16LT4

My previous truck was a '04 F150 FX4 which definitely didn't have it; only learned about it with the F550 at work. I had the push button start in my '14 Ram Laramie... soooo glad my '16 doesn't have it, I may not have bought it if it did. Push button start and keyless entry is all well and good until the truck doesn't recognize the fob... had to get 2 new fobs and 2 sets of batteries for said fobs in 10k miles on that truck (which of course requires dealer visits). I'll take an actual key... and wish those keys didn't have these damn chips in them so I could make copies at the hardware store! Amazed though that in '16 GM has a separate fob from the metal key and not a once-piece unit like my '03 E46... double the things dangling off my key chain is obnoxious.

They do make 100% clear UV/heat blocking material for use on windshields. I do at least half my driving at night, and up here in Deer Central, windshield tint is an accident waiting to happen. Not to mention, here in NY they've tied window tint to vehicle inspection, and any tint darker than I think 75% on the windshield and front door windows (on trucks; all side windows on cars) will cause you to fail inspection. A new industry of "free tint removal" has sprung up, providing you come back to them for re-application after inspection. All that is far too much of a PIA for me... I've found out how dark I can go, and keep it at that.

The fuel in your tank isn't underground and will definitely experience changes in volume with temperature, which affects fuel added and therefore calculated economy. That's how a friend was able to ride his motorcycle for an hour and a half and still have his fuel tank be full. The fuel in the tanks is also dependent on the time and temperature of its deliver (which really wouldn't be known). The Consumer Reports test is of a couple data points and not sufficient enough to form an accurate trend line. I definitely agree that the underground tank temperature is pretty constant, but that isn't the only variable. Regardless, my point is that fuel economy calculations always leave room for confounding variables. Using a single tank would make my Jetta a nearly 40 mpg car (whatever the cause, as it certainly wasn't driving habits... I'd actually flogged it harder than usual on that commute) when in reality it is a 30 mpg car. The most accurate, but least practical, way would be to collect and assess the products out the tailpipe. In the end, all I really care about is what it my operational costs are.

Was it you who mentioned the nut behind the wheel? Also a great description. I do recall that and obviously agree; my mentioning again was more towards the specificity of a greater air charge decreasing economy despite increased power and the theoretical work performed being the same. This Simian, for one, isn’t nearly that precisely calibrated.

The time of day you fill up can also drastically effect your mileage. Fill up with 20 gallons at 6 am, and you might find it took much more fuel than 20 gallons than that afternoon at 2 pm. 20 gallons only equals 20 gallons if the temperature of those gallons is the same; on a recent trip in my Jetta, which usually obtains 31 mpg in summer and 29 mpg in winter over my 400 mile round-trip commute for work each weekend, I scored an unheard of 38 mpg. After the next fill-up, I was down to 25. Why? I put fuel in the tank at the beginning of the first trip at 52* F, and filled up again that afternoon at 80*F. The fuel expanded, giving the illusion of greater efficiency. This is why many tanks over many weather cycles should be averaged for accuracy. On a side note, on average (though short thus far), my "new to me" '16 Silverado CC is only 7% more per mile than my Jetta over that work commute, using E85. Using my nearly-similar '17 Silverado which ran only 87 as a comparative measure, as I've only run E85 in the '16 and have zero data for other fuels, it was substantially more at 32% more per mile. So far, I see no reason to switch, as I know what I got in the '17, and I've only lost <2 mpg on the '16; time will tell if that gap wides as less and less residual 87 remains in the tank (I never let it get less than 1/4 tank before refueling). While I completely agree with Grumpy's description above regarding optimum stoich ratios, the variable not mentioned is the Simian behind the wheel, who more often than not requires more power than the engine does, hence efficiency declining. Unless the 5.3 programming is different, no engine I've ever come across adjusts the amount of air entering the engine to meet a predetermined fuel map, but rather adjusts the fuel map to meet the air coming in (hence IAT sensors, MAP/MAF sensors, O2 sensors, etc). The driver is used to pushing foot down X amount and opening throttle plate that amount, and often does so without feeling slightly more power in colder air. The best track times are posted in late fall when the air is crisp and DRY (let us not also forget that humid air has less O2 per mole than dry air, but is also lighter), when the engines make the most power despite the slight increase in resistance. The biggest issue for decreased economy on winter fuels, while being a combination of factors, is likely warming the vehicle up before driving coupled with the engine spending much more time in open loop mode running rich (choked, in the carb days... I won't say "old," as 2 of my daily drivers are carbed). My F-150 would take an extra 5 miles to reach operating temperature in January vs. June on my same commute to work everyday with the same country traffic (or lack thereof), and even an extra 30 seconds of warm-up adds up. Warming up a vehicle nets you 0mpg, and 0s lower the average quickly. The single biggest thing you can do to maximize fuel economy is to modify the aforementioned Simian.

One-touch starting is definitely the biggest surprise feature of my '16... I'm assuming my '17 had it, never knew.

That they'd actually run past 50k. I jettisoned by brand new '17 after only 12k miles because it was such a steaming pile; my '16 is worlds apart.

The beauty of buying CPO, not new, is the better warranty: my '16 is covered to 100k and 2022. This would be 6 year/100k new. First owner gets to deal with all the leaning curve warranty issues.

Just bought a 72k mile '16. Regular oil changes from the dealer (I'm awaiting their history print out to see the full data); I replaced the transfer case, front and rear diff fluids today, about 65k miles later than I would have had I bought it new. Transmission fluid isn't cherry red, so that will be done ASAP as well. Can't report on issues yet, but will if I find any. I've never ripped a powertrain component regardless of miles (I've even gone 400k on an original clutch) and don't intend to anytime soon.

Picked up this Metallic Bronze 72k mile '16 on Monday, warrantied until 2022 (biggest reason I went for it), after returning from the dark side; back to Chevy from my '04 F150 SCrew FX4. I love that truck, but its just getting to need too much on a weekly basis to trust on East Coast-wise trips the half dozen times a year we do them. I'd had the cams out to rebuild the entire timing system and replace the oil pump (standard 5.4 3v problems) in my garage over the winter, and just recently rebuilt the 4x4 actuation and was about to deal with broken exhaust manifold studs when I'd decided that I'm tired of neglecting all my other chores. After my complete garbage '17 Z-71 I'd sworn off modern GMs... but this one has NONE of the issues that plagued that one and has restored my appreciation of GM. I was actually on the way to buy a Ram when I saw this one on the lot and checked it out; in the end it came down to a "gut feeling" about the dealer more than anything, because honestly apples to apples I'd prefer the Ram any day (having owned both before). First orders of business: today I replaced the cabin filter, transfer case and front and rear differential fluids. They'd clearly never been replaced before (as expected on any modern vehicle). Transmission next week, and wheels/tires when these run down.

Different engines, different topic. The number of those engines that regularly exceed 200k is far greater than those that don’t. It’s not like GM already doesn’t have a problem with its turbo 4s eating their own pistons, there’s been TSBs on it. A 4 cyl in a 6k will love its entire life being abused just by existing. With no real world testing yet completed, this engine’s longevity is unknown. Controlled environment lab testing is different than consumer testing.

Controlled environment lab tests of a completely different vehicle and engine are completely irrelevant.

Post back when it hits 200k.

Just haul what you want and don't think twice about it. The truck isn't going to fold in half and the drivetrain isn't going to grenade. Drive sanely and you'll be fine. I routinely drop over 2k in my F150 without batting an eye, never even hits the bump stops, and been doing it for almost 160k miles. I once had almost 3k in my '17 Silverado and it did the job just fine. Stop worrying; GM's marketing departments would have you buy a 2500 just to haul a bass boat. Very few people who buy trucks ever get anywhere close to its actual limits. I'll throw this out there: my '84 S10 with a 2.8 V6 (110 hp), 5 speed, single piston front calipers and rear drums has a rated payload of 1500 lbs. Do you honestly think that ANY 2019 Silverado can only safely handle 1 human body's weight over that???? Unsafe, overweight, blah blah blah.

The simple fact that unresolved shake is an inherent part of the K2 GM trucks and NOT the hundreds of other models effectively takes user error out of the equation. I've driven all manner of piles of crap over the years, from rotted out K10 blazers to cheap old jettas to Type I VWs to hauled-out-of-the-woods peterbuilts, and none exhibit the type of shake mine did. The shake went away after 5k miles of wear, oddly enough. If yours shakes...crawl under and grab and shake the front driveshaft at the transfer case. If yours shakes, I guarantee you can get vertical/lateral motion of the shaft.

Some people have luck with never changing fluid, but most do not. Filters clog and fluid wears out. For as easy and cheap as it is to change fluid in these things (they have a dipstick and therefore a fill tube), there's really no reason not to. Many guys also claim that if the unit is still working, there is not problem...black or white with no grey. From experience, there is a definite improvement in operation and lower temperatures with new, fresh fluid. As the old saying goes, GMs run poorly longer than many others run at all.

My '84 GMC with a 110hp V6 gets 4 mpg better that my truck with a 2500 lb loaded trailer than this truck, it's pathetic. My next truck will be a Ram no question; I know quite a few with them, and they're the standby when the wife's Honda breaks down. 250k is the norm, though abating rust is a full time job. I've had my front prop shaft start doing the hula at 6500, and the tailgate and front headlight stop closing and start falling out, respectively, by 10k. All the TSBs were performed.

Codes are saved from in ECM memory and can be retrieved. If nothing else, take it simply for CYA so if your engine eats itself later on there is a record of complaints.

Do what I plan to do with mine: "force" an issue to appear sooner than later. Did the dealer drain and flush the crankcase and replace the filter? They certainly should have. I'd do it myself, because I've yet to find a dealer service department or service tech better equipped to perform a service than myself. At least then you can see what comes out.

4WD high locks front and rear tires together. Fact. When making turns, tires rotate at different speeds. Fact. When turning on dry pavement in 4WD, tires are forced to turn at the same speed despite not being able to. Fact. This puts wear at one of three locations: tire contact patch on the road, front differential, or the transfer case. Fact. There will be wear somewhere. Fact. Which one wears the most would have to be the weakest link at the time, subject to several variables. Is the truck going to grenade? Probably not. Is there extra wear on some part of the system? Yes. Is it measurable at this time? Probably not. There's no extra wear until turns are made, which on the highway are minimal. Best thing about physics is that it doesn't lie.

6800 miles on my 2017 and the transfer case has already worn enough to be able to physically shake the front prop shaft around. Dealer won't replace until it blows, which is a 100% certainty.

Your pit is probably correct, same way my dealer says that being able to shake my front driveshaft around in the T-case is normal, on a 6500 mile 2017. Joke's on them when I grenade that SOB. Any time a seal blows separating oil and coolant there is the possibility that both will mix; during engine running pressure gradient pushes oil into the coolant, but after shut off, pressure gradient wants to push coolant into the oil.

After finding this thread, I checked the pedal on my 4800 mile '17, and sure enough, there's flex. Seems the issue was never addressed; while there wasn't as much flex as in videos posted in the thread, I'm sure that would change as the plastic fatigues. Unbolted the pedal assembly, jammed some cedar shingle shim up in there, tightened bolt back down on it to hold it. I've noticed a marginal improvement, due to there not being much flex there to begin with.

Good to know. Looks like they gave me the old stock.

First oil change at 1000 miles was done with the oil and filter I bought from the dealer the day I picked up the truck: AC Delco 0w-20 with filter. The AC Delco is Synthetic BLEND, not FULL sythetic, which was fine for break-in anyway. At my next oil change, at 5k, I'll be switching to full sythetic, most likely. After that, I'll be sticking with a 5k mile OCI. When I picked up the oil and filter from the dealer, the bill was $46 for 9 quarts and a filter. Yes 9, because apparently GM changed the oil capacity from 8.5 quarts to an even 8 recently and the guy who got the oil obviously wasn't aware.