'Vette-powered Escalade or XT5 - Which Is the Future?

While true, based on a lower mpg you would be paying more fuel taxes, but the cost per mile may be a wash. I can only speak to my experiences with all and how it relates to my 2013. I live rural, so in town is not much of my gig. Neither is interstate. A lot of two lane with a little 4 lane and in town thrown in the mix.

 

Right now near me, 87 Regular is 3.47, 87 E10 is 3.16, 91 E10 is 3.27, and 99 E85 is 2.59. We'll forget about 93 Premium for now.

 

With 87 Regular and 91 E10, I get roughly the same mpg. Maybe slightly less with the 91 E10. But at 20 cents a gallon cheaper. With Regular I get around 18 mpg average. The 91 E10 is pretty close to the same, but for this discussion I will say I lose 1 mpg. Thus, the regular is costing me (3.47 / 18) roughly 19.22 cents a mile to use. The 91 E10 (3.27 / 17) is 19.23 cents a mile. A virtual wash.

 

Now lets look a regular vs 99 E85. I do lose roughly the 3 mpg you mention in your post, but how does it all relate? Well back to regular, at 19.22 cents a mile to use and compared to E85 (2.59 / 14) is 18.5 cents a mile. Uh oh... and actual cost savings of 1 cent a mile over regular!

 

Either way, it is all a wash. This is why folks like me waste no time worrying about such things. We have long gotten past internet folklore and conspiracy theories to actually break out the calculator and see how it all plays out. As an added plus, there is none of that "top tier" stuff that GM wants me to use, in my area. Yeah, rural. So if I ran regular, I would also have to pour in something like Techron or Amsoil P.I. once in a while to clean things up. But the E85 takes care of that for me! Nice clean fuel system, injectors, and top end. And the 99 octane is a plus, and on GMs own charts on the 5.3L in mine, I gain a 6 hp increase and a 10 lb torque increase by using E85.

 

Still trying to figure out the down side.

I did forget to mention one thing. I do not use 87 octane E10. Reason is that the oil companies are using their junk 83-84 octane gasoline that they cannot sell on the market for the mix. Add a little E10, bring it up to 87, and viola! You have 87 octane at the pump. But the gas is horrible. To that end, I primarily use a 91 mid grade E10 if I am not using E85. It is true 87 octane regular combined with E10.

 

In case anyone thinks I am full of it, here is an article that references what I just mentioned.

 

http://ethanolproducer.com/articles/10237/ace-big-oil-is-forcing-lower-quality-gasoline-on-the-market

That probably explains why the fuel in MA sucks so bad - it's ALL E10 (CLAIMED) ... in actuality it's E whatever the F they feel like adding. I've seen it as high as 22%!! There is NO ethanol free fuel in MA ... except diesel.

 

I get 15-16 mpg consistently whether driving around a city or on the highway through the country. Last September the wife and I loaded up my '84 XL350R and headed to CA. Mileage didn't change until I filled up in OH - instant 3mpg gain. Driving across NV at 94 mph I averaged 18.1 mpg!! I never see those numbers in MA. That was also accompanied by a significant seat-of-the-pants change in acceleration & ability to pass. Elevation might have played a part in that out west, but OH isn't high, & I still saw an increase.

Last road trip down south to SC hauling a trailer, I was getting better mileage at 20 mph higher speeds than in the northeast. I wish I had brought my scan tool with me to see the alcohol content compared to MA. I'd bet there was none. I couldn't even feel my 2k lb. trailer back there. In MA on our fuel, it's noticable.

 

My truck is Flex too.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Jsdirt

I'd love to try E85 but can't get it nowhere here in the Lower Mainland Vancouver.

Or does someone know a gas station in this area? Couldn't find one.

 

so long

j-ten-ner

I'd love to try E85 but can't get it nowhere here in the Lower Mainland Vancouver.

Or does someone know a gas station in this area? Couldn't find one.

 

so long

j-ten-ner

http://www.nsnews.com/news/western-canada-s-first-e85-fuel-station-opens-in-west-vancouver-1.1314028

 

Sounds like it isn't less expensive than normal gas there.

http://www.nsnews.com/news/western-canada-s-first-e85-fuel-station-opens-in-west-vancouver-1.1314028

 

Sounds like it isn't less expensive than normal gas there.

 

Thank you.

 

so long

j-ten-ner

We have E85 here on the Mass Pike (Rt.90) - while it's 15 or so cents per gallon cheaper, the loss of mileage from it makes it more expensive than regular gasoline. Why people even buy it there I'll never understand ... but judging from the counter on the pump, which has been there for more than 2 years, the number is miniscule.

After extensive seat of the pants testing, even if E85 was a little more than 87 id buy it for the performance gain on the 14s. After all anyone who has had a performance car has paid extra for 93 gas. The best part it is cheaper. If it even mattered to me I get 15MPG on E85 in town, I got around 17 on 87.

So the '14's have super-high compression? Then how do they burn 87 without detonating to pieces?

 

I'm curious as to the difference in compression ratio between my '07 and the new ones.

I'm curious as to the difference in compression ratio between my '07 and the new ones.

For your reference:

 

Your LMG engine has a compression ratio of 9.9:1

https://archives.media.gm.com/us/gmc/en/product_services/r_cars/r_c_sierra/07sierraPK/07_GMC_Sierra%20Crew%20Cab_Specs.html

The new engines in 2014 have a compression ration of 11.0:1 for the 4.3/5.3 and 11.5:1 for the 6.2

http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/vehicles/silverado/2014.tab1.html

 

So there has been an increase in compression from your generation to the current generation.

Ahhh ok, that clears up most of the mileage doubts I had. The computer must be capable of dialing in the timing over a wide range.

2014 GM trucks are DI and with new cylinder heads and improved/faster/more precise PCM they are capable of a wide range of timing and fuel tables to produce exceptional power and economy. DI burns more of the fuel injected into the cylinder and has also cleaner emissions.

I have a friend with a 2014 5.3 crew cab. I have a 2013 6.2 extended cab. We raced with both on 93 . I beat him easily by several lengths. He switched over to E85 and it was a very close race. I feel his is heavier than mine and with equal weight he would quite possible have taken me.

Thats not a fair race your 5.3L CC less displacement and more weight V/S your 6.2L EXT cab more displacement and less weight. What tires and gear ratio do the two trucks have? CC probably has a lower gear but does not make up for the .16L difference and more weight.

 

 

 

I have a friend with a 2014 5.3 crew cab. I have a 2013 6.2 extended cab. We raced with both on 93 . I beat him easily by several lengths. He switched over to E85 and it was a very close race. I feel his is heavier than mine and with equal weight he would quite possible have taken me.

Thats not a fair race your 5.3L CC less displacement and more weight V/S your 6.2L EXT cab more displacement and less weight. What tires and gear ratio do the two trucks have? CC probably has a lower gear but does not make up for the .16L difference and more weight.

We were not comparing our trucks. Only comparing 93 octane to E85. We did a fair comparison in that regards.

 

We do have the same 3.42 gearing, same size tires with the same 6A tranny. All tests were done starting in paddle at 25 mph so no downshift occurred. Both paddled up at launch so normal shifting took place up to the limiter of 98 mph.