GM's Big SUVs Lead Segment in Mileage

2015-Chevrolet-Suburban II
 

GM has released new EPA fuel economy numbers for its newly refreshed and upgraded Chevrolet and GMC full-size SUVs, and they're leading the segment. The 2015 Chevy Tahoe/Suburban and GMC Yukon/Yukon XL will come standard with the EcoTec3 all-aluminum 5.3-liter V-8 that debuted in the all-new 2014 Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra half-ton pickup trucks last year. The new engine produces more power and offers better city and highway fuel economy than either of the previous 5.3-liter V-8 engines (LC9 or LMG) it replaces.

According to the press release, the new EPA-rated numbers for the Chevy Suburban (and GMC Yukon XL) are 16 mpg in the city and 23 mpg on the highway for two-wheel-drive models, improving the previous engine's numbers by 7 and 9 percent, respectively. Four-wheel-drive models for both the 2015 Yukon XL and Suburban are 15/22. Shorter wheelbase Tahoe and Yukon models with two-wheel drive have an EPA rating of 16/23, with four-wheel-drive models rated at 16/22.

Additionally, all GMC Yukon Denali models will include the new EcoTec3 6.2-liter V-8 that offers vastly improved city/highway mileage numbers from 14/18 to 15/21 mpg (two-wheel drive) with the addition of variable valve timing, direct injection and cylinder deactivation. 

Fuel economy improvements are also coming to the newly redesigned 2015 Ford Expedition and Expedition EL, as Ford has replaced the dated 5.4-liter V-8 with the more powerful and efficient 3.5-liter twin-turbo EcoBoost V-6 engine. EPA fuel economy ratings for the EcoBoost 3.5-liter have not been released yet, but it's likely to show much better fuel efficiency than the engine it's replacing. No changes have been announced to the Toyota Sequoia, which offers 13/17 mpg city/highway, or the Nissan Armada, which offers 13/19 mpg city/highway EPA ratings.

 

2015-Chevrolet-Suburban int II

2015-GMC-YukonSLT II


 

Comments

Throw out a GMC bone to quell the "bias" rumours.

What next?

Minivan shootout!

Well put. I hope mark doesn't get in trouble with Ford.

You forgot the Volkswagen, Range Rover, Mercedes, BMW.
I hope every time you talk about any other brand you remember to include every single manufacturer.
Also do not forget to mention the cup holders, and how Fords are so much better.

So....why cant they make the trucks dash look like this......very very nice.

You know these Ford Bias comments are so old. If you feel that its that bad then don't come back. Go read this stuff elsewhere. I really wish these bashing comments, no matter the brand was removed. I feel this site needs a comments moderator.

Now back onto trucks....
I wonder what Fords EPA ratings will be since we now know GMs numbers. Though I will have to say, these SUVs look so much better then the new Ford Expedition and Lincoln Nagivator.

Congrats to GM, but people need to keep in mind that the Suburban and Tahoe lost some capability to achieve those ratings. For most people who never go off-road that is fine, and that's obviously who they cater to now. But Toyota is no different with the Land Cruiser and Land Rover is no different with the Discovery. The new ones are more on-road oriented than their predecessors. GM uses a 3.08 axle ratio coupled with the 5.3 that is not exactly known for low-end torque. This is why I couldn't even spin the wheels in a 2011 Suburban 5.3 with the traction control off on a wet road! I hate that! That doesn't excite me at all. Yes, burnouts still excite me! But on the flip side, if I was looking at SUVs and I wanted something that gets about 21-22mpg, I'd probably rather a Suburban with a 5.3 and 3.08 axle than an Explorer. So there's always a bit of give and take. I would rather increased capability though. I also wouldn't be surprised if a 2 speed transfer case remains an option, rather than standard.

So where are all the trolls complaining about no Suburban article in the Expedition article comments?

The new tahoes look ridiculously under-developed. However, the Yukon looks absolutelty gorgeous. Once again, GMC looks more well designed.
Who else agrees?

@ Loco - I have never liked the looks of the GMC version of the Suburban. Nice interior but I don't like the symmetry of the dash padding.

I like the big SUVs but sorry, with GMs OnStar, no thanks.

Should put this frontend and dash on the Silerado, not so sqare looking but still looks tough.

I also think the Suburban/Tahoe front end would look way better on the silverado, maybe just butch up the bumper a bit and it would look awsome.

I think the Ford Expedition is the best looking compared to G.M.
However, the Chevy model before this one looks better than the Expedition in my opinion. Black looks the best on the Ford.

I am looking to get my wife a 2014 Jeep SRT Grand Cherokee.
All wheel drive 470 horse 392 Hemi V8 in white. It looks menacing and has the muscle to back up those looks. 150 top speed. 0 to 60 in less than 5 seconds.

The Jeep Grand Cherokee now has a Diesel with 30+ mpg with jeeps legendary off road capability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hxbfI4bp_8

@Hemi V8, dude I invite you test drive a new GM Truck you will be blown away.

A Jeep SRT Grand Cherokee, you must be kidding. Your fat ass will not fit in it.

Nor mine, didn't want to sound rude.

man whats with all these gm adds, this site always talks about gm and not dodge and ford, the gm trolls win again. They complain and get a monopoly over these sites. bunch of poopers.

@HemiV8: Please answer me one question: Why does your wife need "All wheel drive 470 horse 392 Hemi V8 in white. It looks menacing and has the muscle to back up those looks. 150 top speed. 0 to 60 in less than 5 seconds." I'm sure she'd be much happier with a Cherokee Trailhawk instead.

@Road whale, She doesn't NEED an SRT Jeep. She wants room for the family. She doesn't like sitting on the ground.(car) She likes 4x4 in the rain. Loves the huge sun roof in the Grand Cherokee. Loves the menacing looks of the SRT. Loves the luxury of all the leather and rear tv for the grand son. Doesn't want to go off road. ;)

@HEMI V8
I think people are just jealous, that neither the GM full-size SUVs nor the new Expedition has 6.4l of raw power. The closest thing the GM guys get is a 6.2l V8 and the Ford guys only get a V6. I would take a SRT8 GC any day over a full-sized SUV. I think that full sized SUVs are way overated anyways. BTW when you get your Ram Power Wagon, be sure to post a link to pics/video to silence all the haters.

SRT Jeep is nice. I wish Jeep would do a V8 diesel like Mercedes, VW, and Audi. In fact, that's what all these SUVs need.

Wow, that instrument panel looks great! That's what the full-size trucks should have received.

@Roadwhale - she needs power because it's fun! assuming she isn't a garbage driver (no offense HEMIV8) and that they can afford it, it's the american way! choose what you want and drive happy!

I read this article all the while wondering how they (some manufacturers) get away with posting EPA numbers like then when they clearly will not get those numbers. they just tested the GM V6 twins that fell short by almost 3 MPG with the v6, how in the world is the 5.3 gonna achieve this with 1500 pounds more weight? By comparison the "outdated" Tacoma with a 5 spd everyone yells about being so far behind is the only one that got the mileage at 20.9 when its rating is 21. I just cant understand how they can manipulate these numbers this way....... You know when the towing numbers FINALLY come out they will be twisting them just the same.... sad day for consumers that this is still happening in 2014

The Tacoma was at its number, but its number is woeful. I mean only half a mile per gallon better than the full-size GM twins? For a truck that light? Ridiculous. Considering the route that they drove, I thought the GMs did pretty well, although I imagine that the 5.3 trucks would probably get just about the same, as the V6 has to work pretty hard when climbing. The Ram's MPG numbers are great, but that payload number is pitiful. I imagine they will figure out a way to increase it eventually, but I wouldn't touch one until they can get a 1600 lb. payload rating out of a crew cab. A family of four with a small travel trailer would put this over the limit. I would think that will keep some potential diesel customers away. Now if Ram would put that motor in a 2500, you could get good economy and enough payload to use it as a truck.

Nice to see that articles on the truck based SUVS are now being posted here. These are my 2nd favourite type of vehicles after pickup trucks.

Well at least GM is actually doing a full redesign of their fullsize SUVs whereas Ford is doing the same thing with the Expedition like they are with the Super Duty; keeping the overall body style the same since it's introduction but just making improvements and changes every couple of years and calling it "all new or redesigned."

The new Yukon and Suburban are a BREATH OF FRESH AIR unlike the FOSSIL-LIKE Ford Explodition. Of course the Ford girly girls will use the "constant and never ending improvement" excuse. I call it "CONSTANT AND NEVER ENDING MONOTONY"

Looking at the pictures it seems those front skirts are slowly getting lower to improve FE.

I wonder when we'll start getting them. I hope not.



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2011 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com