Jackel
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2007
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 0
I can't tell the difference between 87 and 89. At least here in the flatlands.
Denali or LTZ
- Thread starter DHall15
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
The manual for my Denali says regular which is what I've used since new. Premium is unnecessary and a waste of cash. NO spark knock or performance issues whatsoever. This truck flat hauls ass. 0 to 60 in the sixes. This is a muscle truck. I have some feel for performance since my other ride is a C6
Z51 6 speed Corvette. That motor will run on regular but the manual says premium and anything less will retard timing and horsepower because of the 11 to 1 compression ratio. I don't live half way between Earth and Jesus like the folks in Denver so I can't speak to that issue. I was skeptical about using regular in the truck but I can say it runs great!
Really? I just went outside and looked at mine. No such message inside my fuel filler door. You must have ordered the optional fuel filler door octane message sticker. I thought about it but the extra 3 bucks for that option would have put my payment out of reach. :giggling:
JRTV8
Full Access Member
As long as you are happy with your Tahoe LT3 :cool2:
LAP TOP GAMER
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2006
- Messages
- 4,197
- Reaction score
- 1
I still look out the window and stare at mine.
I just came across this as I was looking up what kind mileage the Denali should get.
http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/gas_mileage/result.php?gm_make=GMC&gm_model=K1500+Yukon+Denali+AWD&gm_cylinders=8&gm_transtype=Auto
It says there you should use premium in the 6.2 engine. In the manual it says nothing about premium, but like I said in the fuel filler door there is a silver sticker that says premium is recommended. I also did a search on the 6.2 vortec and there are a lot of sites stating for the 6.2 premium is recommended, but not required. I'm getting about 13mpg, but I love my new Denali......Does anyone know if a after market intake/exhaust would improve gas mileage?
http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/gas_mileage/result.php?gm_make=GMC&gm_model=K1500+Yukon+Denali+AWD&gm_cylinders=8&gm_transtype=Auto
It says there you should use premium in the 6.2 engine. In the manual it says nothing about premium, but like I said in the fuel filler door there is a silver sticker that says premium is recommended. I also did a search on the 6.2 vortec and there are a lot of sites stating for the 6.2 premium is recommended, but not required. I'm getting about 13mpg, but I love my new Denali......Does anyone know if a after market intake/exhaust would improve gas mileage?
Last edited:
73shark
Full Access Member
You'll be able to find lots of things that claim to increase gas mileage or power or both. Most are just something to make your wallet lighter. The few that do have a marginal effect on power, do it in the upper rpm band where you don't spend much time unless you're into stoplite drags. Caveat emptor. :skep:
JRTV8
Full Access Member
Like 73Shark says there's a whole variety of mods out there to increase fuel economy but only minimal.
Andy4639
Full Access Member
07 Tahoe LTZ
This is just my opinion.
The Tahoe is a better all around vehicle. The front end is more pleasing to the eye. With the YUKON tail lights the rear will be more pleasing too!
AND IT"S WHAT THE WIFE LIKED THE MOST!
This is just my opinion.
The Tahoe is a better all around vehicle. The front end is more pleasing to the eye. With the YUKON tail lights the rear will be more pleasing too!
AND IT"S WHAT THE WIFE LIKED THE MOST!
bparker
Full Access Member
JRTV8
Full Access Member
Overall they are both great vehicle!!!:Chevy:
Why the Denali...
I looked at the same choices. I am selling my 2000 Denali. I at first thought I would get a loaded Yukon ths time (for the AFM to save mileage, and the FlexFuel option just in case ethanol gets affordable in the next few years... I keep my vehicles 8-10 yrs so I have to think ahead).
However, even with the Tahoe or Yukon with the upgrade (is it "auto-ride suspension"?), I feel quite certain they don't ride as well as the Denali. Test-drive either on a real bumpy road section or railroad tracks and I think you will see what I mean.
Also, in talking to owners of the Yukon or Tahoe with AFM, the mileage is only better if you have a light foot on the highway. If you frequently drive 75-80, the AFM won't help you anyway.
For the person comparing mileage with his neighbor, try switching vehicles for a week. Driving habits have a HUGE effect on mileage. When I can force myself to do slow, easy stop/goes and drive the speed limit, my mileage goes up a lot. But normally it sucks cuz I just can't slow down:nonod:
I think I am getting a Denali XL this week... my dealer did a locate and is going to see if they can trade for the one I want.
These big SUVs just aren't good for mileage. My train-of-thought took me through the new CUVs (such as Acadia), but I couldn't settle for the FWD and lack of power. Realizing that gasoline could get to $5 a gallon :cryin: and that you can't resell your SUV for much if they do, I am going to get a spare vehicle that I will use for commuting if I exceed my fuel budget. The Denali can always stay in the garage for family outings if ncessary.
I looked at the same choices. I am selling my 2000 Denali. I at first thought I would get a loaded Yukon ths time (for the AFM to save mileage, and the FlexFuel option just in case ethanol gets affordable in the next few years... I keep my vehicles 8-10 yrs so I have to think ahead).
However, even with the Tahoe or Yukon with the upgrade (is it "auto-ride suspension"?), I feel quite certain they don't ride as well as the Denali. Test-drive either on a real bumpy road section or railroad tracks and I think you will see what I mean.
Also, in talking to owners of the Yukon or Tahoe with AFM, the mileage is only better if you have a light foot on the highway. If you frequently drive 75-80, the AFM won't help you anyway.
For the person comparing mileage with his neighbor, try switching vehicles for a week. Driving habits have a HUGE effect on mileage. When I can force myself to do slow, easy stop/goes and drive the speed limit, my mileage goes up a lot. But normally it sucks cuz I just can't slow down:nonod:
I think I am getting a Denali XL this week... my dealer did a locate and is going to see if they can trade for the one I want.
These big SUVs just aren't good for mileage. My train-of-thought took me through the new CUVs (such as Acadia), but I couldn't settle for the FWD and lack of power. Realizing that gasoline could get to $5 a gallon :cryin: and that you can't resell your SUV for much if they do, I am going to get a spare vehicle that I will use for commuting if I exceed my fuel budget. The Denali can always stay in the garage for family outings if ncessary.
gmcul8r
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 231
- Reaction score
- 0
In comparing my Yukon XL and my neighbors Denali XL, I was trying to give
a real world "estimate" to mpg to give an approximate assumption of the added cost of a Denali. Obviously, a persons driving habits can decrease or increase their potential mileage.
I thought my comparison was as accurate as it could be without owning both
of the vehicles in question. The vehicles are of equal size, 4X4's, driven along the same hilly terrain, in the same weather conditions, by two women using their vehicles as grocery getters and kid haulers.
The numbers I used will not compare with others experience, due to the simple fact of the overall conditions that their vehicle is being driven in. However, they are more accurate the going off of the EPA's numbers! I don't care who's driving it, a Denali will not get within atleast 2 mpg of comparable Tahoe/Yukon.
a real world "estimate" to mpg to give an approximate assumption of the added cost of a Denali. Obviously, a persons driving habits can decrease or increase their potential mileage.
I thought my comparison was as accurate as it could be without owning both
of the vehicles in question. The vehicles are of equal size, 4X4's, driven along the same hilly terrain, in the same weather conditions, by two women using their vehicles as grocery getters and kid haulers.
The numbers I used will not compare with others experience, due to the simple fact of the overall conditions that their vehicle is being driven in. However, they are more accurate the going off of the EPA's numbers! I don't care who's driving it, a Denali will not get within atleast 2 mpg of comparable Tahoe/Yukon.
Dutch Treat
New Member
Come on folks...none of you bought a Denali 6.2 with the expectation of good mileage, did you? I know I sure as He** didn't.
I love driving this vehicle. If I behave I can get 13 or 14 in town and 18 on the highway, but I am too old to behave..........
I love driving this vehicle. If I behave I can get 13 or 14 in town and 18 on the highway, but I am too old to behave..........
gmcul8r
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 231
- Reaction score
- 0
Agreed, but that wasn't the point of this thread. It was to discuss the differences between the 5.3 (Tahoe/Yukon) and 6.2 (Denali). Although the Denali with it's additional HP is more fun to drive and will have better resale, the 5.3 will cost you less to purchase, and at the pump. Especially when regular unleaded is $3.50 a gallon here in Seattle!!!
More on mileage 5.3 vs 6.2
I don't want to continue an indefinite argument here, but I still believe you can't compare 2 vehicles (the 5.3 Yukon/Tahoe and the 6.2 Denali) when they have different drivers in them, and you can't assume the Denali mileage will ALWAYS be worse.
Here's why: Of course, the 5.3 will get better mileage at lower speeds, but put it at higher speeds where it is working harder and it may do no better than the Denali engine. (note here the new 2008 EPA estimates. Yukon and Denali are now the same at highway miles, 19 mpg. Denali is one of the few vehicles whose mileage didn't drop with the 2008 EPA changes. Because now that they are measuring more realistically... ie. faster... you have to admit a bigger engine can do just as well).
Secondly, you CANNOT compare 2 different drivers. I can get mileage variances of several MPG on the SAME TERRAIN even with myself driving, depending on my speed, braking, etc.
Perhaps if your wife and your neighbor are on the same SLOW-DRIVING terrain, then yes the 5.3 is really getting better mileage. But if they are doing a lot of high-speed driving perhaps your neighbor's wife is just more of a leadfoot.
My observation looking at all data is that the 5.3 will save you money if you are a cautious, somewhat slower driver. If, on the other hand, many of your miles are 80mph on the interstate, the Denali will do just as well....
and it sure will make you smile when you step on it
I don't want to continue an indefinite argument here, but I still believe you can't compare 2 vehicles (the 5.3 Yukon/Tahoe and the 6.2 Denali) when they have different drivers in them, and you can't assume the Denali mileage will ALWAYS be worse.
Here's why: Of course, the 5.3 will get better mileage at lower speeds, but put it at higher speeds where it is working harder and it may do no better than the Denali engine. (note here the new 2008 EPA estimates. Yukon and Denali are now the same at highway miles, 19 mpg. Denali is one of the few vehicles whose mileage didn't drop with the 2008 EPA changes. Because now that they are measuring more realistically... ie. faster... you have to admit a bigger engine can do just as well).
Secondly, you CANNOT compare 2 different drivers. I can get mileage variances of several MPG on the SAME TERRAIN even with myself driving, depending on my speed, braking, etc.
Perhaps if your wife and your neighbor are on the same SLOW-DRIVING terrain, then yes the 5.3 is really getting better mileage. But if they are doing a lot of high-speed driving perhaps your neighbor's wife is just more of a leadfoot.
My observation looking at all data is that the 5.3 will save you money if you are a cautious, somewhat slower driver. If, on the other hand, many of your miles are 80mph on the interstate, the Denali will do just as well....
and it sure will make you smile when you step on it
gmcul8r
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 231
- Reaction score
- 0
If you drive 80 mph on the freeway 90+% of your time then you may have a point, but most of us don't drive our vehicles that way. Any advantage the Denali MAY have @ 80 on the freeway is due to the 6speed vs the 4 speed and not the motor. Personally, the EPA's numbers have always been a joke, even with the new testing procedures.
As I stated in my first thread, I would personally rather have the denali because there is no substitution for horsepower, but if you think the SAME person could get better mileage in a Denali then they would in a Tahoe/Yukon then that's obsurd!
Unless there is a person here that has had both vehicles for over 5000 miles of testing, then I will stick with my numbers (roughly a 20% advantage to the 5.3) but even if there was such a person, I'm sure you would still find holes in their story.
As I stated in my first thread, I would personally rather have the denali because there is no substitution for horsepower, but if you think the SAME person could get better mileage in a Denali then they would in a Tahoe/Yukon then that's obsurd!
Unless there is a person here that has had both vehicles for over 5000 miles of testing, then I will stick with my numbers (roughly a 20% advantage to the 5.3) but even if there was such a person, I'm sure you would still find holes in their story.
Similar threads
