Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Thanks Gentlemen - do we think it is the dirty injectors?

I can start running some Chevron though my tank every once in a while - out here in CA it is about +.30 more a gallon.

 

I guess you get what you pay for?

 

On the additives - is there any GM factory version?

 

If I have it done at the dealer during a maintenance - what are they going to do? Same thing? Pour something into the  tank?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

JJ

Posted
On 6/19/2020 at 9:10 AM, johnnymordoc said:

Thanks Gentlemen - do we think it is the dirty injectors?

I can start running some Chevron though my tank every once in a while - out here in CA it is about +.30 more a gallon.

 

I guess you get what you pay for?

 

On the additives - is there any GM factory version?

 

If I have it done at the dealer during a maintenance - what are they going to do? Same thing? Pour something into the  tank?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

JJ

I have used the BG 44k in the past and it seemed to work well. You just pour it into a full tank of gas and run the entire tank.

 

https://www.bgprod.com/catalog/gasoline-fuel-system/bg-44k-fuel-system-cleaner/

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

Hello,

 

I have a 2016 GMC Sierra SLT 4x4  crew cab w/ 5.3 I just turned 45,000 miles and started changing out fluids. So far I have changed front and rear diff fluid and transfer case fluid as those are the easiest for me to perform. I went to the dealer and got the fluids, so all GM product. I changed the transfer case fluid first since it was the easiest. 2 plugs that are easy to get to.  

On the fuel mileage screen I have seen an increase in MPG in city driving and now curious with the diff fluids changed how much more it might go up. The front was definitely dirty looking compared to the rear. Neither plugs had much crud on the magnetic plugs. The transfer case was pretty typical with a bunch on it.

Appointment next week at the dealer to perform the transmission service, they quoted $290  That is worth it to me to not mess with the exhaust pipe and getting the fill correct. They also told me it is a complete flush so I felt good about that.

 

Any way just wanted to chime in about normal service and improvement in MPG   I was about 14-15 in town and its now around 17-18.  Might not be accurate, but the feel good for keeping up on maint. is there

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted
I cannot believe the mileage some of you are getting. I have a 2017 crew cab, 5.3, 4x4 with max trailering package and 3:73 gears. I was struggling to get 14-15 mpg on stock size tires. I just put LT275/70/R18’s on my truck, and I’m getting closer to 12-13 mpg. I’m driving like a grandpa! This mileage included was before I installed my new tires. This is one thirsty truck. 
14D02DA4-F57F-4AFA-8F93-7E5C081D63E9.thumb.png.b34aa079a02296189e95165c42ee4c52.png

You need a tune.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posted
Yeah, that is what my MPG looks like.  The more miles I put on the worse it gets.  I blew $220.00 letting them put chemicals in manifold to get deposits off.  Did not work.  Waste of money.  Looking for someone to blast it with walnut shells.  Otherwise, I am trading it and going to a Ram port injection e-torque engine.

The Buildup wont happen if you block off the pcv system and vent the valve covers to atmosphere rather than run that crap back into the intake. I have the DOD disabled in my tune and gas mileage averages around 22+mpg at 75mph. I have 31.5” tires and 3.73 gears 4x4 double cab.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
  • 2 months later...
Posted

Just browsing through this thread a little and it's crazy that the 6.2 gets pretty much the same fuel economy as the 5.3. 65 more HP, 80 more TQ and negligible difference in fuel economy. What's not to love??

 

I drive aggressive and usually on an ethanol blend ranging from E30 to E80 and my lifetime average since ownership (7,500 miles) is 17.6 mpg. On straight highway trips with E10 I easily nail down 22-23. AFM disabled too. 

  • 11 months later...
  • 1 month later...
Posted

Now that the cold weather is upon me, and E85 shot up a dollar/gallon in the last week, it's time to switch back to E10; I don't like stressing the starter on prolonged E85 starts once the temperature dips below 50*F.  My regular commute with several stop signs and a half dozen lights coupled with no sustained cruises longer than a few miles saw in the low 12mpgs on E85 during the last couple of months; it is hardly scientific, but with 89 octane (with the tank being E27 from residual fuel on today's fill-up), my trip MPG (reset at every fill-up) went from 12.5 to 15.1 after 11 miles, which consists of driving the same roads I always do.  Lifetime fuel efficiency has dropped to 28.7 mpg from 30.7 mpg over the last few months of E85 commutes and short-distance towing/hauling. 😔

  • Like 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, 16LT4 said:

Now that the cold weather is upon me, and E85 shot up a dollar/gallon in the last week, it's time to switch back to E10; I don't like stressing the starter on prolonged E85 starts once the temperature dips below 50*F.  My regular commute with several stop signs and a half dozen lights coupled with no sustained cruises longer than a few miles saw in the low 12mpgs on E85 during the last couple of months; it is hardly scientific, but with 89 octane (with the tank being E27 from residual fuel on today's fill-up), my trip MPG (reset at every fill-up) went from 12.5 to 15.1 after 11 miles, which consists of driving the same roads I always do.  Lifetime fuel efficiency has dropped to 28.7 mpg from 30.7 mpg over the last few months of E85 commutes and short-distance towing/hauling. 😔

Everything is a tradeoff. The E85 has traditionally cost less than E10 but also gives you reduced mpg. I guess the bottom line is if to see if you can end up traveling farther for less overall with the E85. I never could run E85 so never looked into that. I wasn't aware of the harder starting on E85 either. 

  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, mikeyk101 said:

Everything is a tradeoff. The E85 has traditionally cost less than E10 but also gives you reduced mpg. I guess the bottom line is if to see if you can end up traveling farther for less overall with the E85. I never could run E85 so never looked into that. I wasn't aware of the harder starting on E85 either. 

 

Yes it is.  A tank of E85 would last 300 miles, E10 would go 400 miles over the same commutes, but the cost/mile on E85 was still less when I was filling up E85 for half the price over the summer.  Now with E85 being more expensive than 87, I'm not going to pay more for less mileage.

  • Like 2
  • 4 months later...
Posted (edited)

Just returned to OH from FL, so I was able to get my first E30ish mix all highway. It was a very impressive 19.2 mpg (computer readout 20.8) considering it was through VA and WV, with some windy mountain road drives visiting parks.  According to my scanner, it was 25% ethanol.

 

My previous tank from SC to NC was 20.9 MPG on 93 (computer readout 22.3).  One before that was 19.6 (20.7)

 

Majority of the trip had cruise control set to 70 (or 5 over lower posted limit (i.e 60 in a 55).

 

I've recorded almost every fillup since 2019.  I typically average 16-18mpg since i'm never taking big trips. I've only recorded 4-5 tanks where i only used E85.  I've had about 10 tanks or so where I mixed fuel.  Most of my tanks are still with 92/93 octane as I usually always have free fuel saved up through my local grocery store.

 

e15-e55 (most of these are e29-e34):  16.8 MPG

e55-e85 (i have not filled up only e85 since buying my scanner to test actual ethanol content): 14.6 MPG

E10 or less:  18.27 MPG

 

On average my e85 tanks save me 31% vs 93.

My mixes saved an average of 28% (typically 7-8 gallons of e85 with the rest 87)

 

As you can see my mpg only takes a 10% hit while saving 30% in my wallet.  I should note that i have a tune on my truck for 91 and added the ethanol sensor for e85.

 

For you guys that use 87 everyday, this would be about a 5% savings in your pocket.  Your mileage may vary as pricing fluctuates between brands and location.  One state may have e85 1 dollar cheaper than 93 and the next only .75.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by scrapen
Posted
2 hours ago, scrapen said:

As you can see my mpg only takes a 10% hit while saving 30% in my wallet.  I should note that i have a tune on my truck for 91 and added the ethanol sensor for e85.

 

For you guys that use 87 everyday, this would be about a 5% savings in your pocket.  Your mileage may vary as pricing fluctuates between brands and location.  One state may have e85 1 dollar cheaper than 93 and the next only .75

 

Are your flex fuel tables actually active? If they aren't then you're running lean and over-advanced. Not a bad thing necessarily, but a possible explanation for your increase in fuel mileage. 

 

Properly tuned, e30 stoich is about 13:1 afr - stock tune is hard-coded to 14.1:1 regardless of the fuel used, even if you simply plug an alcohol sensor in. And at e30 and properly tuned you'd probably be running about 2 less degrees of advance on the highway. 

Posted (edited)

Yes, Blackbear sent me a new tune file after i installed the sensor.

 

As for mileage "increases" I should note most of my miles are in-town driving which really brings down my averages.  I typically only drive my truck when the little one needs to go somewhere or visiting family 15 miles away.  When i unfortunately have to take the truck on a family excursion for the wife (4 adults and camping gear) i really like to see what mpg's look like highway only vs my normal around town driving.  I posted in this thread the results of my last mostly highway trip to TN a couple years back where I ran only E85 to get there and only premium on the way back.  This was before I knew about car studies on ethanol mixtures and the push for E30 gasoline in the future.

 

My car is the same way when it comes to mileage.  I only get 600 miles to a tank driving to work every day (<3 miles)...but last year I made it halfway through Maine (818 miles) on 15.2 gallons.

Edited by scrapen
Posted (edited)

With warmed temperatures, I'm back to E85.  By me, 93 is pegging $5/gallon, 87 is $4.40/gallon, and E85 is... $2.79/gallon.  The Silverado has become the fuel-cost saver on my commutes (up to 200 miles each way) compared to my 93-burning E83.  Yesterday's return mileage on E85 sucked because traffic added an hour to my drive; stop-go highway 0-70mph fluctuations kept my mileage in the 16s.  Steady cruising at 68 at the beginning of the trip though, had my mileage continuing to rise into the upper teens until NYC happened.  This afternoon I'll be data-logging mileage and cost to compare to the E83 to figure out actual dollars saved.

Edited by 16LT4
Posted
1 hour ago, 16LT4 said:

With warmed temperatures, I'm back to E85.  By me, 93 is pegging $5/gallon, 87 is $4.40/gallon, and E85 is... $2.79/gallon.  The Silverado has become the fuel-cost saver on my commutes (up to 200 miles each way) compared to my 93-burning E83.  Yesterday's return mileage on E85 sucked because traffic added an hour to my drive; stop-go highway 0-70mph fluctuations kept my mileage in the 16s.  Steady cruising at 68 at the beginning of the trip though, had my mileage continuing to rise into the upper teens until NYC happened.  This afternoon I'll be data-logging mileage and cost to compare to the E83 to figure out actual dollars saved.

 

All one has to do is get near a city and a hole opens in the gas tank :crackup:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...