[Copperhead]

Just for comparison. My 2015 2500 6.0L Double Cab, Z71, LT with snow plow prep package. 7200 lb on the scale with full tank. Average is 14.5 mpg for lifetime for every situation, with 17-18 mpg on road trips. Has mostly digested E15 88 octane fuel which is 50-55 cents a gallon lower than Premium in my area. Yes, E15, not E85. So on the lifetime miles, at the current price of $2.36 for E15 in my area, the cost per mile has been around 16 1/4 cents a mile.

Now lets look at a similar 1500 with the 6.2L. Considerably lighter, premium required. Premium in my area is, according to my Gas Buddy app that updated a station near me an hour ago, $2.89 a gallon. At a lifetime average of 16.5 mpg for all miles, as was stated by an earlier post, the cost per mile would come in at around 17.5 cents a mile. Just to break even, on a cost per mile basis with my 2500, a 1500 with a 6.2L would have to average for ALL miles, 18 mpg or more.

That is on a much lighter, less capable pickup than the 2500. One of the many reasons I got a 2015 2500 instead of a 1500. The 6.2L power numbers may be a little better, but no 1500 with a 6.2L is rated to 20,500 lb total GCVW like my 2500.

 

[Copperhead]

There is not a 1500 coming out of GM that has a GVWR of 20,500 lb like the basic 6.0L 2500 has. No it is not a stupid argument. You don't like that the 2500 has a higher GVWR, too bad. Take it up with Detroit. I agreed that the 6.2L does have some more actual power, but trouble is, it doesn't mean squat. The 1500 can't pull the weight the 2500 can nor haul anything close to what the 2500 can. I don't care if you drop in a Pratt and Whitney jet engine. The chassis and axles can't do the job the 2500 can. In the Ike Gauntlet pull test, the 2015 2500 had 13,000 lb of trailer on the back, 300 lb of liquid in a tote in the back, 3 adults. No 1500 can come close. Sure you might get up the hill a little quicker with the 6.2L, but one is not pulling anywhere near the GCVW either. And when not towing, I can carry a total of 2900 lb of people and cargo in my 2500 and still be within OEM guidelines. Again, no 1500 can come close.

Now to the original part of the discussion, fuel economy. I based my comments on the 6.2L needing premium from page 9-68 of the 2015 Silverado Owners Manual. The 6.2L (VIN code J) requires 91 octane or higher. That is premium the last time I checked. different areas of of the country offer 93, others offer 91. High altitude running, the general octane ratings across the fuel spectrum is lower at the pump for instance. Not as much need for 93 at 7000 feet as there is at 700 feet. Now someone might run regular in their 6.2L, but the manual calls for higher octane. Anecdotal stories mean squat in technical discussions.

And the cost per mile, in fuel, is equal or less than with the 6.2L. Facts are facts. Unless someone has a lifetime average of more than 18 mpg, they are not better than the 6.0L in the 2500 for cost per mile. 18 mpg is just break even point. One would have to have a lifetime average of 20 mpg or more to actually have any bragging rights. No that is not just highway mpg. That is ALL mpg for everything the pickup has done over it's life.

I got more pickup and can do more at a cost that is equal to or lower than the cost to operate a 6.2L equipped 1500. Except for bragging rights and the testosterone rush it might give, there is no advantage to the 6.2L in the 1500. And cost for the initial purchase, the 1500 6.2L has no advantage either.

 

[Copperhead]

You might want to check page 9-83 of the 2015 Silverado manual. My 2015 2500 4x4 Z71 6.0L 4.10 has a Gross Combination Weight Rating of 20,500 lb. I have the 2500 double cab, LT, Z71, with snow plow prep package and 5th wheel / gooseneck package.

When you can run the hilly rural roads, even hillier gravel roads (or mud like today after the heavy rain we got),and both of these situations daily. Add to that off road in soft cropland, pastures, over farm terraces, thru field ditches, tow, haul, city and highway, and do everything better than 18 mpg for all miles, that is just break even on a cost per mile for fuel standpoint. I average 14.5 for doing all of that. I have yet to see anyone average 20-22 mpg doing all of that for the entire life of their vehicle in any 1500 for any year or motor. Highway mpg, yes. But then, I average 17-18 mpg highway, and the cost per mile spread still applies. There is no appreciable advantage to the 6.2L. On a highway mpg comparison, a person with a 1500 6.2L would have to average BETTER than 23 mpg to even start to be at lower cost per mile than I have. 22 mpg is, again, just break even. And yet again, I can still do more with my 2500 than any 1500 can even come close to.

Not sweating anything. I know what the numbers are. Being an owner of a commercial truck operation, I am quite adept at crunching numbers on what gives me the best bang for my buck. And the L96 6.0L in my 2500 has an extensive track record of long term reliability and durability with a very cost effective overall lifetime cost of operation. I hope for those that have the 6.2L, they get the same results from theirs. But the 6.2L does not have anywhere close to the data to support that it has the track record of the 6.0L.

 

[Copperhead]

I quoted prices from current postings on Gas Buddy for Newton, Iowa. Look them up. Oh... E15 is not listed, but that is what I use and get from Murphy's in Newton at 2.39. It is 10 cents a gallon less than E10, which is 10-15 cents less than regular non ethanol. None of these which can be used in the 6.2L per GM. Premium at Love's near Newton and Cenex near Newton is 2.87 and 2.89 respectively.

Far outclassed? I question that one. The 2015 2500 6.0 blew the socks off a Ram 2500 with 6.4L up the Ike Gauntlet pull test by almost 1.5 minutes. And was 300 lb heavier GCVW than the Ram. And the 6.4L Hemi in the Ram has similar HP and Torque numbers as the 6.2L Ecotec3 motor. No, don't feel outclassed at all. The 2015 2500 6.0L won the Golden Hitch Award from The Fast Lane Trucks group that does the testing. Videos and articles to back it up.

 

[Copperhead]

Have no clue, and am not going to take the time. The only ratio offered in the 2015 2500 6.0L is 4.10. Who gives a rip about what some RPO code is. It is going to be 4.10 no matter what. There is NO 3.73 or some other ratio offering for the 2015 2500 6.0, no matter if it is standard cab, double cab, crew cab, Z71, trailering package, snow plow prep, or not. 4.10 is the only offering for the 6.0, and 3.73 is for the Dmax / Allison combo. Pull your head out of the 1500 mindset. The 2500's don't have a plethora of ratios across the board like the 1500's. Only two. 4.10 for gas, 3.73 for diesel.

You want me to jump thru hoops for you and look things up. Look it up yourself and prove me wrong if you can. Everything you find on the L96 6.0L in the 2015 2500 pickups is going to be a 6L90 trans and 4.10 diffs. 2WD or 4WD. Every cab and package option.

 

[Copperhead]

That info must only be on the door jam of a 1500. All my 2015 2500 has is OEM recommended tire pressure for front and rear axles and a statement that total weight of people and cargo should not be more than 2886 lb and for further information look at owners manual. Not a peep about GCWR, only max weight per axle and max weight of payload (people and cargo on board).

But you made the point well, JVD. many can't seem to grasp the difference between GVWR and GCWR. The 2500 can still haul quite a bit, even with a 13,000 lb trailer. And when the trailer is not being pulled, the 2500 can haul a total payload of almost 1.5 tons. And that is one of the reasons I got it. I will probably never tow anything near even what the 1500 6.2L max tow rating is, unless i get a gooseneck trailer I have considered. But I like being able to put a pallet of concrete, bentonite, drums of oil, or whatever in the back that weighs in over 1 ton and can be hauled quite comfortably.

So if we look at the GCWR of the 2500, 20500 lb, If I had hooked up a max trailer weight the 1500 6.2L 3.42 can pull, 11,700, I still have enough GCWR left over to drop in almost a full ton of cargo in the pickup bed itself. Not quite as I would factor a minimum of 10% of the trailer weight as tongue weight on the pickup, 1170 lb, and that would leave 1716 available payload in the pickup itself. Just shy of a full ton. No 1500 is going to come close to those capabilities. Irregardless of rear ratio, RagsMatt.

 

[Copperhead]

And that is one of the reasons I got the 2500. While all that butt dyno stuff of the 6.2L feels neat, it takes a 2500 to actually move some serious cargo and trailer. RagsMatt tries to rely only on engine output. Engine output is neat, but how it can actually be applied is something else. It is a good setup for most folk's general requirements, but it still is not going to come close to the actual capabilities of the 6.0L 2500. And when we factor in the fuel requirements, we have roughly a wash on the fuel cost per mile, because of the flex fuel capability of the 6.0L vs the premium only requirement of the 6.2L. I may get lower mpg with my 2500, but the fuel costs considerably less, so the actual cost per mile is comparable. For me, there is just no appreciable benefit to owning the 6.2L 1500. I have no issue with anyone getting a 6.2L 1500. Their hauling requirements may justify it. I have different needs and the 1500 just wouldn't cut it, irregardless of motor and rear ratio. I haul more than I tow, so even going diesel was not a cost effective option either. Might be a social statement having that Duramax/Allison badge on the pickup, but overkill for my needs. The 6.0L is just a good solid performing power plant in a more than capable 2500HD. A great combination for my needs.

 

[Copperhead]

That's cool. The 6.2L in the 1500 does make for a very peppy ride! No doubt. It would be a good balance between capable pickup and muscle car. I guess those over 5 million logged miles as a commercial driver, along with my age, has made it to where I have long since lost those get up and go needs I had as a young man. I am more of a gradual acceleration take off kind of guy now. Doesn't mean that I drive like grandpa down the road, just means that I take my time getting up to road speed. Well, except maybe on a freeway on ramp, and even in that case, the 6.0L does a pretty good job. Sure did in St. Louis and Memphis downtown on and off ramps on my last road trip.

 

[Copperhead]

The info you posted on 3.73 was from 2011. Nice try. 2015 only 4.10 for gas engine. Open a 2015 Silverado owners manual and prove the 3.73 is an option. You can't

Oops, your post does show 2015. Can't speak to GMC offerings that you posted, but download a 2015 Silverado manual and it is not an option. Look, I spec ratios on a lot of commercial trucks. I have several extensive spreadsheets that can run road speed calculations across engine RPM ranges based on tire revolutions per mile, Trans gear ratios, and diff ratios. I know what I have in my 2015 2500. 4.10

 

[Copperhead]

And he posted info from a GMC manual when we are discussing Silverado. We all know product offerings are not identical for both platforms. My window sticker folded up in my manual says 4.10. The OBD Bluetooth scan tool shows 4.10 right from the ECM.

 

[Copperhead]

And he posted info from a GMC manual when we are discussing Silverado. We all know product offerings are not identical for both platforms. My window sticker folded up in my manual says 4.10. The OBD Bluetooth scan tool shows 4.10 right from the ECM.

Are you trying to be confrontational?

Well, probably was getting a little snippy. After all, you have all but called me a liar about my pickup and my contention that I had 4.10 and a GCWR of 20,500, and getting the mpg I have.

Well, we are indeed fortunate that you are a GM tech. Here, take the VIN from mine and see if I have been telling the truth.

1GC2KVEG0FZ110203

And this might be a little snippy, but since you have challenged me in previous posts, I return the favor. If you are indeed a GM tech, then you will be able to post not only the plant it was built, but the production build sequence number. Not a build date, but the actual sequential build number. I have given you the info you sought with the VIN, now be kind enough to return the gesture. Just following a little "trust but verify" philosophy.

Now, screen shot on my last road trip to St. Louis and Memphis just before Memorial day. Normal for every road trip I have taken the pickup on. Oh, I did also hand calculate the mpg and the difference was only .03 mpg. Not worth the extra effort. Not too bad for a 7000 lb vehicle and a 6.0L and 4.10. Every bit as good as the 5.3 / 3.42 combo that was in my 2013 1500. Didn't lose 1 mpg moving up to the heavier 2500HD. All on ethanol laced regular gas. Not even top tier!!! I never worry about going out of my way to buy that stuff. Doesn't show in the screen shot, but the lifetime mpg for the pickup is 14.5 for all miles loaded or empty, towing or not, gravel roads, off roads, or highways.

 

[Copperhead]

Well, Matt, also living in Wyoming, the higher altitude probably plays in to being able to use regular with no ill effects. It is common knowledge that at higher altitudes, octane requirements aren't nearly as important than at the lower elevations. At, say, 5000 feet, there is no way the 6.2L is generating 11.5 to 1 compression ratios that it would be at sea level. It is still naturally aspirated and has to deal with the air density it is operating in. Air density is 14.7 psi at sea level, roughly 12.2 psi at around 5000 feet, and down to 10.1 psi at 10,000 feet. Simple physics suggest that there is no way on a piston draw cycle, that it is going to take in the same amount of air at high altitude that it takes to make 11.5 to 1 compression in the cylinder. Hence, less need for premium octane rated fuel.

hightech, the 6.2L you have and the 6.2L ecotec3 are considerably different critters. True, yours would not have any requirement for premium fuel. It is not direct injected and pressing the 11.5 to 1 compression of the 6.2L Ecotec.

Highcountry, you are probably right regarding the 6.2L needing to be standard in the 1500. They keep only offering taller and taller differential ratios, with the very same top gear ratio in the trans.... yes, the same top gear ratio in the 8 speed as the 6 speed. .65 for the 8L90 and .667 for the 6L80 and 6L90. There is just the benefit of tighter steps thru more gears in the 8L90 that keep the motor in a tighter RPM band on the way up. But as long as they keep only offering taller and taller ratios, the "get up and go" is going to suffer a little with anything less than the 6.2L.

 

[Copperhead]

Ok, tit for tat. I did not break it down to each and every available fuel choice, Matt. I just simply stated that higher elevations do not require premium octane levels to prevent problems. Great, you run 87. Well in my area, that is low end. at the bottom regular. We have 87, 88, 89, 91, 93 and 100 octane at the pumps. We don't even have 85. So, based on the numbers in my area, you ARE running regular. Don't be so picky. I was just making a simple analysis of octane requirements and altitude. Lighten up.

And the 91 octane you DO say that you run, well, that is indeed premium at your altitude. There is no way they are going to blend 93 for that altitude because it isn't needed by any vehicle requiring premium octane fuel My analysis still stands. Hence this is why it is not available in your area as you state. Hey, I lived on the front range of Colorado for 12 years. I am quite aware that all the fuel grades are at a lower octane level than they are in Iowa. The elevations are considerably different is why.

 

[Copperhead]

And that is true. They don't write the manuals to cover each and every situation. Even with most everything being done by the OEM's nowadays, it is still the job of the owner to do their homework and figure out what they need to do for their situation.

And I wouldn't run 87 in the 6.2L here either! That would be borderline stupid. But I would probably have no problem just filling with 91, which is also in my area, at a cheaper cost than 93 per the manual. I am not sure that 2 points of octane are going to make a difference. I would also be tempted to try 89 just to see how it would work in my area if I had the 6.2L. 89 in my area is virtually always E10 fuel. Ethanol has a slight cooling effect when introduced in the cylinders, so It might be able to pull of reasonable results comparable to 91 octane premium in the 6.2L. Hope someone chimes in and lets us know if they have tried it.

I just didn't want to play in this sandbox. That is one of the reasons, along with several others, that I got the 6.0L in the 2500. I just didn't want to be tied to a narrow band of fuel choices. I get to use the entire spectrum of gas and ethanol blend fuel available. And that goes back to the mpg differences between the 6.2L in the 1500 and the 6.0L in the 2500. When we look past the mpg differences to the actual cost per mile, I am on equal footing with the 6.2L in terms of fuel cost in most situations. And what the 6.2L exceeds my 6.0L in power, is effectively neutralized at the wheels since I have the 4.10 diff ratio. It all becomes a wash. It is this analysis that helped me decide that there was no appreciable benefit, for my situation, to get the 6.2L in the 1500. For others, they have to decide for themselves. Each person's needs and wants are different.

 

[Copperhead]

Getting my posts and responses all mixed up. Happens when you travel on business like I did today. And just plain becoming an old coot. Apologies for getting things mixed up. Could blame it on PTSD from Vietnam, but that would be unethical.

It was contended, albeit via implication, in this thread that I was full of buffalo bagels that I had a GCWR of 20,500 and 4.10 diffs. That has since been proven accurate on my part. Matt seemed to take issues with that. I started answering posts without directly taking quotes and got people mixed up.

I guess thanks for the site you linked to, but I am sure it is of more benefit to others. I have no need to go to it.

Oh, the site not quite accurate, not Detroit for the build site. Ft. Wayne, IN, United States (North America). Sticker on the door jam shows that (the UAW workers at Ft. Wayne Assembly put that on the door jam to let everyone know they built it), the original window sticker on vehicle shows that , and the ECM data shows that on the BluDriver scan tool data pull. Sequential number correct! Congrats.

More than done. Accuracy has been restored.

 

[Copperhead]

It was a unique time, Pinnacle. Crossed the big puddle twice. The last time was during the evacuation in '75. That affected me the most. 40 years ago and still sneaks back daily to remind me. Nothing terrible (everything put in its place), just a daily reminder from my psyche. A smell, a sound, even a song on the radio... who knows what triggers people's memories. Time flies when you are having fun. It might have been more relegated to the past except for the wars that we continue to get ourselves involved in. Times change, the faces are different, but when I look into these young guy's eyes today, I see the same thing I saw 4 decades ago when I looked in the mirror. Some things just never change.

Thanks.

 

[Copperhead]

No, not bad at all!

 

[Copperhead]

I really have not doubt that the Ecotec motors are doing much better in terms of mpg. I would be giddy to get such good numbers. But I am a businessman. I look at cost per mile ratios. And everything I have ever seen regarding fuel economy, combined with the cost of the fuel required for the vehicle, there is not appreciable benefit for me to have a 6.2L over the 6.0L in my 2500. The typical numbers I have seen from others regarding the mpg from the 6.2L, from both highway only and overall averages, when combined with the price difference in the fuel it requires and the fuel I can use in the 6.0L, the cost is a wash. Almost identical cost per mile.

 

[Copperhead]

And you come out further ahead in more than just mpg. That motor gets to use regular. So it is costing you substantially less per mile to operate. Sounds like a major win to me!

 

[Copperhead]

Rob, I never implied any savings with my 6.0L, I basically stated that fuel costs between the 6.2L in a lighter 1500 is a wash compared to the fuel costs of the significantly heavier 2500 with the 6.0L. It is still just a little disingenuous to compare the engines anyway without also looking at the base weight they are moving around. I pulled on the scale at the grain elevator in town yesterday just to make sure. My 2015 2500HD 6.0L LT Z71 with the beefier snow plow prep suspension package, me and the wife and maybe about 250 lb of tools and such in the back, and full of fuel. The weight was 7380 lb. The 6.2L in any 1500 under the same people, fuel and tools payload is going to be considerably lighter than this. That is why I have always wanted to see numbers on a 1500 loaded up to an equivalent weight of the 2500 and see how the 6.2L mpg looks over a period of time.

Oh, any my fuel numbers are under the same E15 that JVD is getting. I have been primarily running E15 in my 2500 since I bought it new. The 10 cent per gallon lower price than E10 regular along with the same fuel economy at E10 that I have experienced makes it the better value. At least right now. I do really like a flex fuel motor, I can select at any time what gives the best value. I run all the different stuff thru any pickup to see what the average mpg's are on each fuel. From E0 regular thru E85 and all the blends in between.. E10, E15, E20, E30. Then all I have to do is follow the pump pricing, calculate what the cost per mile would be based on the mpg I get from that fuel, and decide which fuel I want to use. I hate being limited in my choices.