Jump to content

Tuned and Converted to Flex Fuel (2015 Silverado 5.3L)

Rawyzf
 Share

Recommended Posts

Rawyzf Senior Enthusiast

Rawyzf

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Do you have the part numbers for the sensor, lines, hoses and clips?

Flex Fuel Sensor - 13577429

Flex Fuel Sensor Clip - 20967866

Flex hose/fuel line (towards engine) - 23171538

Flex hose/fuel line (towards fuel tank) - 20967834

Fuel line (towards engine) - 23171532

Fuel line (towards fuel tank) - 23158923

Fuel line clips - 15168646

 

Note, the Fuel line towards engine is different depending on CC, DC, S, etc. The part number above didn't work for my CC Short Box, so Carl modified it to make it work.

 

Sent from Tapatalk App - Samsung S6

  • Like 2
  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Rawyzf
Rawyzf

I'm not even sure where to start with this post, but here goes.   Last week I ordered the Flex Fuel Sensor and fuel lines/hose/clips for the conversion and then dropped the truck off at the Tuner.

SMiller
SMiller

I could care less if it only gained 5hp, just changing the shift points and torque management make it seem like 100hp gain.

Carl T
Carl T

Here you go, this is a 15 GMC 6.2 L86 A8 w/air intake. I was hoping for a stoker but it was as close as I could get.   Stock- 332/383 Tuned - 353/409 picked up 21whp and 26 ft/lbs over stock Tune

Posted Images

SILVER SLED Senior Enthusiast

SILVER SLED

Posted
Posted

Flex Fuel Sensor - 13577429

Flex Fuel Sensor Clip - 20967866

Flex hose/fuel line (towards engine) - 23171538

Flex hose/fuel line (towards fuel tank) - 20967834

Fuel line (towards engine) - 23171532

Fuel line (towards fuel tank) - 23158923

Fuel line clips - 15168646

Note, the Fuel line towards engine is different depending on CC, DC, S, etc. The part number above didn't work for my CC Short Box, so Carl modified it to make it work.

Sent from Tapatalk App - Samsung S6

 

Thanks

Rawyzf Senior Enthusiast

Rawyzf

Posted
  • Author
Posted

jesus nice numbers. that was with a HP tune? interesting and wow at e85 numbers

HP Tuners, yep.

 

Sent from Tapatalk App - Samsung S6

Eddie 70 Senior Enthusiast

Eddie 70

Posted
Posted

Those are great numbers. I would be curious as to whether you gas mileage changes with your new tune. I am sure since you are using E85 there will be no way to compare.

 

I have HP Tuners but I am not nearly good enough with it to attempt to screw around with it on this truck. I used it on my 70 vette to get it in "The ballpark". There is still work to do on the 70 but it runs and will burn the tires off of it. It could be better at cold engine temps. Its awful in those areas till it warms up.

Rawyzf Senior Enthusiast

Rawyzf

Posted
  • Author
Posted

After a few tanks of e85, I'll run a few tanks of 91 and report back.

 

Sent from Tapatalk App - Samsung S6

scott19677 Senior Enthusiast

scott19677

Posted
Posted

Those are great numbers. I would be curious as to whether you gas mileage changes with your new tune. I am sure since you are using E85 there will be no way to compare.

 

I have HP Tuners but I am not nearly good enough with it to attempt to screw around with it on this truck. I used it on my 70 vette to get it in "The ballpark". There is still work to do on the 70 but it runs and will burn the tires off of it. It could be better at cold engine temps. Its awful in those areas till it warms up.

Yeah it will change. For the worse because you won't be able to keep your foot off the floor or the smile off your face!

  • Like 1
Rawyzf Senior Enthusiast

Rawyzf

Posted
  • Author
Posted

What tuner are you using? Did you get it tuned locally?

 

HP Tuners, local tune. Tuners info/shop are in the first post if interested.

crushNchowda Senior Enthusiast

crushNchowda

Posted
Posted

I have been on the fence about tuning my truck but these numbers are so very tempting. Especially since my last 3 trucks were 6.2 and my last 2 cars were srt challenger and mustang gt. The 5.3 feels a little slow compared to those!

 

Also i did a little research involving drivetrain loss. 15% like myself and most everyone i know thinks is wrong. Obviously it varies by vehicle but most vehicles have 20%+ from what i was reading.

 

What is done to the truck besides tune? Is the airaid just a basic CAI?

 

Parasitic loss isn't as complicated as it seems to be - the more mechanical moving parts you have, and the larger they are & the larger the distances they need to rotate/travel, then the more loss you will have.

Corvette - 2 seater, short wheelbase, transaxle (distance from engine to where the axle mates is quite short), no torque converter manual tranny, = low parasitic loss, maybe 13-17%

 

Large RWD sedan w/ traditional torque converter style automatic tranny like a charger or chevy SS = driveshaft longer distance from engine to rear axle compared to vette, torque converter absorbing some of the engine's power, etc. = 18-22% loss

 

Boosted AWD car like a subie STi - turning all 4 wheels ALL the time w/ center diff but has manual tranny = 18-22% loss, if equipped w/ auto = 22-25% loss

 

Truck w/ long ass heavy ass beefy driveshaft, heavy beefy rear axle, 4WD components, beefier heavier duty clutch components in the tranny/converter = 25% loss

 

My Z06 vette only "lost" 11.1% of its HP on a relatively stingy mustang dyno in stock form - 360whp, rated @ 405....realistically that car probably made closer to something like 415-420hp in stock form which would put that figure more like 14-15% loss.

  • Like 1
Rawyzf Senior Enthusiast

Rawyzf

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

Parasitic loss isn't as complicated as it seems to be - the more mechanical moving parts you have, and the larger they are & the larger the distances they need to rotate/travel, then the more loss you will have.

Corvette - 2 seater, short wheelbase, transaxle (distance from engine to where the axle mates is quite short), no torque converter manual tranny, = low parasitic loss, maybe 13-17%

 

Large RWD sedan w/ traditional torque converter style automatic tranny like a charger or chevy SS = driveshaft longer distance from engine to rear axle compared to vette, torque converter absorbing some of the engine's power, etc. = 18-22% loss

 

Boosted AWD car like a subie STi - turning all 4 wheels ALL the time w/ center diff but has manual tranny = 18-22% loss, if equipped w/ auto = 22-25% loss

 

Truck w/ long ass heavy ass beefy driveshaft, heavy beefy rear axle, 4WD components, beefier heavier duty clutch components in the tranny/converter = 25% loss

 

My Z06 vette only "lost" 11.1% of its HP on a relatively stingy mustang dyno in stock form - 360whp, rated @ 405....realistically that car probably made closer to something like 415-420hp in stock form which would put that figure more like 14-15% loss.

 

Well said. I know in the G8, I lost about 18% when I calculated it out.

Carl T Enthusiast

Carl T

Posted
Posted

I am the one who dynoed and tuned the truck. The baseline tune was slightly lower than I anticipated. I actually made 4 pulls stock and the graph the OP posted was the highest number. Keep in mind that this truck was dynoed in 3rd gear (1.53:1) to keep wheel speed down which will reduce numbers slightly as well.

  • Like 2
smrr1 Senior Enthusiast

smrr1

Posted
Posted

I am the one who dynoed and tuned the truck. The baseline tune was slightly lower than I anticipated. I actually made 4 pulls stock and the graph the OP posted was the highest number. Keep in mind that this truck was dynoed in 3rd gear (1.53:1) to keep wheel speed down which will reduce numbers slightly as well.

Well you did a good job it looks like! My comment on stock numbers was based on an expectation with no research or education before my comment. Just an old rule of thumb that is absolutely not perfect.

  • Like 2
benjaminforeal Enthusiast

benjaminforeal

Posted
Posted

I am the one who dynoed and tuned the truck. The baseline tune was slightly lower than I anticipated. I actually made 4 pulls stock and the graph the OP posted was the highest number. Keep in mind that this truck was dynoed in 3rd gear (1.53:1) to keep wheel speed down which will reduce numbers slightly as well.

 

Have you tuned a L86 on e85 yet? Really curious to see some results of someone converting their new 6.2 to E85. I would love to convert over someday.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,920
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Frank V
    Newest Member
    Frank V
    Joined

  • Who's Online   6 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1,043 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • bwiese
      seat base height *lowering* (base 40/20/40 seat, 2026 1500 WT std cab)

      By bwiese · Posted

      Folks, Have a great new 2026 WT  (std cab, 2.7/4WD) w/base 40/20/40 mech adj bench "fake buckets"  (with lower and upper center console) heavy vinyl seats.  Overall the seats are very comfortable and the vinyl is heavy and appears less likely to 'split out'. Am very tall (6'5")  + a bad back/osteporosis/former hyperparathyroidism so ease/range of movement is a bit restricted.  The truck rides a bit high and I use a nerf step bar w/my left foot to step in, then I put right foot/leg in, drag my butt in  & get seated.  Worked fine in my 2018 RAM quadCab. But I end up dragging my butt over the left raised sidecushsion area of vinyl seat, and due to texture there's fair amount of traction on slide inward.  (ArmorAll didn't improve.) If the seat were even ~1/2" - 3/4" lower it'd be helpful, but base seats just have the forward/backward underseat bail and the side lever for tilt which really doesn't affect seat height.   I really don't want to 'de-puff' the left side sidecushion forming the  fake 'bucket'. I know one company sells 'seat elevator blocks':  but is there a simple way of lowering the height of the driver seat instead?   Thanks Bill W San Jose  
    • bwiese
      on-wheel cellphone control: 2026 1500 WT (2.7L 4WD std cab)

      By bwiese · Posted

      I have a basic 2026 1500 WT  (2.7L/4WD reg cab shorttbed). Comfy, generally happy with electronics/radio - but is there a way I can add switches to steering wheel right-side position (curr. empty) so I can adjust volume, push phone button to voice dial, etc? Bill W San Jose  
    • Tyler Gibbs
      Travel Trailer 2024 2500 HD 6.6 Gas Engine ?

      By Tyler Gibbs · Posted

      The curb weight on a 1 ton crew cab long bed is around 7k lbs.  Now, I don't know where you went to school but 9k is not more than 2x 7k lbs. More than 2x 7k lbs would be 14k+.   With that said, obviously yes you're going to feel a 9k lb trailer when slowing down.  I already said, when accelerating.  When changing lanes?  No.  But if you look at the context of what was quoted, the original person said, "after a mile or two..." which means that would be after the accelerating portion and you're driving a generally steady pace.  Please do learn to read and comprehend.
    • sFrank
      2026 Silverado Range AFM DFM ECU loaction

      By sFrank · Posted

      So I purchased the Range unit for my 2026 and I am seeing different locations suggested for the ECM . Can anyone confirm wither under hood, left side or right side or behind the wheelwell?
    • No F-bdy Bs
      Dave's Auto (custom engine builder) tear down of L8T

      By No F-bdy Bs · Posted

      Like I've said before. Di and Carbon buildup is not that big of a concern. Engine had minimal buildup, and that engine was obviously not super well maintained. Do regular oil changes, and you're gtg as long as the rest of the truck lasts. Also, the High Pressure FP that people ****** about, but can't tell you why.  Now, I wish they'd trash the variable oil pump. No real world issues with them, but I'll gladly eat whatever miniscule MPG it's saving me in favor of more oil at all RPMs.    Curious to see his assessment of the 7.3 compared to the 6.6. I expect he'll praise the port inj, but from a structural standpoint, the 6.6 is as robust as any engine out there.    Not to take away from the 7.3. I feel it's equally as good as the 6.6.     As to heat on the rear cyls, I'd have to see numerous examples before I'd say it's an issue. Especially not knowing the history of that engine. For all is known, they could have blown a rad hose, and ran it hot, and the 2 rear cyls may be the first to get hot in a low coolant situation, but not be an issue aside from that. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...