|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 362
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 362 |
Originally posted by TexasRealtor:
Originally posted by CeeBee94Z:
In fact, once GM announces the production of the new Camaro...
Let's hope GM does better with the Camaro than they did with the GTO concept.
Are you saying that you hope that it looks more like the concept than the GTO did?
It is gonna look very similar to the concept from what I have heard from "insiders" at GM, but it will still be slightly different.
2001 Volvo S40-Perrin MBC@ 11psi, EST intake, 35% tint, still slow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,970
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,970 |
Originally posted by Big Daddy Kane:
Originally posted by Pete D:
Where is the diesel option?
No crap! Put a small displacement turbo diesel in the 1/2 ton truck so it can actually pull in the mid 20s...
But knowing them, they'll probly give you a "high performance diesel" option and toss the newest 6.6L Duramax in there... they just won't mention that it gets 13MPG.
With all the hype about gas prices and how diesels are more efficient, everyone will jump on that hi po diesel 1/2 ton... then realize they were stupid since they're getting the same mileage as a gas powered truck.
No offense, but you aren't making any sense with the Duramax comment at all.
They're able to get upwards of low to mid 20 MPG with the 6.6L when driven correctly (Drive like you have an egg between the gas pedal and your foot, and keep it under 75 MPH) and that's in a vehicle with a huge GVW. They had to design a frame beefy enough to be able to put the duramax into (Chevy/GMC HD series). So IF they were able to put the duramax into the new 1/2-ton trucks, they'd be getting a lot better economy because of the power to weight ratio alone.
A 1/2-ton diesel would have been something I would have given my left nut for though.... 
2005 Ford F150 SuperCab FX4
1964 Chevrolet Impala SS
1998 CSVT: 354HP/328TQ @ 10 psi, now gone 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,756
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,756 |
My Contour only gets 2-3 MPG more than my truck. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 8
Newbie
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 8 |
Originally posted by Big Daddy Kane:
Smoother ride (for women to be able to put their make up on while they drive and not get it all over their face)
Funniest thing i heard all month 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816 |
Originally posted by Swazo:
Originally posted by Big Daddy Kane:
Originally posted by Pete D:
Where is the diesel option?
No crap! Put a small displacement turbo diesel in the 1/2 ton truck so it can actually pull in the mid 20s...
But knowing them, they'll probly give you a "high performance diesel" option and toss the newest 6.6L Duramax in there... they just won't mention that it gets 13MPG.
With all the hype about gas prices and how diesels are more efficient, everyone will jump on that hi po diesel 1/2 ton... then realize they were stupid since they're getting the same mileage as a gas powered truck.
No offense, but you aren't making any sense with the Duramax comment at all.
They're able to get upwards of low to mid 20 MPG with the 6.6L when driven correctly (Drive like you have an egg between the gas pedal and your foot, and keep it under 75 MPH) and that's in a vehicle with a huge GVW. They had to design a frame beefy enough to be able to put the duramax into (Chevy/GMC HD series). So IF they were able to put the duramax into the new 1/2-ton trucks, they'd be getting a lot better economy because of the power to weight ratio alone.
A 1/2-ton diesel would have been something I would have given my left nut for though....
I just read this review that was copy/pasted to numerous websites that claimed 13MPG...
This wasn't one, but claims 13.3MPG with a heavy foot
Apparantly the "13MPG" is while towing a full load... the article that I read (can't find now) didn't mention the "towing" part.
These guys got 17.1 with a combo of city/highway driving, and a high of 18.1.
And yes, a 1/2 diesel would be kick ass... lemme tell you how powerful (read: fast) these 06 2500HDs with the 6-speed Allison are... wait, probly shouldn't so I don't incriminate myself 
These guys pulled a corrected time of 12.36 @ 109.67MPH with just tweaking the ECU!
Now I have real-world experience for the 8.1L gas V8 in a 2004 Suburban... We had an average of 8.9MPG according to the information display in the instrument cluster.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193 |
Considering we have achieved over 20 mpg in a Suburban with the 6.5 turbodiesel, which is less efficent than the Duramax, I believe those vehicles are being driven abnormally. Another possibility is they aren't broken in. The Duramax takes about 50,000 miles to get the economy up (as did the 6.5 litre).
The GMC is definitely nicer than the Chevy, as dull is better than ugly. However, I think it needs more style to compete with the Ford or attitude to compete with the Nissan.
Brad "Diva": 2004 Mazda 6s 5-door, Volcanic Red
Rex: 1988 Mazda RX-7 Vert, Harbor Blue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,687
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,687 |
The Current Duramax trucks are fast, plain and simple. My best friend's brother was head of the service department for a GMC dealorship around here and got to take an '06 four door 2500 with the Duramax home. Let's just say my opinion of the t'diesel has changed, so as not to get this thread locked.(I think ya'll know what I'm getting at...)
The Duramax JUST might be a possibility due to the much, much stronger frame than the preceding trucks.
J.T.
2002 Chevrolet Silverado 294ci V8. Custom CAI, headers on the way...
1997 Mercury Mystique Zetec ATX
Deceased February 2006
|
|
|
|
|
