous for fuel economy.

Back in the day the main reason was their 4 barrel Rochester carburetors with a small venturi 2 barrel that atomized the fuel better compared to the other brands that ran mostly 2 barrel carbs that didn't atomize the fuel that good.

[Paul_Bell]

Chevy was always famous for fuel economy.

[Cummins12V98]

FishOnOne wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:
This BS of fill til it clicks and wait then same is a joke. It takes a bit but you can fill to the top if you want.

I think this method is legit as long as you do it the same way every time.

Haven't you noticed different flows if someone else is filling on your island while you are also?

So you mean to tell me that another pump on the same island pumping fuel at two different locations is why these two Duramax trucks yielded impressive fuel economy results?

WOW, put words into my mouth!!! I never said a word about the results just the method of fueling. Remember reading and comprehension go together. :B

I gave you an example with a question of why it can't be accurate but you chose not to address my statement/question.

But yet your trying to disqualify these fuel economy tests from two different sources. So based on the fueling error you're claiming how much did it affect the reported fuel economy results?

IMO the error is in the noise.

Lot's of noise. Bottom line, fill to the top each time and it is exact.