RWD vs. 4WD '99/00' Silverado mileage
Question:
It’s not padding that I was referring to. The Venture mini-van dash is not padded. It is just a higher quality "feel" plastic that it has. The mini-van dash does not feel like the polystyrene that model airplane kits are made out of, which the pickup/SUV dashes DO feel like. Granted it is a minor point, but its the little things like this that leave one with a perception of good vs. mediocre quality. And in this case, I doubt if it would cost GM more than a few bucks per unit to upgrade to the nice stuff – they did do it in the inexpensive mini-vans, after all. I guess the bad habits of the era of Roger Smith are not quite ended. – GRL
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Interesting that you noticed the dash. I was thinking about getting a > Dashmat cover for my new ‘99 Sierra and just noticed after driving for > several weeks that it wasn’t the padded dash it appeared to be but was > instead plastic. I think some of this change from padded to plastic dashes > may be for reasons of durability, lets face it all padded dashes eventually > crack. And some may be due to the new dual airbags lurking beneath the > dashes and the need to replace quite a bit of the dash after deployment of > the passenger side airbag. Go figure. If you get a new GM truck one of the > more annoying things is the daytime running lights/twilight sentinel > feature. On the 2000 models you can override the twilight sentinel feature > but it gets annoying. This link will take you to a truck parts company that > is manufacturing a really nice looking override switch for the new trucks. > They also have a couple of other switch enhancements that are really sharp. > http://www.truckautoaccessories.com/cgi-bin/rd/1253?PRH4SFRY;;49 > Steve Green > Thanks for the thoughtful message, Steve. I have noted that GM extended > warranties are quite a bit more expensive for 4WD trucks than RWD ones. > I went out and test drove a 4WD Silverado today (after test driving a RWD > earlier this week) and was really surprised how much less I liked the 4WD. > It is noticeably taller from the driver’s seat — a more "tippy" feel, > handles and steers a bit worse, and does not ride nearly as well as the > RWD > version. It is also harder to climb into, of course. Overall, a > considerably > less pleasant vehicle to drive. The only positive the 4WD had vs. the RWD > was that if you put it in 4WD auto, you could not get the rear wheels to > spin coming out of a turn, something that is very easy with the RWD 5.3L > unless you resist the urge to accelerate fast out of a turn. I think > traction control would stop that sort of thing, too. (Driving home in my > ‘87 > F150 I was struck by how much nicer its ride was than the 4WD Siverado’s.) > The salesman said the RWD trucks are a harder sell used than 4WD, but that > overall condition would be the over-riding issue, as you said.. > So RWD it will be for me with traction control and the $2300 saved money > (for skipping 4WD) goes into a stock mutual fund to help pay for the > replacement in 13 years. So now the only question is Chevy or GMC?, which > is > to say which grill looks nicer? > A little sidelight: while waiting for the salesman to finish with someone > else I looked over a Venture min-van on the floor. I did the dashboard tap > with the fist test of plastic quality and was pleasantly surprised to see > GM > is using dash plastic in the mini-vans that is up to Japanese car > standards — a big step forward. So I walk over to the Silverado parked > next > to the van and do the same test. This time I get the sharp cheap sound > that > my ‘87 F150 also gives. So they are still using that cheap plastic on > their > best selling vehicles. Sheeesh! > – GRL > > George since you are considering all associated costs besides mileage > and > > insurance you need to look at maintenance. If you are only going to > keep > it > > for the warranty period then the small additional cost is negligible but > if > > you go outside warranty, a 4wd power train can get expensive as things > wear > > out. Given your statement about only being able to use 4wd 1-2 months > per > > year, if you don’t have any off road/mud hauling that would require a > 4wd > > system you might be happier with the 2wd and traction control. > Especially > > if this is a commuter truck that you have to live with every day. I > think > > the money you pay up front for 4wd isn’t going to make as much > difference > in > > resale price as how well you take care of the truck while you have it. > > I’ve got a ‘99 Sierra (Silverado by another father) with 2wd and am > really > > happy with the almost car like ride quality of the new trucks. It > corners > > great and rides really nice. Beware that some of the ’99s have had a > > problem with shimmy (shaking) at 65 mph. It isn’t so severe that you > can’t > > drive them but it is annoying. I’m working with my dealer right now on > that > > problem. Unfortunately mine doesn’t fit into the earlier fixable > category > > and they have just about run out of options. Stick with a 2000 model > and > > you should be fine. > > Regards, Steve Green > > > I thinking about getting a new (2000) Silverado or Suburban. There is > a > 2 > > > mpg difference in highway EPA mileage RWD vs. 4WD for these trucks > with > > the > > > 5.3 L engine. > > > Where I live, 4WD would be useful 1-2 months a year, tops, but > normally > > I’d > > > pop for the extra $2500 it costs, even at the cost of the mileage hit. > > > However, the new Suburban RWD models (and I’m sure the pickups, soon) > can > > be > > > had with traction control which I know from experience works extremely > > well > > > on snow – I have a RWD traction-control equipped car and we have NO > > > problems. > > > That makes the 4WD tougher to justify and raises the question in my > mind > > of > > > just how accurate are those EPA highway mileage estimates? Can you > really > > > get almost 20 mpg with the 5.3 in a RWD Silverado? > > > So my question is, what kind of highway mileage do people with RWD vs. > 4WD > > > 1999 and 2000 Silverados and Sierras actually get? (Highway means ~70 > mph > > > with 1-2 people on board over mostly flat terrain.) > > > Anyone? > > > Appreciate any help. > > > – GRL
Response:
Interesting that you noticed the dash. I was thinking about getting a Dashmat cover for my new ‘99 Sierra and just noticed after driving for several weeks that it wasn’t the padded dash it appeared to be but was instead plastic. I think some of this change from padded to plastic dashes may be for reasons of durability, lets face it all padded dashes eventually crack. And some may be due to the new dual airbags lurking beneath the dashes and the need to replace quite a bit of the dash after deployment of the passenger side airbag. Go figure. If you get a new GM truck one of the more annoying things is the daytime running lights/twilight sentinel feature. On the 2000 models you can override the twilight sentinel feature but it gets annoying. This link will take you to a truck parts company that is manufacturing a really nice looking override switch for the new trucks. They also have a couple of other switch enhancements that are really sharp. http://www.truckautoaccessories.com/cgi-bin/rd/1253?PRH4SFRY;;49 Steve Green
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Thanks for the thoughtful message, Steve. I have noted that GM extended > warranties are quite a bit more expensive for 4WD trucks than RWD ones. > I went out and test drove a 4WD Silverado today (after test driving a RWD > earlier this week) and was really surprised how much less I liked the 4WD. > It is noticeably taller from the driver’s seat — a more "tippy" feel, > handles and steers a bit worse, and does not ride nearly as well as the RWD > version. It is also harder to climb into, of course. Overall, a considerably > less pleasant vehicle to drive. The only positive the 4WD had vs. the RWD > was that if you put it in 4WD auto, you could not get the rear wheels to > spin coming out of a turn, something that is very easy with the RWD 5.3L > unless you resist the urge to accelerate fast out of a turn. I think > traction control would stop that sort of thing, too. (Driving home in my ‘87 > F150 I was struck by how much nicer its ride was than the 4WD Siverado’s.) > The salesman said the RWD trucks are a harder sell used than 4WD, but that > overall condition would be the over-riding issue, as you said.. > So RWD it will be for me with traction control and the $2300 saved money > (for skipping 4WD) goes into a stock mutual fund to help pay for the > replacement in 13 years. So now the only question is Chevy or GMC?, which is > to say which grill looks nicer? > A little sidelight: while waiting for the salesman to finish with someone > else I looked over a Venture min-van on the floor. I did the dashboard tap > with the fist test of plastic quality and was pleasantly surprised to see GM > is using dash plastic in the mini-vans that is up to Japanese car > standards — a big step forward. So I walk over to the Silverado parked next > to the van and do the same test. This time I get the sharp cheap sound that > my ‘87 F150 also gives. So they are still using that cheap plastic on their > best selling vehicles. Sheeesh! > – GRL > George since you are considering all associated costs besides mileage and > insurance you need to look at maintenance. If you are only going to keep > it > for the warranty period then the small additional cost is negligible but > if > you go outside warranty, a 4wd power train can get expensive as things > wear > out. Given your statement about only being able to use 4wd 1-2 months per > year, if you don’t have any off road/mud hauling that would require a 4wd > system you might be happier with the 2wd and traction control. Especially > if this is a commuter truck that you have to live with every day. I think > the money you pay up front for 4wd isn’t going to make as much difference > in > resale price as how well you take care of the truck while you have it. > I’ve got a ‘99 Sierra (Silverado by another father) with 2wd and am really > happy with the almost car like ride quality of the new trucks. It corners > great and rides really nice. Beware that some of the ’99s have had a > problem with shimmy (shaking) at 65 mph. It isn’t so severe that you > can’t > drive them but it is annoying. I’m working with my dealer right now on > that > problem. Unfortunately mine doesn’t fit into the earlier fixable category > and they have just about run out of options. Stick with a 2000 model and > you should be fine. > Regards, Steve Green > > I thinking about getting a new (2000) Silverado or Suburban. There is a > 2 > > mpg difference in highway EPA mileage RWD vs. 4WD for these trucks with > the > > 5.3 L engine. > > Where I live, 4WD would be useful 1-2 months a year, tops, but normally > I’d > > pop for the extra $2500 it costs, even at the cost of the mileage hit. > > However, the new Suburban RWD models (and I’m sure the pickups, soon) > can > be > > had with traction control which I know from experience works extremely > well > > on snow – I have a RWD traction-control equipped car and we have NO > > problems. > > That makes the 4WD tougher to justify and raises the question in my mind > of > > just how accurate are those EPA highway mileage estimates? Can you > really > > get almost 20 mpg with the 5.3 in a RWD Silverado? > > So my question is, what kind of highway mileage do people with RWD vs. > 4WD > > 1999 and 2000 Silverados and Sierras actually get? (Highway means ~70 > mph > > with 1-2 people on board over mostly flat terrain.) > > Anyone? > > Appreciate any help. > > – GRL
Response:
Thanks for the thoughtful message, Steve. I have noted that GM extended warranties are quite a bit more expensive for 4WD trucks than RWD ones. I went out and test drove a 4WD Silverado today (after test driving a RWD earlier this week) and was really surprised how much less I liked the 4WD. It is noticeably taller from the driver’s seat — a more "tippy" feel, handles and steers a bit worse, and does not ride nearly as well as the RWD version. It is also harder to climb into, of course. Overall, a considerably less pleasant vehicle to drive. The only positive the 4WD had vs. the RWD was that if you put it in 4WD auto, you could not get the rear wheels to spin coming out of a turn, something that is very easy with the RWD 5.3L unless you resist the urge to accelerate fast out of a turn. I think traction control would stop that sort of thing, too. (Driving home in my ‘87 F150 I was struck by how much nicer its ride was than the 4WD Siverado’s.) The salesman said the RWD trucks are a harder sell used than 4WD, but that overall condition would be the over-riding issue, as you said.. So RWD it will be for me with traction control and the $2300 saved money (for skipping 4WD) goes into a stock mutual fund to help pay for the replacement in 13 years. So now the only question is Chevy or GMC?, which is to say which grill looks nicer? A little sidelight: while waiting for the salesman to finish with someone else I looked over a Venture min-van on the floor. I did the dashboard tap with the fist test of plastic quality and was pleasantly surprised to see GM is using dash plastic in the mini-vans that is up to Japanese car standards — a big step forward. So I walk over to the Silverado parked next to the van and do the same test. This time I get the sharp cheap sound that my ‘87 F150 also gives. So they are still using that cheap plastic on their best selling vehicles. Sheeesh! – GRL
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> George since you are considering all associated costs besides mileage and > insurance you need to look at maintenance. If you are only going to keep it > for the warranty period then the small additional cost is negligible but if > you go outside warranty, a 4wd power train can get expensive as things wear > out. Given your statement about only being able to use 4wd 1-2 months per > year, if you don’t have any off road/mud hauling that would require a 4wd > system you might be happier with the 2wd and traction control. Especially > if this is a commuter truck that you have to live with every day. I think > the money you pay up front for 4wd isn’t going to make as much difference in > resale price as how well you take care of the truck while you have it. > I’ve got a ‘99 Sierra (Silverado by another father) with 2wd and am really > happy with the almost car like ride quality of the new trucks. It corners > great and rides really nice. Beware that some of the ’99s have had a > problem with shimmy (shaking) at 65 mph. It isn’t so severe that you can’t > drive them but it is annoying. I’m working with my dealer right now on that > problem. Unfortunately mine doesn’t fit into the earlier fixable category > and they have just about run out of options. Stick with a 2000 model and > you should be fine. > Regards, Steve Green > I thinking about getting a new (2000) Silverado or Suburban. There is a 2 > mpg difference in highway EPA mileage RWD vs. 4WD for these trucks with > the > 5.3 L engine. > Where I live, 4WD would be useful 1-2 months a year, tops, but normally > I’d > pop for the extra $2500 it costs, even at the cost of the mileage hit. > However, the new Suburban RWD models (and I’m sure the pickups, soon) can > be > had with traction control which I know from experience works extremely > well > on snow – I have a RWD traction-control equipped car and we have NO > problems. > That makes the 4WD tougher to justify and raises the question in my mind > of > just how accurate are those EPA highway mileage estimates? Can you really > get almost 20 mpg with the 5.3 in a RWD Silverado? > So my question is, what kind of highway mileage do people with RWD vs. 4WD > 1999 and 2000 Silverados and Sierras actually get? (Highway means ~70 mph > with 1-2 people on board over mostly flat terrain.) > Anyone? > Appreciate any help. > – GRL
Response:
George since you are considering all associated costs besides mileage and insurance you need to look at maintenance. If you are only going to keep it for the warranty period then the small additional cost is negligible but if you go outside warranty, a 4wd power train can get expensive as things wear out. Given your statement about only being able to use 4wd 1-2 months per year, if you don’t have any off road/mud hauling that would require a 4wd system you might be happier with the 2wd and traction control. Especially if this is a commuter truck that you have to live with every day. I think the money you pay up front for 4wd isn’t going to make as much difference in resale price as how well you take care of the truck while you have it. I’ve got a ‘99 Sierra (Silverado by another father) with 2wd and am really happy with the almost car like ride quality of the new trucks. It corners great and rides really nice. Beware that some of the ’99s have had a problem with shimmy (shaking) at 65 mph. It isn’t so severe that you can’t drive them but it is annoying. I’m working with my dealer right now on that problem. Unfortunately mine doesn’t fit into the earlier fixable category and they have just about run out of options. Stick with a 2000 model and you should be fine. Regards, Steve Green
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I thinking about getting a new (2000) Silverado or Suburban. There is a 2 > mpg difference in highway EPA mileage RWD vs. 4WD for these trucks with the > 5.3 L engine. > Where I live, 4WD would be useful 1-2 months a year, tops, but normally I’d > pop for the extra $2500 it costs, even at the cost of the mileage hit. > However, the new Suburban RWD models (and I’m sure the pickups, soon) can be > had with traction control which I know from experience works extremely well > on snow – I have a RWD traction-control equipped car and we have NO > problems. > That makes the 4WD tougher to justify and raises the question in my mind of > just how accurate are those EPA highway mileage estimates? Can you really > get almost 20 mpg with the 5.3 in a RWD Silverado? > So my question is, what kind of highway mileage do people with RWD vs. 4WD > 1999 and 2000 Silverados and Sierras actually get? (Highway means ~70 mph > with 1-2 people on board over mostly flat terrain.) > Anyone? > Appreciate any help. > – GRL
Response:
I am cheap, Shawn. Have been accused of being penurious. Thanks for the defense. – GRL
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> By George, > If you are so concerned about the mileage difference between a 2X4 vs 4X4, > can you really afford either one to drive. Neither of them are gas mileage > I didn’t see where he said he couldn’t afford it. SOme people care about > MPG regardless of the money they have. Maybe he is cheap, or has a wife, > or for environmental reasons…
Response:
Good thought about the insurance. I called the agent and its a $30 a difference 2WD vs. 4WD. Not too bad. (The real shocker was that the annual cost will only go up $200 vs. the ‘87 F150 I have now.) – GRL – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> are into considering that a truck with 4WD is more expensive on > insurance. But newer vehicles get more MPG cause they are lighter. I’d > say go with the Silverado or unless you have a family.
Response:
are into considering that a truck with 4WD is more expensive on insurance. But newer vehicles get more MPG cause they are lighter. I’d say go with the Silverado or unless you have a family.
Response:
> By George, > If you are so concerned about the mileage difference between a 2X4 vs 4X4, > can you really afford either one to drive. Neither of them are gas mileage
I didn’t see where he said he couldn’t afford it. SOme people care about MPG regardless of the money they have. Maybe he is cheap, or has a wife, or for environmental reasons…
Response:
I can "afford" either one irrespective of mileage and I want one of them because I need the cargo capacity. The 4WD vs. RWD is the "coin-toss" question. It’s a question of an up-front known cost (the added price of 4WD partially recoverable at trade-in time 13 years from now) vs. a mileage difference cost that is not really calculable because who knows which way gas prices/taxes will go – OPEC can go nuts again or next election we can get Algore with his odd ideas about the greatest threat to the world being the IC engine and a lap-dog Democrat congress and we’re at $2 a gallon in taxes. Don’t laugh, it could happen. A complicating issue is that the EPA mileage sticker numbers are worthless. I just recalled that checked Consumer Reports had tested 4WD full size pickups recently and looked it up. The current Ford and GM full size extended-cab 4WD pickups with mid-size V8’s get 22 mpg highway, much better than the EPA sticker predicts. CU says overall (mixed) mileage is 15 mpg for both RWD and 4WD models of each brand. Highway mpg is about 2 more for RWD vs. 4WD. (I trust CU more on this than EPA who purposely fudge their numbers low to make them worse than reality because their old estimates were too high.) I estimate that Suburbans will get similar numbers to the pickups (a bit heavier, but better aerodynamics than the pickups). Thank you for you suggestion: "Buy the vehicle that fits what you need it to do best for you". That is precisely what I am trying to do. Cheers…and Merry Christmas. – GRL
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> By George, > If you are so concerned about the mileage difference between a 2X4 vs 4X4, > can you really afford either one to drive. Neither of them are gas mileage > champs. Better get a Grand Vitara, a RAV, or a CR-V. They get much better > mileage. Buy the vehicle that fits what you need it to do best for you. > Larry > I thinking about getting a new (2000) Silverado or Suburban. There is a 2 > mpg difference in highway EPA mileage RWD vs. 4WD for these trucks with > the > 5.3 L engine. > Where I live, 4WD would be useful 1-2 months a year, tops, but normally > I’d > pop for the extra $2500 it costs, even at the cost of the mileage hit. > However, the new Suburban RWD models (and I’m sure the pickups, soon) can > be > had with traction control which I know from experience works extremely > well > on snow – I have a RWD traction-control equipped car and we have NO > problems. > That makes the 4WD tougher to justify and raises the question in my mind > of > just how accurate are those EPA highway mileage estimates? Can you really > get almost 20 mpg with the 5.3 in a RWD Silverado? > So my question is, what kind of highway mileage do people with RWD vs. 4WD > 1999 and 2000 Silverados and Sierras actually get? (Highway means ~70 mph > with 1-2 people on board over mostly flat terrain.) > Anyone? > Appreciate any help. > – GRL
Response:
I thinking about getting a new (2000) Silverado or Suburban. There is a 2 mpg difference in highway EPA mileage RWD vs. 4WD for these trucks with the 5.3 L engine. Where I live, 4WD would be useful 1-2 months a year, tops, but normally I’d pop for the extra $2500 it costs, even at the cost of the mileage hit. However, the new Suburban RWD models (and I’m sure the pickups, soon) can be had with traction control which I know from experience works extremely well on snow – I have a RWD traction-control equipped car and we have NO problems. That makes the 4WD tougher to justify and raises the question in my mind of just how accurate are those EPA highway mileage estimates? Can you really get almost 20 mpg with the 5.3 in a RWD Silverado? So my question is, what kind of highway mileage do people with RWD vs. 4WD 1999 and 2000 Silverados and Sierras actually get? (Highway means ~70 mph with 1-2 people on board over mostly flat terrain.) Anyone? Appreciate any help. – GRL
Response:
By George, If you are so concerned about the mileage difference between a 2X4 vs 4X4, can you really afford either one to drive. Neither of them are gas mileage champs. Better get a Grand Vitara, a RAV, or a CR-V. They get much better mileage. Buy the vehicle that fits what you need it to do best for you. Larry
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I thinking about getting a new (2000) Silverado or Suburban. There is a 2 > mpg difference in highway EPA mileage RWD vs. 4WD for these trucks with the > 5.3 L engine. > Where I live, 4WD would be useful 1-2 months a year, tops, but normally I’d > pop for the extra $2500 it costs, even at the cost of the mileage hit. > However, the new Suburban RWD models (and I’m sure the pickups, soon) can be > had with traction control which I know from experience works extremely well > on snow – I have a RWD traction-control equipped car and we have NO > problems. > That makes the 4WD tougher to justify and raises the question in my mind of > just how accurate are those EPA highway mileage estimates? Can you really > get almost 20 mpg with the 5.3 in a RWD Silverado? > So my question is, what kind of highway mileage do people with RWD vs. 4WD > 1999 and 2000 Silverados and Sierras actually get? (Highway means ~70 mph > with 1-2 people on board over mostly flat terrain.) > Anyone? > Appreciate any help. > – GRL
