REPORT: 2010 Chevy Silverado XFE updated to achieve best-in-class 22 mpg highway
A couple of years ago, pickup truck comparisons were all about power and towing capacity. Today, fuel efficiency is the new battleground. For the 2009 model year, the GMC Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado XFE took their fuel economy figures up a notch by hitting 21 mpg on the highway and 15 in the city. Then Ford unveiled the F-150 SFE that matched those numbers, though without requiring the use of a tonneau cover. The Blue Oval dropped the SFE badge for 2010, but kept the improved fuel economy.
General Motors, however, is not content with a tie, and is upping the EPA numbers for its 2010 XFE Silverado and Sierra to 22 mpg on the highway, which just so happens to match the highway figure for the Sierra Hybrid. The combined fuel economy of both GMT900 trucks has also increased from 17 to 18 mpg.
Chevrolet spokesperson Brian Goebel told Pickuptrucks.com that the increased fuel economy is due to several engineering improvements. The XFE model's 5.3-liter V8 now has variable valve timing, optimized shift pattens in its six-speed transmission, and new tweaks for its Active Fuel Management system that enables the truck to run on four cylinders at cruising speeds for longer.
[Source: Pickuptrucks.com]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
mapoftazifosho 5:01PM (7/31/2009)
That is NOT an XFE pictured. You guys are slackin...
Reply
KeatMP 5:02PM (7/31/2009)
I don't understand why this isn't done in the first place.
Reply
Dan 7:47PM (7/31/2009)
Because achieving this requires a low clearance chin spoiler, tonneau cover, low traction tires, a lowered suspension, and a transmission that won't downshift until you floor it.
From a useable truck standpoint these are pretty dumb compromises.
KeatMP 12:59AM (8/01/2009)
Touché.
RowFive 5:11PM (7/31/2009)
Honestly, the EPA numbers war means little to me, and I'm guessing little to real truck buyers. Anyone buying a truck probably ranks fuel efficiency in the lower half of their wish list, but even if it is a priority, the EPA numbers aren't necessarily indicative of real-world results. True they are more realistic since the new testing procedures were adopted, but 1 or 2 mpg difference is probably moot on the window sticker.
Reply
Julius 5:21PM (7/31/2009)
It may not mean much to potential buyers, but it probably means alot to GM re: CAFE fines.
phewop118 5:14PM (7/31/2009)
What's the point of the less capable hybrid model then? And why don't all of the 5.3 models have those tweaks? I never realized that the xfe had the 5.3. I always thought it was v6 powered. Now if gm would make this standard on the suburban and all other gmt900s they would be in much better shape for the ridiculous CAFE standards.
Reply
Lemon 5:50PM (7/31/2009)
A hybrid's benefit lies in city driving where regenitive braking can be used to recharge batteries which power the electric motor to assist the vehicle in acceleration. Long highway stints, where there is no energy to be gained from regenitive braking, deplete the batteries and just turn them into extra weight the vechile has to lug around.
Summary: hybrids are for cities.
kas666 6:42PM (7/31/2009)
If that was true, that the ONLY benefit to hybrid was city type driving conditions, why make a full size truck into a hybrid? I don't remember the last time I saw a full size truck in the city. Now, another reason could be from the instantaneous torque that a hybrid puts out, but like all things in life, the real reason is probably a collection of reasons.
why not the LS2LS7? 7:30PM (7/31/2009)
The city includes anywhere where you have to stop at lights and stop signs. So yeah, you've seen trucks in city driving conditions.
Conundrum 10:08PM (7/31/2009)
hybrid is avaliable in 4 wheel drive models. I'm not sure you can get XFE tuning in a 4x4 truck. if this is the case, then the hybrid would be the efficiency choice in the snow belt.
Matt 5:17PM (7/31/2009)
Funny, in a recent trip, I averaged 23.1 MPG in my 2006 Silverado.
Either way, GM is doing it right.
Reply
Tomac 5:32PM (7/31/2009)
And my buddy recently got 24.6 mpg on his new 5.4L F150. Apparently Ford is doing it better, but that is pretty obvious.
You can feather-foot anything. If you're really interested in saving fuel, you wouldn't be driving a truck.
Matt 6:06PM (7/31/2009)
Yeah, but the F-150 is an overpriced, ugly heap.
And let us not forget that the Silverado is able to get BETTER mileage with a MUCH bigger 5.3 than the limp-wristed F-150 does with the (boat anchor) 4.6.
matt 6:31PM (7/31/2009)
Last time I checked 5.4 is a bigger number than 5.3.
obliv222 6:59PM (7/31/2009)
Youre not trying to say the Silverado is a better truck than the F150, are you?
I feel so sorry for you =/
NudeLove93 7:46PM (7/31/2009)
Hey, Matt.
Go to Hell.
Matt 7:51PM (7/31/2009)
Matt:
Ford's fuel economy version of the F-150 uses the 4.6...not the 5.4.
------
And yes the Silverado is a MUCH better truck than the F-150.
The Silverado has a nice interior that is not full of dime-store plastic.
The Silverado does not have severely inflated capability figures.
The Silverado does NOT have boat anchor engines.
The Silverado does not have the "I'm compensating" look.
And many more.
---------------
"Hey, Matt.
Go to Hell."
I'm already here...'The Messiah' brought all of us here.
Farmboy 8:59PM (7/31/2009)
Uhh, Matt. That limp-wristed boat anchor out-tows the 5.3L by 500lbs.
merlot066 9:32PM (7/31/2009)
Matt, let's go in order. You brought up your "real world mileage" that you got out of your Silverado, and someone brought up their real world mileage that they got out of their 5.4L F-150, not the 4.6L SFE one, the 5.4L Triton V8 one. Second, you just love calling the Ford 4.6L V8 a boat anchor, do you have a boat or something? I still don't get your obsession with that (can you not swim? do you get made fun of as being a "boat anchor" so you try to spread the pain by calling Ford's 4.6L V8 that was one of Ward's 10 best engines of 2007, and got the F-150 the title of "the most reliable truck ever built" by J.D. Power for the previous generation F-150 with that engine) I guess you've never been in a V8 Explorer, Mustang GT, and I know that you've never been in an F-150 with that engine. I guess the standard engine on the Silverado that gets 14/19 mpg and is mated to a 4 speed is better? So even though in all the reviews people talk about the F-150 having a nice interior with nice materials you want to try and say that the ugly late 90s looking interior of the silverado looks better? If the F-150 had inflated capabilities don't you think somebody would make them change them? I believe that's what we call a sore loser, your truck isn't rated to tow as much so you want to say that the winner cheated, most of us grow out of that around the third grade. Boat anchor engines, we already went over that. Last, over-compensating looks, hmmmm... So you bought a Silverado so you could compensate by not looking like you're compensating? I don't get it. The F-150 looks sharp. Even though I hate Chrysler I try not to be a troll like you and I'll admit that the Ram is at least good looking and it is tuned more for comfort than capability, but I don't see where the Silverado fits in with all this, it's sorta sitting there with the Tundra as a pretty mundane truck.