[AT] off topic, Internet takeover by govt ?(now GM 5300)

[Ron Cook]

Charlie,
     I have several friends that swear by their 5300 engines and talk 
much like you are.  However all of them are newer than the '04 flex fuel 
engine like I have.   That flex fuel business probably has it de-tuned 
?  Fuel mileage is around 17 max, whereas my 1997 5.7 Tahoe stays right 
at 18 all the time.  The Tahoe probably is a little lighter but wouldn't 
be much.  One of my nephews that has driven the Suburban probably more 
than I says to put E85 in it if you want to see poor fuel mileage.  I 
might someday just for giggles.
     I took that Suburban for a couple reasons.  (1)  I always wanted 
one but couldn't afford it.  I inherited zero from my dad while he left 
everything to one 1/2 brother that stayed on the farm and never had a 
job other than being a yes man.  He is now a multi millionaire.  So I 
had no problems taking it.  (2)  I figured at my age, 71, that a nice 
vehicle like that would see me to the end of my driving days.  I have 
never been so disappointed in a vehicle.  It is pretty, though.  I am 
sure it will be moving along to a new owner one of these days.  I can 
see where supporting it could get very expensive.
Ron Cook
Salix, IA
On 2/6/2015 2:02 PM, charlie hill wrote:
> Ron,  I've been tickled pink with the 5.3 in my Crew Cab 4WD Sierra.
> It's got a boat load of power, cruises the highway at 60 mph in OD
> with the tack showing about 1700 rpm and gets on average all around
> driving about 17 mpg.  On the highway at speeds below 75 it gets around
> 20 mpg.  I actually like it better than the 5.7's I've had.  I agree with
> you
> that torque makes power and there is no substitution for cubic inches but
> I'm fine with my 5.3.   I know a guy that has a 2011 GMC crew cab 4wd
> that he special ordered with the 6.2 gas engine.  It's got a ton of power
> but he has plenty of money and doesn't drive that far so gas mileage is
> of no concern to him.
>
> Charlie
>