Mods for weight and aero... Okay, more for looks. Can't decide.

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.

OP
OP
iamdub

iamdub

Full Access Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Posts
20,821
Reaction score
44,932
Location
Li'l Weezyana
Corrugated plastic aka coroplast.
I myself did not notice any improvements ... yet ...
The major appeal is that only my mech will know that I'm an aero-focused EcoModder.If it more resembles a Tahoe Hybrid, than a Toy-Odor Pious, then we'd have no good reason to disown you!

It'd be INCREDIBLY difficult aero-modding a GMT900 to exceed 27MpG highway without making a Toy-Odor Pious look sane by comparison, which won't guarantee that the EcoModder forum will accept you.

I can't complain at all about my MPG! With my mods, I'm about 80-100 HP stronger yet I get the same and sometimes even better MPG as I did stock with AFM. I'm definitely not an EcoModder, but I appreciate the idea and seeing what people come up with. My Tahoe is the same color as that Hybrid in the pics. So mine would look like that but without the mold/mildew and lowered on black 22" wheels.

I'm sure that any gains wouldn't be enough to absolutely attribute to the aero mods, considering the other factors of weather, fuel quality, etc. at play.
 
Last edited:

petethepug

Michael
Joined
May 4, 2016
Posts
2,978
Reaction score
3,214
Location
SoCal
Bring a magnet next time you go out. They have aluminum seat backs in either the front or back seats.
 

Marky Dissod

Full Access Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2023
Posts
1,847
Reaction score
2,526
Location
(718)-
With my mods, I'm about 80-100 HP stronger yet I get the same and sometimes even better MpG as I did stock with AFM.
Which of the mods you did do you think were worth the most potential MpG gain?
My guesses:
Headers, custom exhaust, drop, de-rack?
I'm sure that any gains wouldn't be enough to attribute to the aero mods, considering the other factors of weather, fuel quality, etc. at play.
Since you've already dropped and de-racked it, you'll definitely notice gains from the 'hybrid' front bumper cover / air dam and the rear aero stuff.
I actually daydream about custom-constructing a transparent Kamm-back for my Tahoe ...
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2018
Posts
7,124
Reaction score
14,364
Location
St. Louis
I have a 140K-mile LC9 from an '08 (or '09?) 4WD Sierra on the stand. That's an aluminum block 5.3 with AFM. It's basically identical to my LMG but with an aluminum block instead of iron. I bought it to have on standby when my LMG lost a cylinder last year and I hadn't had a chance to diagnose. Turns out it was "just" a broken valve spring and bent valve that I was able to quickly repair without pulling the engine.

The 6.0 would be cool to have and build. But I'm not looking to do anything like that at the moment. I'm already near 400 with my cammed LMG so I'd have to work over the 6.0 to make it worth it. It's just not anything I'm in the market for right now so I wouldn't be sour if that other guy got the engine.

The 6.2 really does need 93 and I don't care what everyone else with Escalades and Denalis say about their 6.2s on 87. I'd strictly use 93 if I had a 6.2. My LMG is tuned on the ragged edge for 91-93 and I'm fine with running it. It's just a weekend vehicle so fuel costs aren't such a factor.
93 or E85 is all I've ever ran in the Denali. The 2001 SLT with the 5.3 just gets 87
 
OP
OP
iamdub

iamdub

Full Access Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Posts
20,821
Reaction score
44,932
Location
Li'l Weezyana
Bring a magnet next time you go out. They have aluminum seat backs in either the front or back seats.

Interesting! This is one bit of info I never came across. It has the rear bench so that'd be a waste for me but I'll check out the fronts.
 

Marky Dissod

Full Access Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2023
Posts
1,847
Reaction score
2,526
Location
(718)-
The 6.2 really does need 93 and I don't care what everyone else with Escalades and Denalis say about their 6.2s on 87.
Since the LS1 V8, every GM V8 pcm or ecm contains an engine segment with both a high octane spark table and a low octane spark table.
Every GM V8 of 4.8L and 5.3L has a low octane table written specifically with 87 octane in mind.
Same goes for the 6.0L and 6.2L V8s installed in trucks & suvs.

Every single GM V8 will always perform better using 91 or 93 octane.
Also, any naturally aspirated GM V8 will TOLERATE 87 octane just fine.

If you want better performance (including better MpGs) use 91 or 93 regardless.
If you want better performance STILL, step up to an aftermarket tuner who will write your low octane table for 91 and your high octane table for 93 - at which point you better stop using 87 or 89 octane.
 
OP
OP
iamdub

iamdub

Full Access Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Posts
20,821
Reaction score
44,932
Location
Li'l Weezyana
Which of the mods you did do you think were worth the most potential MpG gain?
My guesses:
Headers, custom exhaust, drop, de-rack?Since you've already dropped and de-racked it, you'll definitely notice gains from the 'hybrid' front bumper cover / air dam and the rear aero stuff.
I actually daydream about custom-constructing a transparent Kamm-back for my Tahoe ...

It's difficult to say since I did the performance stuff all at once. And all of those mods were done as a complement to the other, to work together as a system. I'd say it's more of a balance between the mods that definitely help and those that should've hindered. The lowering for sure really helps. I did have it lowered and on a stock engine for a few months, but never had any real opportunities to document highway MPG (City MPG is irrelevant in this context). I bet that if I had compared stock height vs. lowered (all with stock engine), I would've seen a distinct difference.

So, lowering and maintaining a rake (albeit slightly less than stock) coupled with increasing the engine's sweet spot for volumetric efficiency at cruising RPM, together, yield the 0 net loss. If I had to pick one mod for increasing MPG, it'd for sure be aero (lowering included).
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2018
Posts
7,124
Reaction score
14,364
Location
St. Louis
I've seen/read/watched many forum posts and videos online of damaged 6.2l engines caused by spark knock. They have a higher compression ratio than the 4.8/5.3.

GM does say in the owner's manual to use at least 91 octane, but in a pinch 87 can be used, but engine knock may be heard and you should use higher octane or severe engine damage will occur. So if you drive it like granny, 87 would probably be OK

Screenshot_20230415-093335_Drive.jpg
 
OP
OP
iamdub

iamdub

Full Access Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Posts
20,821
Reaction score
44,932
Location
Li'l Weezyana
Since the LS1 V8, every GM V8 pcm or ecm contains an engine segment with both a high octane spark table and a low octane spark table.
Every GM V8 of 4.8L and 5.3L has a low octane table written specifically with 87 octane in mind.
Same goes for the 6.0L and 6.2L V8s installed in trucks & suvs.

Every single GM V8 will always perform better using 91 or 93 octane.
Also, any naturally aspirated GM V8 will TOLERATE 87 octane just fine.

If you want better performance (including better MpGs) use 91 or 93 regardless.
If you want better performance STILL, step up to an aftermarket tuner who will write your low octane table for 91 and your high octane table for 93 - at which point you better stop using 87 or 89 octane.

Right. GM recommends 91+ and says 87 "is acceptable", but follows that up with something to the effect of "If knocking occurs, use a gasoline rated at 91 octane or higher as soon as possible, otherwise, the engine could be damaged."

I interpret this as "the engine is designed to work in X way, but has safety nets in place should X occur". I'd rather not consistently rely on safety nets.

Maybe I'm overly cautious. But, I don't want ANY knock. The PCM doesn't sample the fuel and proactively adjust. It sees knock, responds and repeats until it has determined that it should stay on the low octane table. The process repeats when it sees a refueling event. I perform best when keeping my bones, blood and dermis covered, as designed. I can TOLERATE getting scrapes and cuts. But, that doesn't mean I was designed to constantly take on such damage, regardless of how small each incident may be.

There are a ton of other factors that affect how "safe" one is running lower octane grades in the 6.2- quality of fuel, driving environment, driving style, etc. Bone stock, my 5.3 would knock on 87 in summertime weather and under moderate acceleration. It was noticeably reduced on 89 and non-existent, even at WOT, on 93. I could run 89 or 87 and drive like I'm 90 years old. But, I prefer the freedom of flooring it whenever I please. In my parts, there are always times where maximum throttle is needed to pass someone or to avoid a potentially dangerous situation. Which, they're often one and the same, as when merging onto the highway.
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
132,151
Posts
1,863,163
Members
96,651
Latest member
bigtoe
Top