the New MPG are out. what do you think? thank you Tim for the video

C

carhaulereastcoast

Active member
so I'm going to start off by saying I'm with Tim if you are not shopping MPG your going to buy a Raptor R or TRX so with the MPG with the SSTHO is not worth the price when the truck starts out at 90K the HP is awesome but that's not a truck your are going to be taking to the track, some might but I know I wouldn't . so with the sst engine you are getting what 25 more HP and 1 MPG less. I don't know I'm still leaning big time on the AT4X with the diesel
 
The idea or comment that if you care about MPG you shouldn't have bought a truck has always irked me. I commented somewhere else that I thought the SST would be similar to the Tundra 3.4 and worse in the HO, that edned up being a pretty close guess.

To contradict myself a little, I care about MPG but not 1 or 2 or maybe even 3. So to me, they're all the same now and wouldn't be a determining factor for me as a buyer.

I'm a little disappointed that a 10 year old engine, the ford 3.5 Eco is just as good as the brand new Ram SST and Tundra 3.4. I would have expected better. (Ok, I would have expected better from Toyota, not RAM)

I keep waiting for GM to be caught in some sort of diesel gate lawsuit over their 3.0 duramax. I don't understand why Ford, Ram and Toyota aren't trying more, or admitted failure so quickly. (1/2 ton diesel) How did GM create the 3.0 so perfectly with the other two failing, at times miserably.
 
Fightnfire said:
The idea or comment that if you care about MPG you shouldn't have bought a truck has always irked me. I commented somewhere else that I thought the SST would be similar to the Tundra 3.4 and worse in the HO, that edned up being a pretty close guess.

To contradict myself a little, I care about MPG but not 1 or 2 or maybe even 3. So to me, they're all the same now and wouldn't be a determining factor for me as a buyer.

I'm a little disappointed that a 10 year old engine, the ford 3.5 Eco is just as good as the brand new Ram SST and Tundra 3.4. I would have expected better. (Ok, I would have expected better from Toyota, not RAM)

I keep waiting for GM to be caught in some sort of diesel gate lawsuit over their 3.0 duramax. I don't understand why Ford, Ram and Toyota aren't trying more, or admitted failure so quickly. (1/2 ton diesel) How did GM create the 3.0 so perfectly with the other two failing, at times miserably.
Click to expand...
I think GM can do the 3.0L due to selling more cars than Ford and Ram. That offsets CAFE numbers. I think. That is really the only explanation I have for why they haven't built a GOOD small displacement diesel.
 
My problem is the diesel advantage drops off drastically depending on cost. It's a full dollar more for diesel here than reg gas so I wouldn't save anything in fuel per year between a Duramax and the new Ram 3.0. But if I was back in sunny southern California? Diesel is the same price as reg gas. It would be a no brainer there, $800 less in annual fuel costs for diesel. That'll buy plenty of DEF.
 
Fightnfire said:
The idea or comment that if you care about MPG you shouldn't have bought a truck has always irked me. I commented somewhere else that I thought the SST would be similar to the Tundra 3.4 and worse in the HO, that edned up being a pretty close guess.

To contradict myself a little, I care about MPG but not 1 or 2 or maybe even 3. So to me, they're all the same now and wouldn't be a determining factor for me as a buyer.

I'm a little disappointed that a 10 year old engine, the ford 3.5 Eco is just as good as the brand new Ram SST and Tundra 3.4. I would have expected better. (Ok, I would have expected better from Toyota, not RAM)

I keep waiting for GM to be caught in some sort of diesel gate lawsuit over their 3.0 duramax. I don't understand why Ford, Ram and Toyota aren't trying more, or admitted failure so quickly. (1/2 ton diesel) How did GM create the 3.0 so perfectly with the other two failing, at times miserably.
Click to expand...
GM has some recent experience with straight six engines, albeit gas, with their own Atlas series developed in the mid to late 90s and updated through the first decade of the 2000s. Additionally, they owned Daewoo, who had Porsche design the XK I-6 for the Epica/Tosca cars of 2006-2014. Engineering artifacts for one series of engines can be used for later engines of similar configuration, especially in understanding the unique dynamics of DOHC sixes (a long engine with its own quirks). Ford could have used Volvo's SI6 as a basis (Ford Bridgend plant in Wales built it), but maybe cost was a factor in adapting some of its technology; it went out of production nine years ago.
 
Fightnfire said:
The idea or comment that if you care about MPG you shouldn't have bought a truck has always irked me. I commented somewhere else that I thought the SST would be similar to the Tundra 3.4 and worse in the HO, that edned up being a pretty close guess.

To contradict myself a little, I care about MPG but not 1 or 2 or maybe even 3. So to me, they're all the same now and wouldn't be a determining factor for me as a buyer.

I'm a little disappointed that a 10 year old engine, the ford 3.5 Eco is just as good as the brand new Ram SST and Tundra 3.4. I would have expected better. (Ok, I would have expected better from Toyota, not RAM)

I keep waiting for GM to be caught in some sort of diesel gate lawsuit over their 3.0 duramax. I don't understand why Ford, Ram and Toyota aren't trying more, or admitted failure so quickly. (1/2 ton diesel) How did GM create the 3.0 so perfectly with the other two failing, at times miserably.
Click to expand...
I think the difference is that GM built this engine with a truck in mind, compare to Ford and Ram, who just took car engines and tried to mod them into truck engines resulting in poor user experience in the long run.

I'm not sure that Ram and Ford would be willing to invest the hundreds of millions required to develop a new diesel engine from scratch with the current and future EPA restrictions.
 
TheDo114 said:
I think the difference is that GM built this engine with a truck in mind, compare to Ford and Ram, who just took car engines and tried to mod them into truck engines resulting in poor user experience in the long run.

I'm not sure that Ram and Ford would be willing to invest the hundreds of millions required to develop a new diesel engine from scratch with the current and future EPA restrictions.
Click to expand...
the funny thing is Toyota has the best diesel in the world and wont bring it to the US cause of the government regs. that's what sucks. I believe the fuel cost over the year will be better with the diesel. its anywhere between 75 cents to 1 dollar more here in SC but long miles driven will pay in the long run
 
carhaulereastcoast said:
the funny thing is Toyota has the best diesel in the world and wont bring it to the US cause of the government regs. that's what sucks. I believe the fuel cost over the year will be better with the diesel. its anywhere between 75 cents to 1 dollar more here in SC but long miles driven will pay in the long run
Click to expand...
I’m in NC just south of Charlotte and the difference between 87 and Diesel has fallen to 55 - 75 cents, though that’s more because 87 has gone up in price while diesel has remained fairly flat.

I did some napkin math a while back comparing the GMC 3.0L Duramax to the 5.3L V-8. Assuming an 80 cent per gallon delta the diesel was $200 cheaper to buy fuel for over the course of a year (15k miles). Add in the cost of DEF and the higher cost of doing oil changes and the true operating cost over the course of the year swings back in favor of the 5.3.

That being said I have no regrets having choosen the 3.0L Duramax
 
chaseydog said:
I’m in NC just south of Charlotte and the difference between 87 and Diesel has fallen to 55 - 75 cents, though that’s more because 87 has gone up in price while diesel has remained fairly flat.

I did some napkin math a while back comparing the GMC 3.0L Duramax to the 5.3L V-8. Assuming an 80 cent per gallon delta the diesel was $200 cheaper to buy fuel for over the course of a year (15k miles). Add in the cost of DEF and the higher cost of doing oil changes and the true operating cost over the course of the year swings back in favor of the 5.3.

That being said I have no regrets having choosen the 3.0L Duramax
Click to expand...
The nice thing about GM is that they don't make it a huge price increase on getting the diesel engine over gas in the 1500s. It's even cheaper than the 6.2L. That's where Ford and Ram failed with their small diesels.
 
Dusdaddy said:
The nice thing about GM is that they don't make it a huge price increase on getting the diesel engine over gas in the 1500s. It's even cheaper than the 6.2L. That's where Ford and Ram failed with their small diesels.
Click to expand...
I was a bit surprised when I bought my AT4 is that the 3.0L is the base engine for that trim, with no option for the 2.7 or 5.3 like there is for the Trail Boss.
 
chaseydog said:
I was a bit surprised when I bought my AT4 is that the 3.0L is the base engine for that trim, with no option for the 2.7 or 5.3 like there is for the Trail Boss.
Click to expand...

That's because of where GMC positions the AT4, it is it's own model much closer to the Denali in terms of fit and options. Whereas the Trail Boss is a package that can only be added to the Custom or LT, lower models.

People forget that in full size the AT4 is a luxury off-roader, it's own model. Trail Boss is a base off-roader.... it's why I dislike the comparisons when talking Tremor, Rebel VS Trail Boss or AT4. They're too different to compare as the same.
 
Fightnfire said:
That's because of where GMC positions the AT4, it is it's own model much closer to the Denali in terms of fit and options. Whereas the Trail Boss is a package that can only be added to the Custom or LT, lower models.

People forget that in full size the AT4 is a luxury off-roader, it's own model. Trail Boss is a base off-roader.... it's why I dislike the comparisons when talking Tremor, Rebel VS Trail Boss or AT4. They're too different to compare as the same.
Click to expand...
Can’t you option up a Trail Boss LT to be comparable to an AT4, or is it still a step down?
 
chaseydog said:
Can’t you option up a Trail Boss LT to be comparable to an AT4, or is it still a step down?
Click to expand...
pretty much always a step down even as an lt (edit: removed ltz as it was incorrect) trail boss. AT4 is really luxury in the full size trucks
 
Last edited:
chaseydog said:
Can’t you option up a Trail Boss LT to be comparable to an AT4, or is it still a step down?
Click to expand...

You can't the AT4 is way higher up the trim level than a Trail Boss, and you can't get an LTZ Trail Boss, only LT and Custom. In 2021 the only major difference between the Denali and the AT4 was the lifted suspension vs the air ride in the Denali.

For Chevy is WT < Custom < LT < RST< LTZ < High Country < ZR2 (Trail boss available on the Custom & LT)
Gor GMC its PRO < SLE < Elevation < SLT < AT4 < Denali < AT4X < Denali Ultimate (The last two added in recent years)
 
Last edited:
Fightnfire said:
You can't the AT4 is way higher up the trim level than a Trail Boss, and you can't get an LTZ Trail Boss, only LT and Custom. In 2021 the only major difference between the Denali and the AT4 was the lifted suspension vs the air ride in the Denali.

For Chevy is WT < Custom < LT < RST< LTZ < High Country. (Trail boss available on the Custom & LT)
Gor GMC its PRO < SLE < Elevation < SLT < AT4 < Denali < AT4X < Denali Ultimate (The last two added in recent years)
Click to expand...
What drives me nuts is how Chevy and Toyota, for that matter, have different trim setups for their midsize and full-size trucks. For example, the Trail Boss is its own trim in the Colorado, but not in the Silverado. Confusing as hell for me when I’m trying to keep a thousand things straight in my head.

Oh and you forgot the new ZR2 trim for Silverado.
 
testerdahl said:
What drives me nuts is how Chevy and Toyota, for that matter, have different trim setups for their midsize and full-size trucks. For example, the Trail Boss is its own trim in the Colorado, but not in the Silverado. Confusing as hell for me when I’m trying to keep a thousand things straight in my head.

Oh and you forgot the new ZR2 trim for Silverado.
Click to expand...

You're right, I did, I knew I forgot one off the top of my head.

It is frustrating like you say that they changed it but as a GMC AT4 owner I've found many reviews frustrating when it gets paired with the trail boss and what they're actually reviewing against a rebel or a tremor is a Trail Boss, not an AT4.
 
I’ve always thought that Diesel was an interesting option to look at. Unfortunately, my usage case is many short trips for half the year and low overall mileage. As a result I’ve always opted for the gas model for any truck I’ve purchased. I’m on my 5th truck starting in 1994. Does anyone have any thoughts on the crossover point for mileage driven per year to make the diesel a better option? The old school way of looking at it is you wanted to be driving at least 30,000miles per year to make the diesel a no brainer.
I’m in agreement that I thought the fuel savings would be greater on the turbo Tundra and the new Ram. I suppose they wanted to show higher hp and torque than the V8 in both cases. This makes it more difficult to hit low mpg numbers.
Great video Tim, keep up the good work. I would like to drive one of the Standard output and high output Rams to see how they perform.
 
DeamonWorks has a video on his YouTube channel where he compares the operating costs of the 5.3, 6.2 and 3.0 over the course of 1 and 5 years. The 5.3 was the more cost effective engine in both cases. Both the 5.3 and the 3.0 were more cost effective than the 6.2. He’s looking at the total operating cost, fuel, oil changes, fuel filter, spark plugs etc.

I bought an AT4, so my engine choices were between the 3.0, which is the base engine, and the 6.2 which I believe is a $1500 option. Where I live diesel and premium, which is the recommended fuel for the 6.2, are within a couple of cents of each other. So in the case of the AT4 the tipping point for the diesel being the more cost effective engine is mile 1.
 
chaseydog said:
DeamonWorks has a video on his YouTube channel where he compares the operating costs of the 5.3, 6.2 and 3.0 over the course of 1 and 5 years. The 5.3 was the more cost effective engine in both cases. Both the 5.3 and the 3.0 were more cost effective than the 6.2. He’s looking at the total operating cost, fuel, oil changes, fuel filter, spark plugs etc.

I bought an AT4, so my engine choices were between the 3.0, which is the base engine, and the 6.2 which I believe is a $1500 option. Where I live diesel and premium, which is the recommended fuel for the 6.2, are within a couple of cents of each other. So in the case of the AT4 the tipping point for the diesel being the more cost effective engine is mile 1.
Click to expand...
There's also the savings from not having to stop at the gas station as often. Also, I know it sounds weird to some, but I have a hard time not buying something when I go into the gas station to pee on road trips. Hard to calculate those savings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top