V-6 horrible fuel mileage

[NitroDatsik]

"If I'm not mistaken all 4.3 have the 3.23

 

You are mistaken. I had a 2014 4.3l double cab 4wd with 3.42s.

 

I got 17.6 on my last 2200 combined miles. I used to get 15-16 around town, 20-24 on the highway.

 

Now I have a 2015 5.3l with 3.42s and get about 16 on average combined and 18-20 highway.

Didn't know that, I guess 4x4 are different. Never paid attention since mine ain't 4x4

 

2014 Silverado 2WT CC Summit White 4.3L V6

DROPKICK Edition

IG: jorge_dropkick_rangel

[fondupot]

Didn't know that, I guess 4x4 are different. Never paid attention since mine ain't 4x4

 

yea, 2wd trucks get the 3.23 axle.

[captras]

I have a '14 6.2L 373 standard bed w cover crew cab. Daily mileage round trip about 36 miles. 50% highway, 50% city. I average about 19MPG. If I do a lot of in city it drops to about 16. Highway, under 70 MPH, 21-23 MPG. Lifetime mileage just under 19MPG. I do drive fairly conservative, and that does make a huge difference. Buddy of mine has a '14 with 5.3L. He added 31" wheels and a leveling kit and lost 4 MPG!

[dpassmo]

I have a v-6 with 35's and average 14.5 from work to house with 6 stop and goes only 10 miles away.. did a 4 hour road trip to sons football game got 18.5 going 60-65 .nice flat land I will add so that helped..

[savaytse66]

My observation entirely from reading these forums and not actually driving one is that it makes no difference which of the 3 engines, the 1500s all get similar mileage. So it begs the question, to me at least, what's the point of the V6? If it does not offer fuel savings, why sacrifice the power? Is it a less expensive engine than the 5.3?

[ember1205]

My observation entirely from reading these forums and not actually driving one is that it makes no difference which of the 3 engines, the 1500s all get similar mileage. So it begs the question, to me at least, what's the point of the V6? If it does not offer fuel savings, why sacrifice the power? Is it a less expensive engine than the 5.3?

 

The 5.3 is a ~$1000 add-on. It adds more torque for better towing, but you're right in that mileage is similar on all of the motors.

 

I wouldn't doubt if the V6 were offered for no reason other than to accommodate the EPA in some fashion to allow GM to offer the bigger motors as well. Also, I would expect that the V6 would be a GREAT motor for the regular cab 2WD models in areas where the land is relatively flat - it would make a fantastic truck for the job site at a pretty cheap cost.

[savaytse66]

 

The 5.3 is a ~$1000 add-on. It adds more torque for better towing, but you're right in that mileage is similar on all of the motors.

 

I wouldn't doubt if the V6 were offered for no reason other than to accommodate the EPA in some fashion to allow GM to offer the bigger motors as well. Also, I would expect that the V6 would be a GREAT motor for the regular cab 2WD models in areas where the land is relatively flat - it would make a fantastic truck for the job site at a pretty cheap cost.

 

OK, I did not realize the V6 saved $1,000. In the case, I get it. It's just a shame people don't see some additional fuel economy out of it. At the same time, I look forward to getting my 6.2L since my MPG won't suffer noticeably. When I test drove a Ford, I liked it, but again, no fuel saving with their V6 Ecoboost. In fact, I think the GM 6.2L sill gets better economy. Granted they are completely different motors, but still. I'll stick with the 6.2L in a GM.

[ember1205]

 

OK, I did not realize the V6 saved $1,000. In the case, I get it. It's just a shame people don't see some additional fuel economy out of it. At the same time, I look forward to getting my 6.2L since my MPG won't suffer noticeably. When I test drove a Ford, I liked it, but again, no fuel saving with their V6 Ecoboost. In fact, I think the GM 6.2L sill gets better economy. Granted they are completely different motors, but still. I'll stick with the 6.2L in a GM.

 

The ECOBoost motors are simply horrendous when it comes to fuel economy around town. The "average" MPG is elevated because they tend to do ok on the highway. The City driving is awful because the turbos are always kicking in and drawing the fuel down like there's a hole in the tank - ESPECIALLY if you aren't super gentle off of the line.

[Imcrazy]

I've got a 14 SLE with a 4.3 3.42 read end 4x4 double cab, bone stock.... I get on the truck a little here and there I don't 'take it easy' I just did an 800 mile road trip and averaged 20.5 MPG on the DIC. Most of that trip I was on 'high ways' running around 75 mph. Back and fourth to work, mostly rural / suburb driving I get anywhere from 17-20 mpg depending on which route I take..... That's on non-winter mix gas when the temp is above freezing and I'm running the truck in 2wd.

[Imcrazy]

Also try different fuel suppliers, costco and sams club gas always nets me shitty mileage, E85 will be even worse but, it's cheaper

[conundrum]

Getting about 17 mpg (US) with mixed driving. The DIC is slightly more optimistic. I have about 4000 miles on it.

[ember1205]

Getting about 17 mpg (US) with mixed driving. The DIC is slightly more optimistic. I have about 4000 miles on it.

 

I reset Trip A with each fill-up and log the data into Fuelly. I find that the calculated MPG on Trip A is pretty optimistic compared to what Fuelly tells me I got via "hand caclulation." What's interesting to me, though, is that Trip B (which I never reset) is much less optimistic over time compared to the longer term calculations in Fuelly.

 

For example. Fill up, reset Trip A, drive 300 miles, fill up again. At that fill up, the Trip A numbers might show me 18.6MPG while Fuelly tells me I actually got 17.8MPG. I could do this over and over with the exact same numbers. Obviously, Fuelly would show my the long-term average at 17.8 and Trip B might show my a long-term average of 18.1.

['01LS1]

Also try different fuel suppliers, costco and sams club gas always nets me shitty mileage, E85 will be even worse but, it's cheaper

 

This, except mine does very well on Sams. No water what so ever out of the exhaust & usually better mpg.

Filled at a Meijer grocery store once & had water pouring out of the muffler. Did not even make it to the end of the pipe.

Generally fill at a top tier stations like Road Ranger or Shell. http://www.toptiergas.com/retailers/

Caseys Hucks etc. have generally been crap fuel around here.

 

But each general area is different pending where the may be sourcing their fuels.

 

On a side note, Meijer had been very good with their diesel side. But lately noticed they are stocking the soy bio yellow crap.

[Imcrazy]

 

The 5.3 is a ~$1000 add-on. It adds more torque for better towing, but you're right in that mileage is similar on all of the motors.

 

I wouldn't doubt if the V6 were offered for no reason other than to accommodate the EPA in some fashion to allow GM to offer the bigger motors as well. Also, I would expect that the V6 would be a GREAT motor for the regular cab 2WD models in areas where the land is relatively flat - it would make a fantastic truck for the job site at a pretty cheap cost.

I test drove both the 5.3 and the 4.3 in 4x4 double and crew cab.... The 4.3 is fine but, the 5.3 is just a little more fun. I've pulled 6k with the 4.3 and it didn't struggle but, if I had it to do again I'd have tried a little harder for the 5.3L... Never did get pricing on it as I felt like the V6 was more than enough power for my needs, and I still do.

[tnchevy]

I am in the opposite boat, if their had been a black Z71 ext. cab in my area with the trailer brake controller in a V6 I think now I would have got it instead of the 5.3 I have now. I drove my 2002 with the 4.8 for 12 years and it did everything I need it to (I don't tow super heavy loads) and the new v6 is quite a bit more powerful at least on paper. My 2002 with the 4.8 had 4.10 gears with AT LT tires and I still got 17 to 19 mpg out of it, just about a mile less per gallon than I get out of my 2014 5.3 3.42 gear with stock tires. Of course it did not have the get up and go that my 2014 has.