music

Looks good.

The info that the OP is providing is consistent with all that I've read re: the new GM Global A platform, which the new trucks use. GM probably won't request a CVN for non-hard-part failures, but a failed transmission or motor will certainly go that way. I'm curious as to how these new trucks are driving on the stock tuning. I tuned mine myself (EFI), and can't imagine going back to OEM. The 6-spd being tuned for mileage seems to be frustrating for some, and I'm guessing that I'd probably be one of them.

I had a moment to look those up. The gasket is for the oil pan. Did the valve cover come with a gasket?

Yup, that's pretty much the idea. It's been a while, but when I was keeping up with this a couple of years back, folks that had the deflector installed didn't notice a difference. Maybe it only helps if the pistons haven't already been carbonized? More importantly, and I may be wrong on this, but my understanding is that the deflector is primarily for the return oil during AFM engagement. When the AFM engages, it diverts oil from four lifter pins (that holds them in place), and dumps it into the pan. When AFM is disengaged, then the oil returns through the normal channel (like a non-AFM motor). My understanding may be flawed, but if this is accurate, then disabling the AFM system via the PCM would serve the same purpose, as the oil would never be diverted in the first place. So, my thinking is that a person could disable AFM and install the modified valve cover for the same effect, and get the bonus of clean engine performance (albeit at a slight loss of economy).

I dont think the splash guard has been effective for most folks, which is why I am curious about the valve cover. It makes sense to me, and it's a relatively easy job.

What are the details on the valve cover change? That's a new one to me. Part number(s)?

I saw my first '14 last night when passing by a dealer ($47k msrp for a Silverado LTZ Z71 Crew 4x4). Stopped for minute to look at it, and was the *only* '14 they had. Nice lines on the truck, and the interior did look better in person (through window... store was closed). Not sure about this carpet stuff, but it reminds me of bed rug material. Sound deadening or not, I'd rather have hard plastic liners. If it's cheap to replace, then I guess it doesn't matter, but I'd imagine it looking pretty ratty after a while. GM would have to put some big incentives on these trucks for me to look closer, which I assume will start soon after they get dealers stocked. Even then, it will be a hard sell, as I still like my truck more... especially considering the price difference.

No offense, and I'm certainly not trying to minimize your issues. Just pointing out the poor accuracy of "problem polls" on enthusiast sites. In reality, specific posts like yours are more trustworthy. If you read through that whole thread, you find a few folks who take the time to "talk" about it... while most are just blind "votes" from people who never post anything, and many of the folks that do post, only have a few total (i.e., they only joined to vote / post about their recently discovered problem). That's typical of forum polls, and not specific to this one. I'm not a big Consumer Reports type, but their blind statistics show the 07+ 1500 engines to be very reliable overall. A large portion of 1500's have the 5.3, so their grouped data forms somewhat of a proxy statistic for the 5.3.

Before quoting the "poll", go through every message and and tally up the number of actual posts w/ oil consumption... and how many total posts each "user" has made on the site. I did that sometime back, and found the "poll" stats to be useless. Very few voters posted a single word about their truck/motor, and many that did were first time visitors/posters.

Nobody is trying to "sweep" anything away. We're reporting our personal experience on the matter. Given the specific issues that you're reporting, has GM determined whether it is related to AFM? I can guarantee that every motor out their has some "oil burners", and some have "ticking valves". Do a search on Ecoboost, 5.0, 5.7, or whatever plus "oil consumption" or "ticking". Don't get me wrong, if a specific instance is related to the AFM system, then it needs to be fixed. It does not, however, mean that they all are. I have the opposite frustration. The reason that we read about AFM and oil consumption here, is that folks having excess consumption find the forum and ask about it, or post their experience. Some members here, especially those that don't have a Gen IV 5.3, then proceed to tell them that it's due to their AFM system. Very few have actually validated an issue w/ AFM itself, and most owner/members here don't have a problem. How is it that almost every 5.3 out there is running fine with no issues, yet the vocal few form the consensus? I hope that you + GM find the answer for your truck... and that's the right way to go about it. Nobody here can diagnose or fix it.

If you happen to have a motor with problems, then sure... it's a bad motor. Mine has been great, as has everybody's that I personally know. A mechanic only sees a vehicle when there's a problem, and if they specialize in something, then they will see it a lot. My old '93 accord had a well known issue, where the distributor wears out prematurely, and the motor shuts down. Won't start, until you replace it and the ignition pack. If a Honda mechanic fixes this problem more than anything else on that year Honda, does it make it "junk"? The real question is much simpler: how many 5.3 motors does a general mechanic work on, out of *all* other cars/motors? Based on my own experience, I'd say it's a very low percentage, but that doesn't mean that it won't happen to me.

I think the opposite is true for most folks. The common question I hear is "what kind of mpg does it get". I don't think I've ever been asked "how fast is it" in real life, by adult men. I personally would pay a little more for one, but I'm in the large minority to even know the difference between the options. I wouldn't know much at all if I didn't visit this site!

I have seen one (yes one) new NHT 6.2 in LT form on the dealer lot in my area. It's an expensive option on the sticker. The NHT option costs double what the "5.3 value packages" cost (~$3.5k vs ~$1.5k), and the "5.3 package" comes w/ most of the standard things folks want (blue tooth, power drivers seat, locking tailgate, etc.), where you have to add those on the 6.2 models. It works out to ~$3k more to get a similarly equipped 6.2 (msrp). If you look at the mpg numbers on the sticker, it doesn't help either. They show 12/18 vs 15/21 on the 5.3. Most "half ton" buyers are cost concious, and really don't care how fast it is. The last part, is that you won't get the cost difference later when it comes time to trade or sell. A used truck w/ the 6.2 will only be valued a few hundred higher than a 5.3. It really is an "enthusiast" option. Compare this pricing to how Toyota does it. The 5.7 is ~$1k higher than the 4.6, and is available in every model/shape/form of the truck. In fact, it seems to be their "standard" motor.

Tundra 5.7? That would be an interesting comparison in towing feel/handling.

Nice. What kind of mpg do you get towing? I realize that's a loaded question, but curious anyways.

I think part of that is the tailpipe exit location. The exhaust gas hits the bumper, and the side of the truck. I've noticed a little buildup on my bumper over time, but no noticeable oil consumption. I've actually considered an exhaust tip, just to move it out about an inch.

I looked at one last year. My reading led me to understand that the QS diff fluid should be changed every 15k miles, and that's it. The fluid is special, however, and using the wrong stuff will cause problems (chattering). There's a special GM fluid, but I recall some folks having made their own using aftermarket + friction modifier in the right ratios. Unfortunately, there aren't that many QS trucks/burbs around, but I recall http://www.denalitrucks.com/ having more folks with them.

I just went through this entire thread and added up folks with GMT900 (07+) 5.3 motors, and tallied whether they were using oil or not, and how many posts they've made. I then calculated the "# of Users" vs "# of Posts", and how many in each group are "Using Oil", and "what percent of the sub-group reported using oil". The results: Summary Table Only 63 people have taken the time to record their information in the thread. There have been 228 people report that they "use oil" to some degree, and 267 that have reported "none". Of those, 76% have reported that they have a 5.3 motor. If the thread posts are any indication, most 5.3 responders have a 5.3 with AFM. I'm not sure if that's true, but assuming that 80% of those with a 5.3 has AFM, then only 63 / (0.8 * 495) = 15% of folks with an AFM motor who voted have bothered to write anything about it. One thing is clear: many of the folks posting in this thread have been new forum members, and quite a few appear to have joined solely to post info about oil consumption, or to discuss that specific topic. In fact, a few have less than 5 posts, all of which were in this thread.

The NHT "max tow pkg" adds ~300 lbs to the regular 7000 lb GVWR on a 4wd 1500 (7300 lb total), a 9.5 ring gear (vs 8.6), disc brakes, and a little stiffer spring set. It's a heavier rating, but the F150 is the only model that offers what I would really call a "heavy half"... since those are available with a GVWR of 8200 lbs (usually special order). The 2500HD has much heavier running gear (9600 lb GVWR), but it drives like a tank in comparison, and the 6.0 is less efficient than the 6.2 in a 1500.

You guys racing Tundras are just lucky that the Toyota driver doesn't know what he's doing Those trucks are neck to neck w/ a 6.2 in tests with experienced drivers. The big thing for them is that they have to disable all the nannies, or it will bog down bad from the start. When disabled, those things get going quick. It really comes down to truck weight and driver skill/experience. OK... enough off topic. edit: Also... Toyota has the option of the TRD supercharger (factory warrantied), so that's another thing some of those guys have.

The statistics are much less useful than that. As of now, ~33 people have replied in the thread, a few of which state specific oil consumption information. The poll shows 283 "votes", of which 22% are for 4.8 + 6.0 + 6.2 motors. It would be impossible to draw *any* conclusions from the data posted thus far.

I'd buy a 5.3 from a recent wreck, or even a new crate motor... and disable AFM, since it concerns you.

Sounds like a wiring or ground issue.

Very nice setup! Did you ever pull that same trailer w/ a 1500?

That explains it. Pictures can be deceiving. You and I are at almost identical total weight.